3 ms·

Uber doesn't get to unilaterally decide anything. Customers overwhelmingly decided that they prefer Uber to whatever benefits they had been receiving from the r

by imgabe 11y ago

Uber doesn't get to unilaterally decide anything. Customers overwhelmingly decided that they prefer Uber to whatever benefits they had been receiving from the regulated taxi industry. If they hadn't, Uber would be out of business and we'd only have taxis. > maybe next SV-backed startup decides to ignore FDA? Because who cares about those "clinical trials", they're only slowing progress down. Maybe they will? If a company can reliably produce safe drugs without FDA trials, why wouldn't we want that? Right now we have expensive drugs that are very safe. Few people die because they got a drug that was manufactured incorrectly (presumably, I don't know the actual statistics), but many people die because they can never afford the drug in the first place. Maybe without the trials more people would die from bad drugs, but more would live because they'd have access to cures that were previously out of reach. I don't know, but it's a question worth asking. There's also the issue of the black market created by the high prices caused by FDA trials, where drugs are sold from shady online pharmacies and manufacture under who-knows-what conditions. Desperate people will take risks like that when they have no options. If you were poor and contracted some rare disease where the treatment costs $100,000, but only has a .0001% chance of complications, would you rather die because you can't afford it, or try a $100 treatment that has a 1% chance of complications? Right now you don't even get the choice. For whatever reason we've decided it's better for people to die because they're poor than for them to die because of a manufacturing / clinical problem with a drug. If that's what we all think, that's fine, but we should be aware we're making that choice. > As a customer, I benefited from local company that offered pay-for-distance drive-by-GPS service stirring up the taxi market. They had some legal battles, there was a law adjustment, and the local market improved The fact that they had "some legal battles" and the laws was changed, implies to me that they were also operating in defiance of the law at the beginning. How is that different from what Uber does? Besides, now you have the taxis, your preferred company, and Uber as options. With your recommended strategy of "everybody obey the taxi laws", you would only have the taxis. Aren't you better off this way?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Uber doesn't get to unilaterally decide anything. Customers overwhelmingly decided that they prefer Uber to whatever benefits they had been receiving from the regulated taxi industry. If they hadn't, Uber would be out of business and we'd only have taxis. Customers don't know shit. They only see the cool, new, better taxi company. Ask around, most people don't realize Uber is operating illegally. Questions you ask about FDA and consequences of prolonged trials are important. They are being asked. But my point is, you don't want random companies operating in the light while ignoring medical safety laws - that will lead only to people getting seriously hurt. You always have an avenue of operating under the radar; the enforcement around drugs is not that strict, if you want to ignore safety there are tons of ways to get pretty much any chemical. Folks over at nootropics communities order various experimental chemicals from chem labs, and it's probably even mostly legal. But they know all the dangers and they take full responsibility over what happens. > The fact that they had "some legal battles" and the laws was changed, implies to me that they were also operating in defiance of the law at the beginning. How is that different from what Uber does? Besides, now you have the taxis, your preferred company, and Uber as options. With your recommended strategy of "everybody obey the taxi laws", you would only have the taxis. Aren't you better off this way? They didn't break the law. They found a loophole in the licensing process and exploited it. Taxi companies got angry, the issue went through the legal system and the law was adjusted in a way that took into account the innovation and increased efficiency, while also keeping the good parts of the existing system. Contrast that with Uber, which not just breaks the law, they're being blatant about it.
- imgabe 11y ago
  It probably varies by city whether Uber is breaking the law. In my city Uber argued they were considered a limousine service rather than a taxi company, which falls under different regulations. The difference being that a taxi is hailed from the street while a limo is not. You could argue that using an app is the same as hailing, but you could also use your phone to call a limo service to send a car to you, which is not considered hailing. So, it's a bit of a technicality. Customers do know one important thing. Uber is beneficial to them and taxi regulations are not. The taxi regulations were set up to protect the taxi companies, not the customers. I don't think it's likely that any business is going to start flouting regulations that actually protect customers from something, because harming your customers is not a good business model (tobacco industry aside).
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Customers do know one important thing. Uber is beneficial to them and taxi regulations are not. There are a lot of things that are beneficial to some parties while being destructive to everyone else. Strip-mining is beneficial to those enjoying the cheap metals. Dumping toxic waste into a river is beneficial for those upstream, not so much for those downstream. > The taxi regulations were set up to protect the taxi companies, not the customers. Some, maybe, and many eventually grew to serve taxi companies more than the customers. But not all and probably not most, initially. A lot of regulations and the monopoly taxi companies get exist, so that you: - can actually get a ride if you don't live in the city centre - can actually get a ride if you're sick, elderly or disabled, in a car that's equipped to handle you With Uber you can't get either of the above, because it's unprofitable for the company and the drivers (actually, a friend is reporting that people are now lying about their location and then calling to the driver directly to ask them to start counting the fare on their way; we'll see how that dynamics evolves). > I don't think it's likely that any business is going to start flouting regulations that actually protect customers from something, because harming your customers is not a good business model (tobacco industry aside). Of course they are, and they're constantly doing it. Things like safe medicine, safe food, safe clothes, etc. were all things we had to fight them in courts for. If you're the only provider of something your customers need, you can be as evil like you want to them, and they will still buy from you. Also, regulations are not usually about company vs. their customers, because those are not the only parties of the transaction. Regulations also serve to protect the rest of society from externalities that are being dumped on it through the transaction. In case of Uber, they have a good value proposition for customers. But they dump a shit ton of externalities on the rest of us, including fucking over their drivers, destroying the taxi industry while not covering for all the parts they dismantled like catering to elderly and disabled, and eroding the rule of law. Oh, and fucking us all over again with taxes that should have been paid. To take your tobacco industry aside, they're not really hurting their customers. The customers were obviously participants in voluntary trade. And the families that have to take care of them and bury them when lung cancer finally ends its work were not the customers, so why would a tobacco company care about them? -- I understand the appeal of Uber. People who like them like them, because they're breaking the law in their favour. But that's a stupidly childish attitude. The next company will break law in favour of someone else, and then you'll be pissed.

by imgabe 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> Uber doesn't get to unilaterally decide anything. Customers overwhelmingly decided that they prefer Uber to whatever benefits they had been receiving from the regulated taxi industry. If they hadn't, Uber would be out of business and we'd only have taxis. Customers don't know shit. They only see the cool, new, better taxi company. Ask around, most people don't realize Uber is operating illegally. Questions you ask about FDA and consequences of prolonged trials are important. They are being asked. But my point is, you don't want random companies operating in the light while ignoring medical safety laws - that will lead only to people getting seriously hurt. You always have an avenue of operating under the radar; the enforcement around drugs is not that strict, if you want to ignore safety there are tons of ways to get pretty much any chemical. Folks over at nootropics communities order various experimental chemicals from chem labs, and it's probably even mostly legal. But they know all the dangers and they take full responsibility over what happens. > The fact that they had "some legal battles" and the laws was changed, implies to me that they were also operating in defiance of the law at the beginning. How is that different from what Uber does? Besides, now you have the taxis, your preferred company, and Uber as options. With your recommended strategy of "everybody obey the taxi laws", you would only have the taxis. Aren't you better off this way? They didn't break the law. They found a loophole in the licensing process and exploited it. Taxi companies got angry, the issue went through the legal system and the law was adjusted in a way that took into account the innovation and increased efficiency, while also keeping the good parts of the existing system. Contrast that with Uber, which not just breaks the law, they're being blatant about it.

imgabe 11y ago
It probably varies by city whether Uber is breaking the law. In my city Uber argued they were considered a limousine service rather than a taxi company, which falls under different regulations. The difference being that a taxi is hailed from the street while a limo is not. You could argue that using an app is the same as hailing, but you could also use your phone to call a limo service to send a car to you, which is not considered hailing. So, it's a bit of a technicality. Customers do know one important thing. Uber is beneficial to them and taxi regulations are not. The taxi regulations were set up to protect the taxi companies, not the customers. I don't think it's likely that any business is going to start flouting regulations that actually protect customers from something, because harming your customers is not a good business model (tobacco industry aside).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Customers do know one important thing. Uber is beneficial to them and taxi regulations are not. There are a lot of things that are beneficial to some parties while being destructive to everyone else. Strip-mining is beneficial to those enjoying the cheap metals. Dumping toxic waste into a river is beneficial for those upstream, not so much for those downstream. > The taxi regulations were set up to protect the taxi companies, not the customers. Some, maybe, and many eventually grew to serve taxi companies more than the customers. But not all and probably not most, initially. A lot of regulations and the monopoly taxi companies get exist, so that you: - can actually get a ride if you don't live in the city centre - can actually get a ride if you're sick, elderly or disabled, in a car that's equipped to handle you With Uber you can't get either of the above, because it's unprofitable for the company and the drivers (actually, a friend is reporting that people are now lying about their location and then calling to the driver directly to ask them to start counting the fare on their way; we'll see how that dynamics evolves). > I don't think it's likely that any business is going to start flouting regulations that actually protect customers from something, because harming your customers is not a good business model (tobacco industry aside). Of course they are, and they're constantly doing it. Things like safe medicine, safe food, safe clothes, etc. were all things we had to fight them in courts for. If you're the only provider of something your customers need, you can be as evil like you want to them, and they will still buy from you. Also, regulations are not usually about company vs. their customers, because those are not the only parties of the transaction. Regulations also serve to protect the rest of society from externalities that are being dumped on it through the transaction. In case of Uber, they have a good value proposition for customers. But they dump a shit ton of externalities on the rest of us, including fucking over their drivers, destroying the taxi industry while not covering for all the parts they dismantled like catering to elderly and disabled, and eroding the rule of law. Oh, and fucking us all over again with taxes that should have been paid. To take your tobacco industry aside, they're not really hurting their customers. The customers were obviously participants in voluntary trade. And the families that have to take care of them and bury them when lung cancer finally ends its work were not the customers, so why would a tobacco company care about them? -- I understand the appeal of Uber. People who like them like them, because they're breaking the law in their favour. But that's a stupidly childish attitude. The next company will break law in favour of someone else, and then you'll be pissed.