It’s been around for years now. The great thing about it is it works worldwide - so if you come to a country and have no clue which company operates there, you just open Obi.
Misuse of the word “Hackney”. Hackney has a fairly specific meaning for traditional cabs in London whose human drivers require huge amounts of training in order to be licensed to pick up passengers - the antithesis of everything Uber etc stand for. Pretty sure you can’t use “Hackney Carriage LLC” as a company name either.
A simple google reveals: “A hackney carriage is the formal legal term for a public vehicle for hire, such as a traditional black cab or taxi. Unlike private hire vehicles (minicabs), hackney carriages can be hailed directly off the street or hired from designated ranks.”
The logo is also strikingly similar to that of the borough of Hackney [0], bar for the mark. If it wasn't for the San Francisco screenshot, my first impression would have been it's a Hackney council thing.
The term has a long, disputed history though, and exported English can morph and grow according to local usage. I was going to post what you posted, but more than a simple Google search led me elsewhere!
Regardless of specifics or otherwise, the app name is territorialising a domain and naming convention it shouldn’t be, and seeing as the app is available on the UK App Store then it’s certainly a case of “passing off” - a “hackney carriage” certainly is “in the UK, the name hackney carriage today refers to a taxicab licensed by Transport for London, local authority (non-metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities) or the Department of the Environment depending on region of the country“ (Wikipedia).
This app has nothing to do with that licensing of taxi cabs or their history, or comply with the legal foundations of that naming convention. Just because there’s a long history and some dispute, adding to the confusion isn’t going to help, and will be grounds for a huge amount of legal problems if this app gets off the ground, and so is better nipped in the bud sooner rather than later.
They sure are. Just seems prudent to me to use a name like CompareFare or TaxiMaxi that isn’t likely to trigger the legal weight of the entire UK licensed transport industry if you ever want to expand. The app is on the UK App Store which is likely in breach of all kinds of rules and regulations and legal frameworks concerning licensed transportation right now - it’s not like it’s a cooking app or selling wilderness camping experiences… it’s a taxi app using a very specific usage for taxis in the UK which Uber etc are strictly prohibited from using.
I've been using this for a few months at least on both android and ios and have not been banned or locked out of any of my linked accounts but obviously that can change at any moment
That's a valid concern but I think it's unlikely. No one's account has been locked for using this app. Rideshare companies take a large cut of the ride fare, so locking user accounts for using third-party apps is against their incentives. It's more likely that they would try to prevent this app from working, rather than targeting users of the app.
Not a ban, perhaps... but if I have two users - Alice who uses the app according to normal patterns, and Bob who consistently predicts and declines when my dynamic pricing algorithm tries to push above market pricing, and has a remarkably high look-to-book ratio - I'll want Alice to have better drivers, better service, faster pickups etc., because I'll have larger lifetime margins from choose-the-app-on-vibes-Alice than from race-to-the-bottom-Bob.
If my known-good supply is limited at any given time, I have every incentive to focus it on Alice, and I'd be inclined to try out e.g. new drivers on accounts like Bob's.
Rideshare data teams are incredibly talented, capable, and motivated. One does not simply front-run a market where the biggest players have a massive data advantage, control your latency, and are effectively unregulated.
An alternative possibility is that a rideshare company sees that Alice always takes the price that's offered so Alice receives the standard price, whereas Bob is price-sensitive so he receives personalized discounts on rides until the prices reach the amount that he's willing to pay.
That's exactly right. This is a big market and this gives consumers another option to choose best priced rides. Think like you mentioned such as booking.com, sky scanner, Agoda, Expedia etc etc. Competition is good.
You mentioned that Uber specifically forbids using their API for price comparison. Aren't you worried that they may implement something so you can't use internal APIs? I'm pretty sure none of the companies would like this app. Even though I think this is great and promotes fair pricing
How did you get this through App Store review? My understanding is Apple tends to be pretty strict about apps that rely on reverse-engineered private APIs.
App Review didn't object to that. There are various apps on the App Store today that rely on reverse engineering, such as unified messaging apps, alternative rideshare price comparison apps, and driver-side rideshare aggregators.
App Store review is really just luck of the draw in my experience. There is usually no rhyme or reason to a decision, changing some minor thing and re-applying works a lot of the time.
That can work for two apps but it's tedious once there are three or more. You'd also need to swipe back and forth between apps to find the corresponding prices for each ride type (Wait & Save, Standard, Comfort, etc.), whereas this app groups together the prices for each ride type across providers.
There’s an app called Obi that does exactly this.
https://rideobi.com/
It’s been around for years now. The great thing about it is it works worldwide - so if you come to a country and have no clue which company operates there, you just open Obi.
Misuse of the word “Hackney”. Hackney has a fairly specific meaning for traditional cabs in London whose human drivers require huge amounts of training in order to be licensed to pick up passengers - the antithesis of everything Uber etc stand for. Pretty sure you can’t use “Hackney Carriage LLC” as a company name either.
A simple google reveals: “A hackney carriage is the formal legal term for a public vehicle for hire, such as a traditional black cab or taxi. Unlike private hire vehicles (minicabs), hackney carriages can be hailed directly off the street or hired from designated ranks.”
The logo is also strikingly similar to that of the borough of Hackney [0], bar for the mark. If it wasn't for the San Francisco screenshot, my first impression would have been it's a Hackney council thing.
0: https://www.hackneydesignstudio.com/brand-guidelines/logo
The term has a long, disputed history though, and exported English can morph and grow according to local usage. I was going to post what you posted, but more than a simple Google search led me elsewhere!
Regardless of specifics or otherwise, the app name is territorialising a domain and naming convention it shouldn’t be, and seeing as the app is available on the UK App Store then it’s certainly a case of “passing off” - a “hackney carriage” certainly is “in the UK, the name hackney carriage today refers to a taxicab licensed by Transport for London, local authority (non-metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities) or the Department of the Environment depending on region of the country“ (Wikipedia).
This app has nothing to do with that licensing of taxi cabs or their history, or comply with the legal foundations of that naming convention. Just because there’s a long history and some dispute, adding to the confusion isn’t going to help, and will be grounds for a huge amount of legal problems if this app gets off the ground, and so is better nipped in the bud sooner rather than later.
It's only a problem if he decides to do business in UK... Yanks are free to use it over in yanktonia
They sure are. Just seems prudent to me to use a name like CompareFare or TaxiMaxi that isn’t likely to trigger the legal weight of the entire UK licensed transport industry if you ever want to expand. The app is on the UK App Store which is likely in breach of all kinds of rules and regulations and legal frameworks concerning licensed transportation right now - it’s not like it’s a cooking app or selling wilderness camping experiences… it’s a taxi app using a very specific usage for taxis in the UK which Uber etc are strictly prohibited from using.
I'm wary to try this for fear of my Uber account getting locked.
Great example of something that on-device general agents should be able to do: Operate the apps to get prices and summarize prices.
I've been using this for a few months at least on both android and ios and have not been banned or locked out of any of my linked accounts but obviously that can change at any moment
That's a valid concern but I think it's unlikely. No one's account has been locked for using this app. Rideshare companies take a large cut of the ride fare, so locking user accounts for using third-party apps is against their incentives. It's more likely that they would try to prevent this app from working, rather than targeting users of the app.
Not a ban, perhaps... but if I have two users - Alice who uses the app according to normal patterns, and Bob who consistently predicts and declines when my dynamic pricing algorithm tries to push above market pricing, and has a remarkably high look-to-book ratio - I'll want Alice to have better drivers, better service, faster pickups etc., because I'll have larger lifetime margins from choose-the-app-on-vibes-Alice than from race-to-the-bottom-Bob.
If my known-good supply is limited at any given time, I have every incentive to focus it on Alice, and I'd be inclined to try out e.g. new drivers on accounts like Bob's.
Rideshare data teams are incredibly talented, capable, and motivated. One does not simply front-run a market where the biggest players have a massive data advantage, control your latency, and are effectively unregulated.
An alternative possibility is that a rideshare company sees that Alice always takes the price that's offered so Alice receives the standard price, whereas Bob is price-sensitive so he receives personalized discounts on rides until the prices reach the amount that he's willing to pay.
Which is a competitive success story. It's much more profitable to avoid competition with abusive dynamic pricing and punish users for price-shopping.
This is what most airlines and hotels do, the best prices go on google flights and google hotels and the worst prices are in their own apps.
That's exactly right. This is a big market and this gives consumers another option to choose best priced rides. Think like you mentioned such as booking.com, sky scanner, Agoda, Expedia etc etc. Competition is good.
Race-to-the-bottom Bob belongs with the likes of Ben Bitdiddle and Louis Reasoner
They barely want to ban drivers, you think they’re going to ban the revenue?!
You mentioned that Uber specifically forbids using their API for price comparison. Aren't you worried that they may implement something so you can't use internal APIs? I'm pretty sure none of the companies would like this app. Even though I think this is great and promotes fair pricing
It's possible they do that, but it's difficult to block third-party clients entirely. Changes to APIs can generally be worked around.
We need to make terms like that unenforceable in law with penalties if they do that anyway.
How did you get this through App Store review? My understanding is Apple tends to be pretty strict about apps that rely on reverse-engineered private APIs.
App Review didn't object to that. There are various apps on the App Store today that rely on reverse engineering, such as unified messaging apps, alternative rideshare price comparison apps, and driver-side rideshare aggregators.
I believe this is Google's rule that applies. Though, I think Beeper would be breaking it as well. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?
> Examples of common Device and Network Abuse violations:
> Apps that access or use a service or API in a manner that violates its terms of service.
I guess they don't really enforce it. Zenmoney reverse-engineered APIs of banking apps and their app is still on both app store and google play
IANAL but I also wonder if app A can violate app B's terms of service, if they never agreed to the TOS in the first place.
Interesting. App store asked me for proof of permission from the first party to use a reverse engineered BLE protocol.
App Store review is really just luck of the draw in my experience. There is usually no rhyme or reason to a decision, changing some minor thing and re-applying works a lot of the time.
What project was this?
It doesn't exists because:
- it's against ToS
- it can get you banned
Reversing API is trivial, this is not the reason.
Except it does exist:
https://fareestimate.com/ https://ride.guru/ https://uphail.com/ https://payfair.cash/
Also cool lil project in this quick google https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/nyc-taxi-uber-lyft-far...
Would love to give this a try once it is working in Australia. Our options are just DiDi and Uber.
Great idea but what’s the business model for you to keep this running?
there's a Ghanaian service that does something very similar check it out here
https://sailrides.co/
Much needed. I've been waiting for this.
Great project. Is there a web version?
No, just mobile.
This is really cool! Is support for Zoox on your radar?
That's planned!
Neat idea, is it US only?
It works throughout the US and Canada.
Ah yes, an application that should exist in a free market but will probably disappear soon.
You are a good person. Keep going at it.
Free markets are great.
Uses a British name, launches in America.
- Stolen Uber UI
- Slopped Uber illustrations
- Lloyds Bank logo
- Abused Uber API
Godspeed
Welcome to post-ai world :(
Literally takes 5 seconds to open up different apps, lol
That can work for two apps but it's tedious once there are three or more. You'd also need to swipe back and forth between apps to find the corresponding prices for each ride type (Wait & Save, Standard, Comfort, etc.), whereas this app groups together the prices for each ride type across providers.
No it doesn't