[ad_1]
You can also say that the boat sailed. Or, as one friend pointed out, chicken can not be believed.
However, the intervention of the Singapore Competition Commission this week to qualify the Grab-Uber merger of anticompetitive is a reactive and ultimately futile attempt to change the situation.
By even threatening to untie the merger, if its recommended actions are deemed insufficient, the Singapore Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCS) launches an ultimatum that it can not enforce.
How to force Uber to reopen its offices here and launch a new service to users? How can he break through the new Grab, now more powerful than before with only smaller newcomers to the market to challenge his position?
The American company left, happy that it got a good return on investment after a deadly fight with its Southeast Asian rival. Its investors, too, are happy that they can now focus on money instead of bleeding money to win customers.
Grab's answer is not surprising either. He will challenge the commission, she said, presenting the innovation map she knows she will attract supporters both in government and in the public.
It will remind people that it's easier to hail a cab
Even though there are fewer discounts now, it will be said that people have even more options in them. next players like Go-Jek, his only other notable rival of the region.
Grab will be right – up to a certain point. The only problem is that we now realize that these admired platform companies are not the perfect solutions to so many of our urban problems today.
This fortnight, there has been another controversy with another transport disruptor – oBike. Yes, the company that left Singapore abruptly and let users search for millions of dollars in deposits.
The way he left, closing his application, suddenly closing his offices and leaving thousands of bicycles scattered all over the island, irritated the users
There are also questions for authorities not to act proactively. Obviously, they were caught off guard and are now under pressure to act.
If they had looked, the signs were there in China. There, the bike sharing bubble erupted last year and Uber also left after a merger with a local player in 2016. Both led to the same results as we see in Singapore here.
Now the Singapore authorities have to force oBike to pay for cleaning the bikes while getting it to pay off the users' deposits.
They have to make a domineering dominant grabbing market more competitive, in the absence of the only real competitor – Uber. Always a step back, they seem weak and ineffective.
Thursday, the Land Transportation Authority (LTA) is content to say that she "supported" the position of the Competition Commission. Previously, he had noticed that he was "studying" the impact of the merger when the news broke out in March.
When closing a store, the authority said that she "engaged" at its release. He also told consumers to go to the attention of the consumer to get their refunds. As he realized that oBike was not going to clean the abandoned bikes before the deadline, he threatened to recover the cost involved to do it himself.
But how do you brandish a stick to someone who is not even here in Singapore? ? Why would you expose a threat that you can not perform?
Exposed and poorly prepared, authorities here have been shown in the rapidly evolving digital economy.
This should be a lesson for other sectors, where regulators must balance innovation with societal impact. They must be practical from the start, not after things are out of their control.
Just look at Barcelona to see how AirBnB has pushed up real estate prices. This has transformed the premises for a service that once allowed for travel and experience of a local culture.
For these disrupters, reality is now installed. At least in Singapore, AirBnB is not officially there. This does not affect the already high real estate prices either. We should be so grateful.
[ad_2]
Source link
