Basically they stick two fingers up at the government and the laws of the land, Taiwan isn’t worth much to them, they had a cheap crack at it, made a bit of dosh, and are now out ti osture back to the good ole USA and countries which are easy to roll over on or with fairing hundreds of lawyers for …
There’s tonnes of these companies around Asia , there’ll be plenty along in Taiwan soon. They just won’t be Uber cos they have a dumbass business (and illegal) strategy that doesn’t work in this part of the world!
Well, now that uber is gone I’m going back to taking the free Taichung bus and my scooter everywhere. I refuse to give the local gangsters…Oops taxi drivers one nt more in the future for acting like a cartel and getting the government to act as it’s enforcer.
How are Uber being painted us the plucky little-man who have been shafted by the protectionist big government? They are owned by Investment Banks and Hedge Funds that have more money than the whole GDP of Taiwan. They routinely and shamelessly use this cash to circumvent laws and to sue anyone who challenges them. They have no interest in anything else.
Grab is used in most of Asia. They often partner with local taxi companies. As far as I know, they dont have the nasty unscrupulous baggage that comes with Uber.
Summary: A bunch of foreigners persuaded Uber, the government, the taxi people, and the public to try an online consultation system, and they fixed everything!
I want to make a clarification. My earlier analysis of the Highway Act’s subordinate regulations only covered 計程車客運服務業申請核准經營辦法 because that’s the one established in accordance with Art. 56, which is the part that was being discussed in the news (or rather Art. 77, which sets the fine for violating Art. 56). The revised regulation that “pol.is” people said had already solved all the problems is the 汽車運輸業管理規則, established in accordance with Art. 79 of the Highway Act.
Summary of the revision:
Taxis no longer need to be painted yellow.
High-end app-based Taxis are free to operate, as long as they don’t undercut existing meters.
App-based dispatch systems must display car and driver identification, estimated fare, and customer rating.
Per-ride taxation is required to report to the Ministry of Finance.
A very quick look at the current version suggests the whole package was passed. So that’s great, but evidently even after app-based taxi service per se was declared kosher, Uber still refused to submit to certification. (And they want to get into the food business.)
The consultation included drivers and passengers of both Uber and conventional taxi companies. Apparently this was the most popular opinion:
The government should leverage this opportunity to challenge the taxi industry to improve their management & quality control system, so that drivers & riders would enjoy the same quality service as Uber. (95%, across all groups)
Let’s see if it works.
While I’m at it, I might as well mention (in relation to the search for the elusive contract discussed in earlier posts) that the real recruitment website for drivers in Taiwan is
I still wouldn’t expect to find the standard driver contract there, though.
Btw, if you try searching for official information about these people you may face some roadblocks, as they are known by several names within the Sinosphere.
優步 Youbu = “Excellent Step”
御驾 Yujia = “Imperial Driving”
雾博 Wubo = “Foggy Abundance”
吾步 Wubu = “I Step”
宇博 Yubo = “Universal Abundance”
It’s that last one that they use in Taiwan, for official purposes (台灣宇博數位服務股份有限公司).
Uber didn’t make any mistakes possibly. They made a large profit over four years of illegal operations, then when the regulatory regime tightened to make it unprofitable they shut it down.
If they want to operate a legal entity they will have to contribute tax revenue and follow local laws and pay off the existing fines.
Don’t worry folks there’ll be plenty of other offerings in this space.
Well, where do you imagine the bulk of Uber’s earnings come from? Sure, no doubt they have some sidelines, but farming out the app is their core business.
Look at it this way. Say you have a bone-idle guy in the neighbourhood who wants to buy a nice new iPhone. He doesn’t want to work for it, so he goes around to all his friends are relations asking for $50 here, $100 there, until he’s got $5000 (or whatever it costs to buy an iPhone these days).
Who actually bought the phone? The lazy guy, or the hardworking people who put up the cash?
Now, imagine the iPhone doubles in price. What effect does this have on the lazy guy? What effect does it have on the people he’s sponging off? Answer: lazy guy has to work a bit harder to squeeze cash out of people, and the spongees are more resentful about it.
Likewise with companies. The company itself doesn’t actually do anything. It doesn’t even exist, except on paper. A “company” is a figment of legal imagination, a means by which lots of people pool their labour to achieve something more than they could as individuals. As far as taxes and license fees are concerned, the company is the conduit by which fees are paid … by individuals, who in turn collect their cash from other individuals (customers).
Saying that “Uber is rich” doesn’t make any sense at all. Uber is neither rich nor poor. Those words only apply to human beings, who are the physical actors making companies go, and who have real physical wants, needs and aspirations. The corporation is simply a conduit for funds.
That was a lot of words, but doesnt explain why Uber has to take money from the little guy instead of raising their prices or lowering their margins. It already takes 20% plus the extra money they make for their date.
Uber has to take money from the little guy because that’s the only possible place money can come from. Uber has no money tree from which to pay its taxes or license fees.
If the government imposes additional taxes and fees, how exactly is Uber supposed to make these costs magically disappear (“lower their margins”)? If they raise their prices, they’re just taking money from different little guys (ie., the man in the street) … to hand over to the taxman.
You’re probably going to say they can reduce spending on other things. Realistically, though, what exactly does a service provider spend money on except expanding and improving its service? In other words, the only way they can pay crippling taxes without tapping the little guy for more cash is to sabotage the business.
Or are you asserting that the company officers are busy wasting all of the company’s income on yachts and Ferraris?
Uber Takes 20% from the drivers,they have a pile of money they take from the drivers already. They could raise their prices, this is pretty standard business practice.
Im not going to say anything else. They should be competing on a level paying field. If Uber cannot make money by playing by the rules, then dont compete. If Uber decide to put the extra costs on the drivers, then the drivers can evaluate if they can still make enough money to continue working with Uber. If the business model isnt viable when run legally, then thats too bad.
I didn’t say the income doesn’t exist. I said the company doesn’t exist. I was pointing out where the money comes from, and where it goes. The company is just a pipe through which money flows. Putting pressure on that pipe materially affects the people at either end. The pipe itself doesn’t care, as such. It isn’t a living thing. It only exists in people’s minds.
Before the Law gave companies the rights of natural persons, all this would have been fairly uncontentious.
A corporation is defined as a legal fiction. You know that.
Because it’s a bit of a mouthful to describe that entire spiderweb of money. That’s why we invented the word ‘corporation’. My point - which has apparently got lost in translation - is that a company doesn’t have human experiences, like finding out that it doesn’t have enough money for dinner. If it’s taxed out of existence, it’s humans who suffer. The company is just a filing cabinet full of paper.