4 ms·

I have same feeling, one my friend worked at a flywheel (uber but with taxi cabs)...he said that uber dominates this industry. They have figured out the biggest

I have same feeling, one my friend worked at a flywheel (uber but with taxi cabs)...he said that uber dominates this industry. They have figured out the biggest obstacle which is government regulations. This is the big challenge for any startup trying to copy uber.

klausa 10y ago
I wouldn't call "knowingly breaking the law and throwing VC money at the lawyers until the problem goes away" necessarily "figuring out government regulations".
- kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
  It's the same thing for practical purposes if it achieves the same aim.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Except that your execs are one pissed off DA away from defending RICO charges. Companies undervalue low-probability, high-risk events like that.
    - aub3bhat 10y ago
      its not rico... https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        My point was exactly that Uber can be construed as a criminal organization and their executives as the leaders of a large, international criminal organization who knowingly pay people to commit crimes on their behalf (that the bosses then profit from) and that their organization's primary business is the commission of such crimes. Is it still not RICO? Edit: Im pretty sure they could get money laundering related charges to stick well enough to charge (and settle or bring to trial, rather than dismissed), based on banking with money they know was earned in violation of various state and city laws. Money laundering law is bad (and so is RICO), and often can be applied in counter-intuitive ways by aggressive DAs.
        hluska 10y ago
        To indict under RICO, you need evidence that the organization is involved in racketeering. (The R stands for racketeer). Racketeering includes things like murder, kidnapping, bribery, and gambling. With all due respect, unless you are a practicing attorney, you are not qualified to make statements like this.
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Money laundering is one of the things specifically outlined under RICO, and why my edit mentions it in particular.
        hluska 10y ago
        Money laundering??? I have tried to be polite, but you are either incredibly ignorant or you are a troll. There is simply no way that it is acceptable to accuse any company of money laundering unless you have a serious amount of evidence. I am disengaging from this 'conversation' as it is completely useless.
      - joe_the_user 10y ago
        Whatever your animated-gif-filled link says, a highly leveraged company which systematically breaks the law (even in small ways) is going to be vulnerable if someone with leverage decides that they need to file a lawsuit targeting the whole of the organization's activities. That suit could be conspiracy, it could be RICO applied rightly or wrongly or it could be some other broad and vague statute out there. Example: Zenefits Edit: And vulnerable doesn't mean doomed. Plenty of folks continue the approach of skirting the law until they don't have to anymore (Youtube etc). But skirting the law forever it is not a good business plan.
        dmoy 10y ago
        s/it's/isn't/?
- schnable 10y ago
  It's worked very well in many markets.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  they have many obama administration people in their leadership as well
- snappyTertle 10y ago
  Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a good law. Uber is finding inefficient/protectionist laws and challenging their validity. I think that is better for the overall economy.
- ClassyJacket 10y ago
  Well it ended up getting it legalised in a bunch of places. If it works, it's not stupid!
- cryptozeus 10y ago
  That was spot on :)
- nihonde 10y ago
  Laws are only as good as their enforcement. I think Uber has been successful at calling the bluff of law enforcement and winning that showdown in many cases.
nihonde 10y ago
But if Uber eliminates that obstacle, won't all of their competitors benefit from the lower barriers to entry? Does Uber simply ease the cost of switching--both for drivers and riders?
- schnable 10y ago
  Yeah. I haven't seen Uber or Lyft do a whole lot to encourage customer loyalty either, I guess because prices are already so subsidized. Uber had actively pushed my away, though, by requiring location services on even when not using the app.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    Uber business sales channel offers very little value add, and charges for it. They don't get it yet, and that may be a fundamental mistake. It makes me think they're not as smart as everyone wants them to be.

klausa 10y ago

I wouldn't call "knowingly breaking the law and throwing VC money at the lawyers until the problem goes away" necessarily "figuring out government regulations".

kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
It's the same thing for practical purposes if it achieves the same aim.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Except that your execs are one pissed off DA away from defending RICO charges. Companies undervalue low-probability, high-risk events like that.
  - aub3bhat 10y ago
    its not rico... https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      My point was exactly that Uber can be construed as a criminal organization and their executives as the leaders of a large, international criminal organization who knowingly pay people to commit crimes on their behalf (that the bosses then profit from) and that their organization's primary business is the commission of such crimes. Is it still not RICO? Edit: Im pretty sure they could get money laundering related charges to stick well enough to charge (and settle or bring to trial, rather than dismissed), based on banking with money they know was earned in violation of various state and city laws. Money laundering law is bad (and so is RICO), and often can be applied in counter-intuitive ways by aggressive DAs.
      - hluska 10y ago
        To indict under RICO, you need evidence that the organization is involved in racketeering. (The R stands for racketeer). Racketeering includes things like murder, kidnapping, bribery, and gambling. With all due respect, unless you are a practicing attorney, you are not qualified to make statements like this.
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Money laundering is one of the things specifically outlined under RICO, and why my edit mentions it in particular.
        hluska 10y ago
        Money laundering??? I have tried to be polite, but you are either incredibly ignorant or you are a troll. There is simply no way that it is acceptable to accuse any company of money laundering unless you have a serious amount of evidence. I am disengaging from this 'conversation' as it is completely useless.
    - joe_the_user 10y ago
      Whatever your animated-gif-filled link says, a highly leveraged company which systematically breaks the law (even in small ways) is going to be vulnerable if someone with leverage decides that they need to file a lawsuit targeting the whole of the organization's activities. That suit could be conspiracy, it could be RICO applied rightly or wrongly or it could be some other broad and vague statute out there. Example: Zenefits Edit: And vulnerable doesn't mean doomed. Plenty of folks continue the approach of skirting the law until they don't have to anymore (Youtube etc). But skirting the law forever it is not a good business plan.
      - dmoy 10y ago
        s/it's/isn't/?
schnable 10y ago
It's worked very well in many markets.
oculusthrift 10y ago
they have many obama administration people in their leadership as well
snappyTertle 10y ago
Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a good law. Uber is finding inefficient/protectionist laws and challenging their validity. I think that is better for the overall economy.
ClassyJacket 10y ago
Well it ended up getting it legalised in a bunch of places. If it works, it's not stupid!
cryptozeus 10y ago
That was spot on :)
nihonde 10y ago
Laws are only as good as their enforcement. I think Uber has been successful at calling the bluff of law enforcement and winning that showdown in many cases.

nihonde 10y ago

But if Uber eliminates that obstacle, won't all of their competitors benefit from the lower barriers to entry? Does Uber simply ease the cost of switching--both for drivers and riders?

schnable 10y ago
Yeah. I haven't seen Uber or Lyft do a whole lot to encourage customer loyalty either, I guess because prices are already so subsidized. Uber had actively pushed my away, though, by requiring location services on even when not using the app.
- nihonde 10y ago
  Uber business sales channel offers very little value add, and charges for it. They don't get it yet, and that may be a fundamental mistake. It makes me think they're not as smart as everyone wants them to be.