In India, I have seen autorickshaws since I was young. Autorickshaws are 3 wheeled taxis that are much cheaper than a car. We used to call it auto. There was no way to book autos. If we wanted to catch an auto, we had to go outside our house and stand on the road and wait for a random passenger-less auto to pass in front of us. This posed a lot of problems. We had no idea how long it will take for us to reach the destination because it depended on how soon we get an auto. We also had to ask each auto that we see, if they are ready to go to the destination we want to go to. The auto drivers also had to continuously drive an empty auto to different places so that they can find passengers. By now, I am sure you must be thinking uber would have destroyed the industry, and that is exactly what happened. Almost.
With the entry of uber in India, several of the passenger's problems were solved. They could book the cab from the comfort of their homes. They knew the price up-front. They got a view of the map of the travel. The safety of the passenger was given much more importance. Cars being completely closed are safer in an accident. The uber app also provides an emergency button that can be used to immediately call the police. Needless to say, uber almost destroyed the auto industry.
I believe, the auto industry should have seen it coming. It was fairly obvious that tech can disrupt the industry. I remember often telling the auto drivers to take requests over a phone call. The auto driver's union was also often told to be more tech-savvy. I have read interviews of individual union leaders who say they had proposed being more welcoming to tech. But often the union did not prefer it because it meant extra expenditure in terms of the internet, mobile, etc. It also meant they had to learn how to use technology.
But, not all autos failed. There are some individual autos that still run. Autos had the biggest advantage of providing service at a cheaper price. So, individual auto drivers who embraced technology, are thriving today. Many auto drivers I talked to when I was in India, told me that they could foresee technology destroying their jobs unless they stayed ahead of the technology. Even before uber entered the market, they started learning about tech. A group of auto drivers, with the help of some local company, also created an app to book autos. They would often say they started the transition early because they never knew when they will be hit by tech. I feel what these auto drivers said is so similar to what John Chambers said in the article, "By the time it’s obvious you need to change, it’s usually too late. Very often you have to be willing to make a big move even before most of your advisers are on board. You have to be bold. And you need a culture that lets you figure out how to in even without a blueprint. That’s how we’ve always done things at Cisco." One primary reason, according to me, the auto driver's union was reluctant to change was because they had a monopoly and they got comfortable with it and didn't want to take the risk of changing. Just like what John Chambers says, 'Right now some companies have left it open because they’ve gotten comfortable with their traditional business models and are afraid to change'.
This story has helped me better understand why uber and other industries are investing so much in self-driving cars.
With the entry of uber in India, several of the passenger's problems were solved. They could book the cab from the comfort of their homes. They knew the price up-front. They got a view of the map of the travel. The safety of the passenger was given much more importance. Cars being completely closed are safer in an accident. The uber app also provides an emergency button that can be used to immediately call the police. Needless to say, uber almost destroyed the auto industry.
I believe, the auto industry should have seen it coming. It was fairly obvious that tech can disrupt the industry. I remember often telling the auto drivers to take requests over a phone call. The auto driver's union was also often told to be more tech-savvy. I have read interviews of individual union leaders who say they had proposed being more welcoming to tech. But often the union did not prefer it because it meant extra expenditure in terms of the internet, mobile, etc. It also meant they had to learn how to use technology.
But, not all autos failed. There are some individual autos that still run. Autos had the biggest advantage of providing service at a cheaper price. So, individual auto drivers who embraced technology, are thriving today. Many auto drivers I talked to when I was in India, told me that they could foresee technology destroying their jobs unless they stayed ahead of the technology. Even before uber entered the market, they started learning about tech. A group of auto drivers, with the help of some local company, also created an app to book autos. They would often say they started the transition early because they never knew when they will be hit by tech. I feel what these auto drivers said is so similar to what John Chambers said in the article, "By the time it’s obvious you need to change, it’s usually too late. Very often you have to be willing to make a big move even before most of your advisers are on board. You have to be bold. And you need a culture that lets you figure out how to in even without a blueprint. That’s how we’ve always done things at Cisco." One primary reason, according to me, the auto driver's union was reluctant to change was because they had a monopoly and they got comfortable with it and didn't want to take the risk of changing. Just like what John Chambers says, 'Right now some companies have left it open because they’ve gotten comfortable with their traditional business models and are afraid to change'.
This story has helped me better understand why uber and other industries are investing so much in self-driving cars.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.