5 ms·

...venture capital?

by andor 11y ago

...venture capital?

tonyjstark 11y ago
and ignoring local laws?
- puranjay 11y ago
  When local laws are outdated and don't serve the interests of the population, do they really deserve to be followed? People have voted with their wallets - they'd rather take an Uber than an outdated taxi with bad customer service.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    When local laws are outdated, then it is time to have a discussion in the political arena about those laws. Uber isn't doing anything like civil disobedience here, they're just making a new quick buck violating employment laws. Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway.
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      >Uber isn't doing anything like civil disobedience here, they're just making a new quick buck violating employment laws. False. Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. >Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway. Intentions are irrelevant. It's end results that matter. People vote with their wallets. There is only one reason why Uber has created $51bn of market value, many people find it superior to the alternatives they have at their disposal. Uber _helps_ those with low economic or political power, more transportation options at a cheaper price.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        People vote with their votes, and buy things with their wallets. Voting isn't merely a synonym for choosing, it's an act of political engagement. I don't "vote" for Tide-brand soap when I buy it, because buying consumer goods isn't (usually) a political act. Also, Uber doesn't help people with low economic or political power. Those people still have feature phones and walk or take the bus.
        icebraining 11y ago
        Any action that has a social effect is a political act, and buying consumer goods is no exception.
      - forgetsusername 11y ago
        >"Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars." This has no effect on founders or early investors; they'll get rich anyway. This is Silicon Valley, where empires are built losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
      - e28eta 11y ago
        > Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Isn't it actually spending hundreds of millions of VC dollars building a global monopoly? As the article described, this is a network effects platform that gets better as it grows. This also gives them the ability to offer a better product at a lower price, squeezing out competitors. The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions.
        DanBC 11y ago
        > The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions. Uber is using / exploiting the regulator's method of enforcement, which tends to be persuading people to comply with the law and taking them to cour as a matter of last resort or for flagrant breaches. We see this with companies who avoid (but not evade) taxes - the tax authorities tighten the rules, arrange for a partial payback, and continue scrutiny. Sometimes this makes sense. Court cases are expensive and not guaranteed. At least this way some of the money is gathered. But it does leave space for companies like Uber to operate in grey areas of law that's written in statute and the way the courts have interpreted it and the way the regulators enforce it. The insurance is most worrying.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >People have voted with their wallets Uber is clearly a better service than your average taxi experience. But we also don't know the true price, since most drivers are skirting insurance requirements and the like. It is difficult for me to imagine how a service like taxis can integrate a middle man like Uber, which everyone assumes will be massively profitable, compensate the drivers fairly and be cheaper than the current system. The math doesn't add up.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Sure it does. Current taxi system is screwing everybody. Break their monopoly with competition, and fairer prices result. Only traditional taxi drivers suffer, if they don't join the new competitive system.
      - forgetsusername 11y ago
        >Current taxi system is screwing everybody. This implies that there are some taxi companies out there that are worth a massive amount of money, since they are capturing all the profit. Can you point to a single company worth even one tenth of what Uber is worth? I'm sure some companies do very well, but I don't think there are any taxi billionaires out there. But it matters little anyway. The pie is divvied up so many ways. You pay the fare, some goes to the driver, some goes to the middle man. When you pay a smaller fare, there is less for the driver, middle man, or both. How much of Uber's valuation is based on that pie (the number of people desiring taxis) growing?
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Lots of ways to get screwed. Underserved population/demographic. Unreliable cars. Bad experiences. Taxes and fees double the overhead. Astronomical Medallion costs benefit only the banks (interest on million-dollar loans). And so on.
        aianus 11y ago
        > Can you point to a single company worth even one tenth of what Uber is worth? That's simply because taxi companies are regional and Uber is global. Taxi companies rent out the car and medallion so drivers are $100 in the hole before they've even started work. It's practically indentured servitude.
  - Trombone12 11y ago
    People have voted with their wallets Hurray for legislative development by $$$$
- inversionOf 11y ago
  This is an aspect of several of these startups that amazes me: So many times I've had discussions with peers about possible business ideas, and we get mired in the realities of legislation and compliance (it's very easy to get caught up in the nuances of every customer agreement, disclosure form, etc, to ensure the most edge of conditions don't end up in a business-destroying lawsuit), the vision abandoned because of those risks and legal complexities. Companies like Uber and AirBnB (and countless others) simply pretend that those complexities don't exist -- the market to be disrupted only because they're willing to completely circumvent laws and standards -- and money starts falling on their heads.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    >Companies like Uber and AirBnB (and countless others) simply pretend that those complexities don't exist -- the market to be disrupted only because they're willing to completely circumvent laws and standards -- and money starts falling on their heads. This is entirely false. Uber's legal and political staff is _huge_. I'd assume the same for Airbnb. No one is "pretending" they don't exist. They're building a product, allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways. Stop talking and start doing.
    - inversionOf 11y ago
      Yes, both have large legal and political staff now. They entered markets and gained a foothold by completely ignoring established law and regulations. There is nothing, whatsoever, false about what I claimed, and your comment is extraordinarily silly. allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways This is a profoundly naive way of viewing what they're doing.
      - dylanjermiah 11y ago
        >This is a profoundly naive way of viewing what they're doing. Please, explain. >They entered markets and gained a foothold By providing a better product at a better price.

...venture capital?

by andor 11y ago

...venture capital?

tonyjstark 11y ago

and ignoring local laws?

puranjay 11y ago
When local laws are outdated and don't serve the interests of the population, do they really deserve to be followed? People have voted with their wallets - they'd rather take an Uber than an outdated taxi with bad customer service.
- Frondo 11y ago
  When local laws are outdated, then it is time to have a discussion in the political arena about those laws. Uber isn't doing anything like civil disobedience here, they're just making a new quick buck violating employment laws. Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    >Uber isn't doing anything like civil disobedience here, they're just making a new quick buck violating employment laws. False. Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. >Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway. Intentions are irrelevant. It's end results that matter. People vote with their wallets. There is only one reason why Uber has created $51bn of market value, many people find it superior to the alternatives they have at their disposal. Uber _helps_ those with low economic or political power, more transportation options at a cheaper price.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      People vote with their votes, and buy things with their wallets. Voting isn't merely a synonym for choosing, it's an act of political engagement. I don't "vote" for Tide-brand soap when I buy it, because buying consumer goods isn't (usually) a political act. Also, Uber doesn't help people with low economic or political power. Those people still have feature phones and walk or take the bus.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Any action that has a social effect is a political act, and buying consumer goods is no exception.
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >"Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars." This has no effect on founders or early investors; they'll get rich anyway. This is Silicon Valley, where empires are built losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
    - e28eta 11y ago
      > Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Isn't it actually spending hundreds of millions of VC dollars building a global monopoly? As the article described, this is a network effects platform that gets better as it grows. This also gives them the ability to offer a better product at a lower price, squeezing out competitors. The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        > The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions. Uber is using / exploiting the regulator's method of enforcement, which tends to be persuading people to comply with the law and taking them to cour as a matter of last resort or for flagrant breaches. We see this with companies who avoid (but not evade) taxes - the tax authorities tighten the rules, arrange for a partial payback, and continue scrutiny. Sometimes this makes sense. Court cases are expensive and not guaranteed. At least this way some of the money is gathered. But it does leave space for companies like Uber to operate in grey areas of law that's written in statute and the way the courts have interpreted it and the way the regulators enforce it. The insurance is most worrying.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >People have voted with their wallets Uber is clearly a better service than your average taxi experience. But we also don't know the true price, since most drivers are skirting insurance requirements and the like. It is difficult for me to imagine how a service like taxis can integrate a middle man like Uber, which everyone assumes will be massively profitable, compensate the drivers fairly and be cheaper than the current system. The math doesn't add up.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Sure it does. Current taxi system is screwing everybody. Break their monopoly with competition, and fairer prices result. Only traditional taxi drivers suffer, if they don't join the new competitive system.
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >Current taxi system is screwing everybody. This implies that there are some taxi companies out there that are worth a massive amount of money, since they are capturing all the profit. Can you point to a single company worth even one tenth of what Uber is worth? I'm sure some companies do very well, but I don't think there are any taxi billionaires out there. But it matters little anyway. The pie is divvied up so many ways. You pay the fare, some goes to the driver, some goes to the middle man. When you pay a smaller fare, there is less for the driver, middle man, or both. How much of Uber's valuation is based on that pie (the number of people desiring taxis) growing?
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Lots of ways to get screwed. Underserved population/demographic. Unreliable cars. Bad experiences. Taxes and fees double the overhead. Astronomical Medallion costs benefit only the banks (interest on million-dollar loans). And so on.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > Can you point to a single company worth even one tenth of what Uber is worth? That's simply because taxi companies are regional and Uber is global. Taxi companies rent out the car and medallion so drivers are $100 in the hole before they've even started work. It's practically indentured servitude.
- Trombone12 11y ago
  People have voted with their wallets Hurray for legislative development by $$$$
inversionOf 11y ago
This is an aspect of several of these startups that amazes me: So many times I've had discussions with peers about possible business ideas, and we get mired in the realities of legislation and compliance (it's very easy to get caught up in the nuances of every customer agreement, disclosure form, etc, to ensure the most edge of conditions don't end up in a business-destroying lawsuit), the vision abandoned because of those risks and legal complexities. Companies like Uber and AirBnB (and countless others) simply pretend that those complexities don't exist -- the market to be disrupted only because they're willing to completely circumvent laws and standards -- and money starts falling on their heads.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  >Companies like Uber and AirBnB (and countless others) simply pretend that those complexities don't exist -- the market to be disrupted only because they're willing to completely circumvent laws and standards -- and money starts falling on their heads. This is entirely false. Uber's legal and political staff is _huge_. I'd assume the same for Airbnb. No one is "pretending" they don't exist. They're building a product, allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways. Stop talking and start doing.
  - inversionOf 11y ago
    Yes, both have large legal and political staff now. They entered markets and gained a foothold by completely ignoring established law and regulations. There is nothing, whatsoever, false about what I claimed, and your comment is extraordinarily silly. allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways This is a profoundly naive way of viewing what they're doing.
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      >This is a profoundly naive way of viewing what they're doing. Please, explain. >They entered markets and gained a foothold By providing a better product at a better price.