Uber is set to launch its food deliver service in Melbourne as early as next month, despite its ride-sharing service still being deemed illegal in Victoria.
Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.theage.com.au
Uber is a wild card that in my opinion is changing industries that:
1. Wouldn’t be threatened if they had come up with similar ideas as service innovation in the first place. Perhaps they are guilty of not being in touch with their customers.
2. Are well placed to compete given they currently own the customers and by acknowledging that the app and map model customers have embraced, they like could easily be provided by the incumbents.
3. Are so mired in thinking they control how customers should be treated, they feel through unions or other means, they can dictate what services should be limited to.
I don’t understand why any city would not want a ride share system of any sort (besides the fact that services like food delivery, including bundling products from different restaurants, such as is common in tourist towns, has been normal business for years).
In many cities around the world, we have too many cars and we are trying to encourage ride sharing and reduced numbers of single occupancy vehicles, especially during peak travel times. Surely any service not funded by tax and rate payers that helps meet those goals must be beneficial. If customers don’t like the new services, they won’t use them. The better the transport services available , the less likely that younger people will feel the need to buy cars at all.
If Uber drivers and their vehicles are subject to the same licensing and qualification requirements as their legacy equivalents, then scare tactics don’t make sense. Of course we shouldn’t by default assume that current technologies should be continued, because they are the incumbent. In New Zealand electronic hubometers are normal on trucks, digital driver logbooks are replacing paper, improving accuracy and saving time and Uber’s map concept and GPS systems stop cab drivers from bidding for jobs by saying they are somewhere much closer to the customer than they really are.
If we stubbornly stuck to old rules, we would still require a flag marshal to walk in front of every car to warn pedestrians that there is a vehicle coming as they did in London a little over a hundred years ago, when they said there should never be another fatality caused by a motor vehicle.
One thing I don’t fully understand is why Uber is coming up with names for each of their services. Is it a launch strategy? Is it a plan to be able to try new services and abandon them if they fail? A competitive strategy to compete with other rapid rise start-ups? We have
UberSUV and I’m sure there are more. I guess before too long it could be Uber Alles.
Anyway, bottom line, I am all for innovation. If Uber drivers have to conform to the same legal requirements as any other service provider, then lets have at it. Maybe we can even find ways to embrace their services with others, like the last mile add-ons to public transport services we are seeing piloted in parts of Germany and the Netherlands.