5 ms·

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 f

by 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.
- imgabe 11y ago
  > 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 Except taxi regulations don't actually accomplish any of these things. It's well known that if you want to go from Manhattan to Brooklyn you better get in the cab first before telling the driver that, or they'll drive away. Even then, they might demand that you get out anyway. If you look like you might inconvenience the driver, or if you're black, good luck getting them to even pull over in the first place. You can complain of course, by sending a message into the black hole of the taxi regulation bureaucracy, but it's unlikely anything will ever come of it. With an app that allows immediate feed back and user ratings of each driver, drivers are far more accountable to providing a satisfying customer experience than they ever were under the taxi regulations. > 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. Yes, like if you've manipulated the local government into making it illegal for anyone else to provide your service unless they buy a multi-hundred thousand dollar taxi medallion.

by imgabe 11y ago

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.

imgabe 11y ago
> 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 Except taxi regulations don't actually accomplish any of these things. It's well known that if you want to go from Manhattan to Brooklyn you better get in the cab first before telling the driver that, or they'll drive away. Even then, they might demand that you get out anyway. If you look like you might inconvenience the driver, or if you're black, good luck getting them to even pull over in the first place. You can complain of course, by sending a message into the black hole of the taxi regulation bureaucracy, but it's unlikely anything will ever come of it. With an app that allows immediate feed back and user ratings of each driver, drivers are far more accountable to providing a satisfying customer experience than they ever were under the taxi regulations. > 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. Yes, like if you've manipulated the local government into making it illegal for anyone else to provide your service unless they buy a multi-hundred thousand dollar taxi medallion.