11 ms·

Like much of hckrnews, I've stopped supporting AirBnB. Though we are usually extremely supportive of disruptive startups, the tide is starting to turn [1] AirB

Like much of hckrnews, I've stopped supporting AirBnB. Though we are usually extremely supportive of disruptive startups, the tide is starting to turn [1] AirBnB and Uber are both profiting from "disruptive innovation," or rather facilitating illegal actions. Both benefit the consumer but damage the community. It's like buying a stolen bicycle. AirBnB: Transforms residential housing into (in most jurisdictions) illegal hotels. Ask a local renter in NY or YVR how that's working out for them. Uber: Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to [often illegally] compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. It's not a level playing field. Laws exist so that drivers could make a livable wage; Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. Is this really how we want the world to see us? Real disruptive innovations already have huge social implications: autonomous vehicle fleets, mobile phones, data collection/mining, machine learning, CRISPR, cryptocurrency - the list is very long. Why do we elevate companies like AirBnB and Uber that circumvent laws for profit to be our champions and unicorns? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930080

elcct 10y ago
> AirBnB: Transforms residential housing into (in most jurisdictions) illegal hotels. Huge part of this is actually state over-regulation. People just can't build houses. If local folks can earn some money on the side by renting out their houses, this is a good thing. Why tourists should be forced to pay for over-expensive hotels? Instead of pressing companies like AirBnB, people should press governments to remove regulations that are not necessary only serve to hire civil servants out of family members of ruling parties (not to mention pocketing bribes to give permissions to build) and make the money for the privileged. By asking for even more regulation, you are just tightening the loop on your neck.
- CreRecombinase 10y ago
  That's not the way the law works though. You don't get to decide which ones are worth following.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    "That's not the way the law works though. You don't get to decide which ones are worth following." You do. See: civil disobedience.[1] Also, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. A simple example were the laws against helping runaway slaves in the US. Many today would agree that helping runaway slaves was the right thing to do, but yet it was illegal. There were similar laws against helping Jews in Nazi Germany. Once again, just because you broke the law by helping a Jew wouldn't mean you did the wrong thing. That's not to say there's any sort of moral equivalence between people (allegedly) breaking laws by participating in Uber or AirBnb and those who helped runaway slaves or Jews in Nazi Germany. They're just examples to show that breaking a law need not automatically be wrong, and that doing the right thing can be more important than obeying the law. Finally, there are plenty of examples of stupid laws and outdated laws. Laws against sodomy or against dildos over a certain length spring to mind. Both of these existed relatively recently in the US (and possibly still exist), but they were pretty much ignored, and few people would have considered themselves to be in the wrong if they broke those laws. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
- mackmgg 10y ago
  Except, some of that regulation is important. If you're in a hotel, and there's a fire, you know to follow the signs out. There are exit signs, emergency lights, and maps showing you where to go. In someone's house, they don't have any of that, which isn't an issue for the person living there, because of course they know how to get out of their own house. But when it's being rented out, there are certain regulations to make sure that someone unfamiliar with a building can still exit in a fire. Driving up rent is something that's probably unavoidable, but safety is something AirBNB could try to enforce if they wanted to.
  - elcct 10y ago
    And that should be up to you to decide, not the state. Nobody forces you to use Airbnb. Also you can just ask how to get out in case of fire.
    - fegu 10y ago
      In a pure libertarian society this might make sense in theory. But when people are injured we all get to pay either through socialised health care or health insurance increasing. This is part of the reason why seat belts are mandatory, your injured sorry ass hurts us all. Thus we should get a say in you not hurting yourself.
      - elcct 10y ago
        Here we go again. So how about we start with banning McDonalds, riding bikes, drinking, running and whatever else that can "injury your sorry ass"... Why not get babies killed right after birth, that will save us from all the troubles that come with living.
  - hehheh 10y ago
    Is it hard to figure out how to get out of a house in an emergency? I mean, houses are only so big, and are typically one to two stories tall. They're not a large hotel with windows that don't open and halls that are nothing but doors.
- Anderkent 10y ago
  > Why tourists should be forced to pay for over-expensive hotels? Because the costs of those tourists being is not on the owner of the flat, but their neighbours - who've bought or rented their homes with the expectation of a residential area, not living next to a hotel. Zoning laws are not arbitrary rent-seeking enablers; they're protection against damaging behaviour that is difficult to enforce on a case-by-case basis.
  - elcct 10y ago
    > who've bought or rented their homes with the expectation of a residential area, not living next to a hotel. Well, if you are xenophobic then maybe you should buy a farm somewhere nowhere when you won't be seeing strangers.
    - Anderkent 10y ago
      Or maybe I dislike being woken up at 5am every week by people banging around with their huge bags on the staircase. I'm sure that's some sort of xenophobia.
      - xapata 10y ago
        That's a different problem. Don't ban all guests just because you don't like loud guests at 5am.
        Anderkent 10y ago
        No, it is exactly the same problem. It's impossible to police whether a particular short-term guest is a loud one or a quiet one. So we separate the areas where tourists stay, where hotels are, from the residential ones where people live permanently. It's a great solution, until people start defecting and creating things like airbnb.
        xapata 10y ago
        "Impossible" is a bold claim. There are all sorts of things that condo associations regulate. To put it another way: some people drive while intoxicated, but drinking alcohol is still legal.
cheetos 10y ago
Because, no matter what their shiny marketing materials may tell you, SV is a purely profit driven machine where only money is sacred. It is no different from the banking, health care or consumer goods companies that have been extracting wealth from our society at any cost. Sure, there might be some marginal trickle-down benefits, but be certain that has little to do with their actual goals.
smsm42 10y ago
> or rather facilitating illegal actions. This is a very disingenuous statement, because it is illegal only because it's made illegal to kill the service model they are using. It's like GM sponsoring a law banning Toyotas and then saying - well, look at those criminals - they are making illegal stuff! How shameful of them! No, it's shameful to use the law as a club to bash competition and prevent innovation instead of what it was meant to - to protect people from harm. > Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. So borrowing money from investors to compete with somebody is now a despicable thing, maybe even a crime? > It's not a level playing field. Sure it is. Level playing field does not mean everybody has the same sum of money. > Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. The value of medallions was created by artificially choking the market until what was supposed to be simple permit issue to open a business now is a million-dollar investment way out of the reach of a common person. On the way creating a severe shortage in services and severe price distortions, since drivers now have to cover the costs of there million-dollar medallions. > Is this really how we want the world to see us? As people trying new things instead of just doing what always been done and letting incumbent interests tell us they are there for our own good and don't dare to question them? Sure thing!
- haldean 10y ago
  Unlike in your metaphor, though, both Uber and AirBnB were breaking the law at the time they were founded; those laws were not written in response to them, but to prevent things like them from cropping up.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    It doesn't matter. If GM sponsored a law that won't specifically target Toyota but all cars competing with GM cars, not naming Toyota by name - the argument "it's illegal" would be as disingenuous. It's subverting the meaning of the word to make it serve special interest. We think illegal things are bad, because we assume there are just laws that ban bad things from happening. So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. But it's easy to see through this - sometimes "illegal" means just "bad law" and not "bad thing". US has a history of many extremely bad laws, I won't list them because I am sure you can name them by yourself, and even more laws that aren't as bad as those but merely self-serving and protecting some special interest. Laws against Uber and Airbnb usually are of this kind.
tbrownaw 10y ago
Uber: Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to [often illegally] compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. It's not a level playing field. Laws exist so that drivers could make a livable wage; Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. This is two separate points. The one about dumping / running at a loss to remove competition makes sense. But the one about taxi medallions and a "livable wage"? Yeah, that one's bullshit. Limiting supply (of anything!) to jack up prices is not a good-for-society practice.
- lsiebert 10y ago
  Drivers are defacto employees, integral to the business of Uber, but are treated as independent contractors, which shafts the tax burden to uber drivers.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    That is the same for all taxi companies! All taxi drivers are contractors, not employees.
  - rak00n 10y ago
    How? It is not like employees don't pay taxes.
- jellicle 10y ago
  Society doesn't have an interest in assuring a predictable supply of anything?
  - tbrownaw 10y ago
    Predictability is overrated, especially if you have a system based on adaptability (like, say, the way markets work) rather than making and following long-term plans.
sandaru1 10y ago
One of the reasons I'm using Uber is that it's quite safe. Otherwise, most of the times you try to get into a cab, they try to rip you off. There are rigged meters, long routes, switching bills when you are paying, etc.
abreu 10y ago
Had my first bad experience with Airbnb just recently. The property turned out to be in a horrible state (I could write a long list) even though it had very good reviews. I did book three months in advance. Bad idea. When the issues started becoming apparent, I was already behind the one-day limit for the Guest Refund Policy to be applicable (that is, if you encounter any issues, you must inform AB on the check-in day, or the policy doesn't apply). So I lost a lot of money. Long term policy specifies that you must pay 30 days starting from the cancellation day. And I was stuck in Morocco with my 12 month old. Luckily we found a better property. However, Airbnb not refunding me showed that 1) They have no actual understanding of the state of the property 2) They don't care. The disproportion between the reviews and my experience and their unwillingness to be fair totally ruined my faith in Airbnb.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  This is likely to protect landlords from tenants who would break shit during their stay and then claim it was broken before they showed up to get a refund.
  - abreu 10y ago
    Maybe. The main thing is that Airbnb keeps the payment for 24 hours after check-in, then it's released to the host. That means any complains within 24 hours will result in the payment being frozen. At the point it reaches the host's end, it's impossible to get the payment back without the host's approval. Some things you simply don't notice at first sight (e.g tiny painting particles falling from the roof, cockroaches, a broken dishwasher..). If Airbnb's review system were honest, this wouldn't be an issue, probably. In my experience, hotel reviews are magnitudes more reliable.
gcb0 10y ago
> Why do we elevate companies like AirBnB and Uber that circumvent laws for profit to be our champions and unicorns? because it worked very well for paypal and we all must love everything elon musk touch/ed.
Bombthecat 10y ago
I think because in our heart in soul we wish to destroy. And like to see things to be destroyed. As long as we save money. And at the end we, as consumer, basically don't care.
hehheh 10y ago
> Uber: Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to [often illegally] compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. It's not a level playing field. Laws exist so that drivers could make a livable wage; Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. It never was a level playing field, not as long as Uber has been around in any case. Taxis are propped up artificially by city laws and airport regulations and that has resulted in low competition and poor service. I don't see why Uber or its customers should have to respect the unfair city+industry collusion.
usaphp 10y ago
While I agree with you about AirBnb, I think Uber is still doing a good thing and improved the way I use taxi/limo services, gone are the days where I have to guess how much the trip will cost or if I can make it in time to destination without calling at least couple limo companies or being screwed up by a driver in a city I visit for a first time. Uber use of technology is what I think separates it from airbnb and even tho they are burning investors cash they at least doing something great to improve customer experience.
kaishiro 10y ago
If you're actually asking and interested in an opinion - I support Uber because it has absolutely been a net positive to my daily life. As a freelancer who has to hop around a bit during the week to meet with different clients, occasionally on short notice, being able to consistently get a ride from wherever I am to wherever I'm going is a very big deal. More so, and this is potentially even more impactful, this experience doesn't change if I'm in Boston, or Melbourne ,or Shanghai. I don't need to research what the most reliable local cab company is, I don't need to worry if they're going to refuse me service because I only have a US mobile number, I don't even need to try and find a phone number - I just open the app and typically have a car in less than 10 minutes. This is one thing that I feel often gets lost in discussions around Uber, is that it flattens the experience globally. I love this.
_andromeda_ 10y ago
>Is this really how we want the world to see us? It doesn't matter. It's always important in these sorts of arguments to understand that opinions don't matter; only whether something makes economic sense or not. If indeed you're right and that what these VC funded corporations are doing is not right or 'illogical', then all you have to do is wait and watch them collapse under their own weight. However, if what they're doing is not just economically feasible but that in the process they're creating enormous value for the entire ecosystems in which they operate, then they will thrive no matter what you and I think. Somewhat tangentially, you can extend my thoughts on this issue to clean energy solutions. Government subsidies and foundations won't provide the clean energy solutions that we need to shift away from fossil fuel. Only the private sector acting on self interest will provide clean energy solutions that will be so cheap that everyone will be forced to shift to clean energy alternatives - again due to their own self interest. The bottom line; all actors will be lured towards what serves them best economically no matter what we feel about those choices! This reminds me of a story I read a while back about how union leaders who were protesting against Walmart and everything it stands for but because Walmart is so affordable, even they(union leaders) would go and do their shopping there as opposed to anywhere else.
- grzm 10y ago
  "It's always important in these sorts of arguments to understand that opinions don't matter; only whether something makes economic sense or not." Opinions matter because they affect consumer behavior. Advertising wouldn't be effective otherwise. You can take a step back and say that it makes economic sense to take into account human psychology, but it amounts to the same thing. Opinions and values have economic value. As for economics related to clean energy, one could argue that the Clean Air Act of 1970 is comparable. Assessments in 1990 of the economic impact of the legislation provided economic benefits many times the costs. I'm not arguing for a command economy or that everything should be regulated. I do think that sometimes a governmental push can be useful.

elcct 10y ago

> AirBnB: Transforms residential housing into (in most jurisdictions) illegal hotels. Huge part of this is actually state over-regulation. People just can't build houses. If local folks can earn some money on the side by renting out their houses, this is a good thing. Why tourists should be forced to pay for over-expensive hotels? Instead of pressing companies like AirBnB, people should press governments to remove regulations that are not necessary only serve to hire civil servants out of family members of ruling parties (not to mention pocketing bribes to give permissions to build) and make the money for the privileged. By asking for even more regulation, you are just tightening the loop on your neck.

CreRecombinase 10y ago
That's not the way the law works though. You don't get to decide which ones are worth following.
- smsm42 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "That's not the way the law works though. You don't get to decide which ones are worth following." You do. See: civil disobedience.[1] Also, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. A simple example were the laws against helping runaway slaves in the US. Many today would agree that helping runaway slaves was the right thing to do, but yet it was illegal. There were similar laws against helping Jews in Nazi Germany. Once again, just because you broke the law by helping a Jew wouldn't mean you did the wrong thing. That's not to say there's any sort of moral equivalence between people (allegedly) breaking laws by participating in Uber or AirBnb and those who helped runaway slaves or Jews in Nazi Germany. They're just examples to show that breaking a law need not automatically be wrong, and that doing the right thing can be more important than obeying the law. Finally, there are plenty of examples of stupid laws and outdated laws. Laws against sodomy or against dildos over a certain length spring to mind. Both of these existed relatively recently in the US (and possibly still exist), but they were pretty much ignored, and few people would have considered themselves to be in the wrong if they broke those laws. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
mackmgg 10y ago
Except, some of that regulation is important. If you're in a hotel, and there's a fire, you know to follow the signs out. There are exit signs, emergency lights, and maps showing you where to go. In someone's house, they don't have any of that, which isn't an issue for the person living there, because of course they know how to get out of their own house. But when it's being rented out, there are certain regulations to make sure that someone unfamiliar with a building can still exit in a fire. Driving up rent is something that's probably unavoidable, but safety is something AirBNB could try to enforce if they wanted to.
- elcct 10y ago
  And that should be up to you to decide, not the state. Nobody forces you to use Airbnb. Also you can just ask how to get out in case of fire.
  - fegu 10y ago
    In a pure libertarian society this might make sense in theory. But when people are injured we all get to pay either through socialised health care or health insurance increasing. This is part of the reason why seat belts are mandatory, your injured sorry ass hurts us all. Thus we should get a say in you not hurting yourself.
    - elcct 10y ago
      Here we go again. So how about we start with banning McDonalds, riding bikes, drinking, running and whatever else that can "injury your sorry ass"... Why not get babies killed right after birth, that will save us from all the troubles that come with living.
- hehheh 10y ago
  Is it hard to figure out how to get out of a house in an emergency? I mean, houses are only so big, and are typically one to two stories tall. They're not a large hotel with windows that don't open and halls that are nothing but doors.
Anderkent 10y ago
> Why tourists should be forced to pay for over-expensive hotels? Because the costs of those tourists being is not on the owner of the flat, but their neighbours - who've bought or rented their homes with the expectation of a residential area, not living next to a hotel. Zoning laws are not arbitrary rent-seeking enablers; they're protection against damaging behaviour that is difficult to enforce on a case-by-case basis.
- elcct 10y ago
  > who've bought or rented their homes with the expectation of a residential area, not living next to a hotel. Well, if you are xenophobic then maybe you should buy a farm somewhere nowhere when you won't be seeing strangers.
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    Or maybe I dislike being woken up at 5am every week by people banging around with their huge bags on the staircase. I'm sure that's some sort of xenophobia.
    - xapata 10y ago
      That's a different problem. Don't ban all guests just because you don't like loud guests at 5am.
      - Anderkent 10y ago
        No, it is exactly the same problem. It's impossible to police whether a particular short-term guest is a loud one or a quiet one. So we separate the areas where tourists stay, where hotels are, from the residential ones where people live permanently. It's a great solution, until people start defecting and creating things like airbnb.
        xapata 10y ago
        "Impossible" is a bold claim. There are all sorts of things that condo associations regulate. To put it another way: some people drive while intoxicated, but drinking alcohol is still legal.

cheetos 10y ago

Because, no matter what their shiny marketing materials may tell you, SV is a purely profit driven machine where only money is sacred. It is no different from the banking, health care or consumer goods companies that have been extracting wealth from our society at any cost. Sure, there might be some marginal trickle-down benefits, but be certain that has little to do with their actual goals.

smsm42 10y ago

> or rather facilitating illegal actions. This is a very disingenuous statement, because it is illegal only because it's made illegal to kill the service model they are using. It's like GM sponsoring a law banning Toyotas and then saying - well, look at those criminals - they are making illegal stuff! How shameful of them! No, it's shameful to use the law as a club to bash competition and prevent innovation instead of what it was meant to - to protect people from harm. > Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. So borrowing money from investors to compete with somebody is now a despicable thing, maybe even a crime? > It's not a level playing field. Sure it is. Level playing field does not mean everybody has the same sum of money. > Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. The value of medallions was created by artificially choking the market until what was supposed to be simple permit issue to open a business now is a million-dollar investment way out of the reach of a common person. On the way creating a severe shortage in services and severe price distortions, since drivers now have to cover the costs of there million-dollar medallions. > Is this really how we want the world to see us? As people trying new things instead of just doing what always been done and letting incumbent interests tell us they are there for our own good and don't dare to question them? Sure thing!

haldean 10y ago
Unlike in your metaphor, though, both Uber and AirBnB were breaking the law at the time they were founded; those laws were not written in response to them, but to prevent things like them from cropping up.
- smsm42 10y ago
  It doesn't matter. If GM sponsored a law that won't specifically target Toyota but all cars competing with GM cars, not naming Toyota by name - the argument "it's illegal" would be as disingenuous. It's subverting the meaning of the word to make it serve special interest. We think illegal things are bad, because we assume there are just laws that ban bad things from happening. So if we make a law banning somebody from competing with us, they'd be "illegal" and thus bad. But it's easy to see through this - sometimes "illegal" means just "bad law" and not "bad thing". US has a history of many extremely bad laws, I won't list them because I am sure you can name them by yourself, and even more laws that aren't as bad as those but merely self-serving and protecting some special interest. Laws against Uber and Airbnb usually are of this kind.

tbrownaw 10y ago

Uber: Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to [often illegally] compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. It's not a level playing field. Laws exist so that drivers could make a livable wage; Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. This is two separate points. The one about dumping / running at a loss to remove competition makes sense. But the one about taxi medallions and a "livable wage"? Yeah, that one's bullshit. Limiting supply (of anything!) to jack up prices is not a good-for-society practice.

lsiebert 10y ago
Drivers are defacto employees, integral to the business of Uber, but are treated as independent contractors, which shafts the tax burden to uber drivers.
- stale2002 10y ago
  That is the same for all taxi companies! All taxi drivers are contractors, not employees.
- rak00n 10y ago
  How? It is not like employees don't pay taxes.
jellicle 10y ago
Society doesn't have an interest in assuring a predictable supply of anything?
- tbrownaw 10y ago
  Predictability is overrated, especially if you have a system based on adaptability (like, say, the way markets work) rather than making and following long-term plans.

sandaru1 10y ago

One of the reasons I'm using Uber is that it's quite safe. Otherwise, most of the times you try to get into a cab, they try to rip you off. There are rigged meters, long routes, switching bills when you are paying, etc.

abreu 10y ago

Had my first bad experience with Airbnb just recently. The property turned out to be in a horrible state (I could write a long list) even though it had very good reviews. I did book three months in advance. Bad idea. When the issues started becoming apparent, I was already behind the one-day limit for the Guest Refund Policy to be applicable (that is, if you encounter any issues, you must inform AB on the check-in day, or the policy doesn't apply). So I lost a lot of money. Long term policy specifies that you must pay 30 days starting from the cancellation day. And I was stuck in Morocco with my 12 month old. Luckily we found a better property. However, Airbnb not refunding me showed that 1) They have no actual understanding of the state of the property 2) They don't care. The disproportion between the reviews and my experience and their unwillingness to be fair totally ruined my faith in Airbnb.

gnarbarian 10y ago
This is likely to protect landlords from tenants who would break shit during their stay and then claim it was broken before they showed up to get a refund.
- abreu 10y ago
  Maybe. The main thing is that Airbnb keeps the payment for 24 hours after check-in, then it's released to the host. That means any complains within 24 hours will result in the payment being frozen. At the point it reaches the host's end, it's impossible to get the payment back without the host's approval. Some things you simply don't notice at first sight (e.g tiny painting particles falling from the roof, cockroaches, a broken dishwasher..). If Airbnb's review system were honest, this wouldn't be an issue, probably. In my experience, hotel reviews are magnitudes more reliable.

gcb0 10y ago

> Why do we elevate companies like AirBnB and Uber that circumvent laws for profit to be our champions and unicorns? because it worked very well for paypal and we all must love everything elon musk touch/ed.

Bombthecat 10y ago

I think because in our heart in soul we wish to destroy. And like to see things to be destroyed. As long as we save money. And at the end we, as consumer, basically don't care.

hehheh 10y ago

> Uber: Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to [often illegally] compete against traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. It's not a level playing field. Laws exist so that drivers could make a livable wage; Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in. It never was a level playing field, not as long as Uber has been around in any case. Taxis are propped up artificially by city laws and airport regulations and that has resulted in low competition and poor service. I don't see why Uber or its customers should have to respect the unfair city+industry collusion.

usaphp 10y ago

While I agree with you about AirBnb, I think Uber is still doing a good thing and improved the way I use taxi/limo services, gone are the days where I have to guess how much the trip will cost or if I can make it in time to destination without calling at least couple limo companies or being screwed up by a driver in a city I visit for a first time. Uber use of technology is what I think separates it from airbnb and even tho they are burning investors cash they at least doing something great to improve customer experience.

kaishiro 10y ago

If you're actually asking and interested in an opinion - I support Uber because it has absolutely been a net positive to my daily life. As a freelancer who has to hop around a bit during the week to meet with different clients, occasionally on short notice, being able to consistently get a ride from wherever I am to wherever I'm going is a very big deal. More so, and this is potentially even more impactful, this experience doesn't change if I'm in Boston, or Melbourne ,or Shanghai. I don't need to research what the most reliable local cab company is, I don't need to worry if they're going to refuse me service because I only have a US mobile number, I don't even need to try and find a phone number - I just open the app and typically have a car in less than 10 minutes. This is one thing that I feel often gets lost in discussions around Uber, is that it flattens the experience globally. I love this.

_andromeda_ 10y ago

>Is this really how we want the world to see us? It doesn't matter. It's always important in these sorts of arguments to understand that opinions don't matter; only whether something makes economic sense or not. If indeed you're right and that what these VC funded corporations are doing is not right or 'illogical', then all you have to do is wait and watch them collapse under their own weight. However, if what they're doing is not just economically feasible but that in the process they're creating enormous value for the entire ecosystems in which they operate, then they will thrive no matter what you and I think. Somewhat tangentially, you can extend my thoughts on this issue to clean energy solutions. Government subsidies and foundations won't provide the clean energy solutions that we need to shift away from fossil fuel. Only the private sector acting on self interest will provide clean energy solutions that will be so cheap that everyone will be forced to shift to clean energy alternatives - again due to their own self interest. The bottom line; all actors will be lured towards what serves them best economically no matter what we feel about those choices! This reminds me of a story I read a while back about how union leaders who were protesting against Walmart and everything it stands for but because Walmart is so affordable, even they(union leaders) would go and do their shopping there as opposed to anywhere else.

grzm 10y ago
"It's always important in these sorts of arguments to understand that opinions don't matter; only whether something makes economic sense or not." Opinions matter because they affect consumer behavior. Advertising wouldn't be effective otherwise. You can take a step back and say that it makes economic sense to take into account human psychology, but it amounts to the same thing. Opinions and values have economic value. As for economics related to clean energy, one could argue that the Clean Air Act of 1970 is comparable. Assessments in 1990 of the economic impact of the legislation provided economic benefits many times the costs. I'm not arguing for a command economy or that everything should be regulated. I do think that sometimes a governmental push can be useful.