>> Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly?
They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO.
>> They are a cab company
I believe, depending on which way the wind was blowing, they might dispute this. Their argument is that they are not a cab company, merely a service for connecting drivers and potential passengers. This is how they avoid pesky things like employment laws.
>> Any other company can do that too, if they want.
Few others have the access to VC money that Uber do - I would consider this reliance on an absolute ton of investment, which allows them to operate at the prices they do, to be something of a market distortion.
This is like the idea that every rational company must skirt the very edges of the law, regardless of good ethics, to maximise profit.
I don't personally believe either to be true, and I do believe there's a very real difference between out-competing the competition and using a ton of VC money to undercut them, or skirting rules and regulations that may add cost.
Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London.
>> Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly.
Nope. That's a wilful misreading of what I've been posting and I'm not sure it warrants much response. I'm siding with protecting a diverse market from an unethical company who appear to be bending the rules and sinking a ton of investor money into distorting the market in an effort to capture it.
> Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London.
If thats your definition of monopoly, then UBER is also not a monopoly. Those still exist and can continue to exist.
> I'm siding with protecting a diverse market
You are not siding with protecting a diverse market because you are eliminating an option. Its the exact opposite direction.
The rules are written by the same people that invented taxicabs. If the rules are removed, UBER would not be bending any rules. Its a problem created exclusively by the government, and uber drivers and passengers are being disregarded. This is what people want, and you are advocating for restricting those people in favor of another.
To help one side, you are advocating the attack of another one. That is not an even standing.
Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic, provide work for the owners and employees; you don't have to be a megalomaniac to lead a company. That seems rational, can you explain why it isn't?
Some people aren't primarily motivated by power and profit.
> Some companies are happy to serve a restricted demographic
Right, but whatever their target demographic is, they're still going to want to have an exclusive stake in it. I'm not saying that Taco Bell can/should seek to monopolize all food.
We have customers who go to other places for our niche services (art/craft), I don't have a problem with that. We could seek to get those customers exclusively to use our services, I just don't find a compelling reason to do so (of course I'm greedy for money, but other than that?).
Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.
Some independent stores simply aren't interested in being the monopoly in their local area for their particular product. Sometimes they just run the business because its a product they enjoy and running their own business is preferable to being an employee for someone else.
Another example of businesses not run like monopolies is with consumables like fast food. You might have a successful fish and chip shop, Chinese or Indian take-away. Most UK towns will have multiple different independent restaurants but you seldom see these restaurants open up more shops in town, or even in other towns. Yet there is clearly a demand for good take-aways.
> Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.
pbhjpbhj's comment implies that by addressing a niche market, you would avoid the drive to monopolize. I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.
Similarly, you could monopolize a certain demographic. For example, Microsoft has an effective monopoly in PC operating systems when it comes to government administration workstations in most countries.
>> I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly.
That's pretty much what a monopoly is, and even in your niche, not everyone wants to be a monopoly.
I have a friend who runs a small craft beer bar. Another craft beer bar is going to open two doors down. To him this is great - the area becomes known for craft beer and more people come along. There is no monopoly there.
>> For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.
But they tried to make it that way, and came close for a while. That's the time period they had various anti-competition lawsuits aimed at them.
This is what most people are talking about when they are talking about monopolies, and it's clear that not every business aims to be one.
The sibling comment by laumars puts the position well - perhaps you could explain where I'm erring? I consider a monopoly to be exclusive control of a market niche by one company (eg limited to a particular geographic area). Uber would have a monopoly if they drive out competing taxi services (or "private hire" in the UK, depending on the scope of the niche you want to focus on).
Every company should attempt to be the best in their field, yes. However, that does not in general encompass taking vast piles of VC money to run a loss-leader service for years and years on end in an attempt to monopolize an entire sector by undercutting all the competition that has to actually make a profit pretty much every quarter, with their valuation almost entirely based on the idea that they can succeed and then raise prices to become profitable.
I know plenty of small - and, actually, big - companies which have reasonably good relationships with their competition, actually. Craft breweries regularly collaborate with each other, as an example - even those which have taken significant capital investment.
Craft brewers are not in strict competition with all other craft brewers for the whole market. They would have to expand their operations immensely to do so (and likely no longer be considered "craft"). If I want a pilsner with more or less hop, a smooth saison, or a high-alcohol belgian-style wheat beer, no craft brewer I know of can afford to serve all of these whims. That said, a craft brewer could seek a local monopoly on the citrusy saison, and collaborate to serve different niches.
Craft brewing is almost defined by a premium on variety, and that marketable variety creates an highly recursive system of market segmentation. Since flavour/atmosphere/taste has so many facets, and there is so much variance in terms of "customer success", all product categories which are differentiated by flavour and/or atmosphere and/or taste tend to multiply markets rather than consolidating them. Coca-Cola, for example, could be seen to have no competition at one level (the market for Coca-Cola specifically), and enormous competition (the market for all beverages). Legal restrictions on transportation and processing of raw coca leaf, and on marketing products as "Coca-Cola", help the Coca-Cola company retain a monopoly on Coca-Cola specifically.
> Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly?
I think everyone who looked at them, for the past 3 years or so. It's been plainly visible that they're a) reaching globally, and b) not afraid of using any means necessary, including illegal ones, to destroy their competition - both from the taxi world and other Uber-like companies.
They are losing money at the moment, despite their 'success'. It is theorised that the only way they could become profitable is through monopoly and price rises.
Not if they want, if they have enough cash to burn as Uber does.
Just look at Lyft, they don't have the bankroll of Uber to play so it's very hard to compete on the global scale when your competitor is basically playing a price dumping scheme with investors' money.
Not really. Regulated cab companies, for example, can’t offer surge pricing or things like that (a big part of Uber’s viability), or a single app in every market without a million different kinds of meters, etc.
Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly?
They are a cab company, expanding globally. Any other company can do that too, if they want.