Uber apologises for Sydney siege surge pricing SNAFU Uber has apologised to Sydneysiders for maintaining surge pricing during the siege of a cafe in the city's central business district last week. In an email sent to your correspondent*, and presumably to all Uber members in Sydney, the controversial firm says The email opens with “The events of last week in Sydney were …
Really.
More people wanted to get out, so the price went up.
Maybe if the Sidney authorities had waived public transport fees out of the centre, or more public taxi drivers had volunteered to stay on duty to participate in assisting the exodus (I've no idea if either of these things happened) - Uber could have been pointed out as not a being social player.
As it stands - a load of people wanted to get out, and could, because Uber existed.
Uber are by all accounts complete scum as a company - but have gone down even lower in my estimation for 'being sorry' for being exposed to market demands.
Surge pricing should have a sensible limit, maybe 150%, then where's the problem.
I entirely agree with goldcd "Maybe if the Sidney [sic] authorities had waived public transport fees out of the centre".. though Martin Place train station was closed anyway, and the trains typically operate at about 120% capacity regardless so I doubt it would have helped a great deal.
You either buy into Uber or you don't. They have a model and you endorse that model by using their service. If you think 'surge pricing' is wrong then DONT. USE. UBER. Ever.
Delete your account with them and uninstall the app from your phone. I am 100% serious. You managed before they existed and you'll manage without them now.
Personally, if I am getting charged per-km, I want the car to have a driver in a uniform, a light on the roof and a meter in the console. But that is just my personal preference - if you like the convenience of Uber then understand that that come at a price and you have a choice.
More worthy of ire are the public officials who decided to over-react and shut down public transport. How ridiculous. Is this what "standing firm" and "not giving in to fear" looks like?
I agree with the first half of dan1980's post. If you don't like surge pricing, you don't "get" Uber. It starts with the fact that they don't schedule drivers and they are free to work or not work any time they want simply by turning on their phone and logging in. That means that at any point, demand will outstrip supply. They apply standard laws of supply and demand by temporarily raising the price, which both lowers demand by discouraging cheaper riders and increases the supply by encouraging drivers to drive on over.
If you don't get this, then don't use Uber, but this is where I differ from dan1980.
First off, Uber black car drivers are licensed drivers. Only UberX is amateurs. But it's still my and your decision to use or not use the system. But don't use it -- and the wonderful service it provides -- and then complain about how it works, which is completely different than how a taxi company works.
I for one haven't taken a taxi since I discovered Uber. I'd rather walk.
"I for one haven't taken a taxi since I discovered Uber. I'd rather walk."
It's so nice that you have that option. Not all of us do. Also: it's so nice to see that you so blatantly support "rich people and those with means first" as opposed to any form of attempt to treat people as equal based on a shared basic humanity. Bank accounts uber alles. May your blade chip and shatter.
I don't get the issue with this either. Uber have an algorithm that decides to hike up the price when there are not enough drivers on the road. The user is advertised well in advance that this will happen, so if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
As for personal experience I find UberX to be far more reliable a transportation service than a taxi.
I don't get the issue with this either. Uber have an algorithm that decides to hike up the price to offer the service only to those of increased financial means when there are not enough drivers on the road. The user is advertised well in advance that this will happen, so if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
I don't get the issue with this either. Uber have an algorithm that decides to hike up the price to offer the service only to people from certain areas of the city when there are not enough drivers on the road. The user is advertised well in advance that this will happen, so if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
I don't get the issue with this either. Uber have an algorithm that decides to hike up the price to offer the service only to people who have certain advertising profiles detected from their phones when there are not enough drivers on the road. The user is advertised well in advance that this will happen, so if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
I don't get the issue with this either. Uber have an algorithm that decides to hike up the price to offer the service only to people with certain political search histories when there are not enough drivers on the road. The user is advertised well in advance that this will happen, so if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
I don't get the issue with this either. Uber have an algorithm that decides to hike up the price to offer the service only to white people when there are not enough drivers on the road. The user is advertised well in advance that this will happen, so if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
This post has been deleted by its author
They had their chance, buggered it up and STILL pushed out some crappy social bleating message defending their algorithm before then, working out the whole country and world were pissed with them, and THEN offered up the fix.
I don't think so Uber: We got to peek under the kimono and saw a festering business model which is a race to the bottom - Lyft comes and offers cheaper trips? People will take them. Cabs cotton on and step up? People will take them.
Remember here in Australia, people love the underdog but when they see the product is inferior, then just like Starbucks - we leave you in droves. Starbucks no longer has a mass presence here in Australia.
And hopefully Uber, nor will you.
@ZilogMan
I get what you're saying but I am not sure the Starbucks comparison is that valid. Australia had a long-established and vibrant coffee culture long before Starbucks so it would have had to offer something different to differentiate itself. It didn't - the coffee is mediocre and overpriced and in Australia we don't really go for all the exotic 'coffee' drinks that Starbucks also provide.
Whether it suits yo or not, Uber offers a meaningfully different service to the existing taxis. Given that I live near public transport (by choice) and work in the CBD, I generally have no problem and rarely need a taxi so I don't even have an Uber account. Sometimes I am left waiting on the side of the street at changeover but that's a decision I make and I am fine with it.
Personally, I believe that the method Uber uses for charging people should see them regulated in exactly the same fashion as taxis because I think it's a bit unfair. Most people would agree that we could do with more taxis but it is so tightly regulated that this is not so easy. Uber can have as man drivers as it wants.
I simply don't see the problem. I don't like Uber's "corporate culture" overall... but when demand is low, you're getting somewhat of a discount compared to taking a taxi. When demand outstrips supply, an algorithm automatically raises prices. This wasn't like some tsunami or brush fire where people HAD to flee the area immediately, those who wanted to pay the high price did and those who didn't want to pay could wait for Taxis or public transport.
And, as goldcd says, it's not like Sydney's public transport did anything special to help people leave either; Uber (eventually, once manual intervention took over) actually let people ride out for free while still paying drivers premium rates.
"It didn't - the coffee is mediocre and overpriced and in Australia we don't really go for all the exotic 'coffee' drinks that Starbucks also provide."
Yeah I don't get it. I consider it polite to call the coffee mediocre -- I found it quite bad. And quite expensive. And the fancy drinks were loaded -- LOADED -- with pile after pile of sugars (plain ol' sugar, caramel, whipped cream, etc.) and VERY expensive. I don't understand how they stay in business personally. Honestly I find McDonalds coffee to be far better (no comment on the rest of the foods but the coffee there is good, cheap coffee.) And for Starbucks-price there is a local coffee shop with even better coffee choices.
I have to admit, here in the UK, I also find McDonalds coffee better than Starbucks (and Costa). It seems like they do actual coffee rather than coffee-tinted sugar drinks. As it happens, the same up-vote goes for Subway and in fact almost any major food outlet whose main business is not 'coffee' (though I'm undecided about Cafe Nero who seem okay).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
