Read on Twitter
This is why the ruling on safety grounds is important.
Effectively, TfL haven& #39;t denied them based on the model, they& #39;ve denied based on Uber being shit at delivering that model
(14,000 illegal journeys, flaws in the app registration process etc) https://twitter.com/alexbrooks/status/1198918972026044416">https://twitter.com/alexbrook...
Effectively, TfL haven& #39;t denied them based on the model, they& #39;ve denied based on Uber being shit at delivering that model
(14,000 illegal journeys, flaws in the app registration process etc) https://twitter.com/alexbrooks/status/1198918972026044416">https://twitter.com/alexbrook...
Essentially they& #39;ve once again exposed the real flaw at the heart of Uber& #39;s model:
To meet the safety / regulatory requirements in London they must act like a proper taxi firm.
BUT doing that instantly opens them up to all the OTHER employee (and tax!) implications of doing so.
To meet the safety / regulatory requirements in London they must act like a proper taxi firm.
BUT doing that instantly opens them up to all the OTHER employee (and tax!) implications of doing so.
And they can& #39;t do the latter.
Because their profitability (current, in London& #39;s case, or future in global terms) is contingent on them not carrying the same burden of driver recruitment, policing and support (leave etc) as a & #39;regular& #39; cab firm.
Because their profitability (current, in London& #39;s case, or future in global terms) is contingent on them not carrying the same burden of driver recruitment, policing and support (leave etc) as a & #39;regular& #39; cab firm.
The driver has ALWAYS been the weak point in the Uber argument, and always will be.
It is a the biggest point of regulatory risk, AND IT REPRESENTS A FIXED COST.
Driver costs DO NOT drop with economies of scale, which is the Silicon Valley model they& #39;ve pitched to everyone.
It is a the biggest point of regulatory risk, AND IT REPRESENTS A FIXED COST.
Driver costs DO NOT drop with economies of scale, which is the Silicon Valley model they& #39;ve pitched to everyone.
This is why they& #39;re investing so heavily in driverless tech. They& #39;re racing against reality. They NEED to engineer the driver out as quickly as possible.
They have no path to global profitably, or maintaining the & #39;we& #39;re just an app& #39; model as long as there is a driver in the car.
They have no path to global profitably, or maintaining the & #39;we& #39;re just an app& #39; model as long as there is a driver in the car.
Anyway, all this is covered in my Uber piece, which will go up this week.
I just can& #39;t finish writing it until I see more info on the judgement.
We don& #39;t write pieces based solely on press releases. It& #39;s not the @lonrec way!
I just can& #39;t finish writing it until I see more info on the judgement.
We don& #39;t write pieces based solely on press releases. It& #39;s not the @lonrec way!
In the meantime, he& #39;s the piece I wrote when Uber got their license rejected before: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/">https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/unde...
