6 ms·

Clearing up some serious misconceptions here: 1) Austin did not ban Uber or Lyft. The city council passed an ordinance that required a gradually increasing per

Clearing up some serious misconceptions here: 1) Austin did not ban Uber or Lyft. The city council passed an ordinance that required a gradually increasing percentage of rideshare drivers pass an FBI-approved fingerprint background check. (These rules are in place in other locales in which Uber operates, such as NYC and Houston.) Uber and Lyft formed a PAC that got a proposition on the next local election ballot that would have overturned the ordinance, then spent $9 million on a massive advertising campaign supporting the proposition. The proposition failed overwhelmingly. 2) Uber and Lyft stopped providing services of their own volition within 48 hours. Considering they abide by the same regulations in other cities, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was done in retaliation in order to show other cities considering doing the same that they will actually pull out. 3) Several upstart ridesharing companies immediately jumped into the market and were fully operational in less than a month and are complying fully with the regulations. (Examples are Fasten, Fare, RideAustin, and GetMe.) 4) RideAustin is registered as a non-profit organization, formed by several local tech entrepreneurs affiliated with Capital Factory, an Austin accelerator/VC firm. It is not owned or operated by the city in any fashion.

NathanKP 10y ago
Yep I wasn't clear. Austin banned some of the wild west behavior of Uber and Lyft, and they refused to follow along with reasonable restrictions and decided to protest by leaving Austin.
r00fus 10y ago
#3 if anything should be proof to Uber's potential future investors that they need to be wary that Uber has anything but name recognition and first mover advantage. They have no moat, no barrier to entry, and a whole lot of hubris just waiting to mature in the form of fierce competitors and negative PR.
- pm90 10y ago
  To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads. e.g. I would not, from experience, trust fasten to get me back home at 2.30am on a weekend night (even if I'm willing to pay their "boosted" fares). Its not an unsolvable problem though. I bet if they could hire more/better engineers and invest in infra for reliability they could be a lot better. And it might actually happen if Uber suddenly raises its prices and people look around for alternatives. I think Uber and Lyft have made a huge mistake by leaving Austin. First of all they showed drivers and passengers just how little they cared about them; a lot of people in Austin were really angry at them and continue to be. Second, their stunt did not work. There was, obviously, a lot of backlash against the Mayor and local politicians but that has died down and the city has moved on. But lastly, and most importantly, the Austin market became available exclusively to all the other ridesharing apps, giving them a leg up and a source of reliable income and feedback. I get the feeling that next time this happens in another city, the other apps will similarly step in and take over the market. But this time they will be faster and better prepared.
  - vikiomega9 10y ago
    > To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads Doesn't this count as first-mover advantage?
  - r00fus 10y ago
    What happens when Google, Apple, Amazon or other company with a solid cloud app team steps in? Austin's homegrown competitors may not be fearful, but one of the existing majors could single-handedly shatter Uber's image with a half-decent app, esp if it's integrated with something like Google Maps or Apple Wallet or equivalent feed.
    - Applejinx 10y ago
      Why could this not be a public service? Sort of like the very public highways the cars drive on.
      - pm90 10y ago
        Hmmm... interesting idea. I wonder it autonomous vehicles would enable this even more? I wouldn't mind paying a little extra tax to my local government to enable them to maintain a fleet of self-driving vehicles that I could summon with an app.
        fwn 10y ago
        Imagine the beauty of this tax if it were not mandatory. Kind of like a gov. service, but without any threat attached to it. Like a private startup out something..
        pm24601 10y ago
        Oh .. you mean buses, paratransit, and other mass transit vehicles :-)
      - foxylad 10y ago
        What are you, communist or something?! I read a poignant comment on Twitter the other day, about how nowadays public libraries and fire services would never be funded - perhaps we'd give illiterate people tax credits for buying books, and insurance companies would have private fire engines. The neo-liberal agenda of not allowing any public entity to provide services that could possibly compete with a private corporation has succeeded too well.
mahyarm 10y ago
Are you sure it was to make an example or there was something unique / different about Austin that made both companies not want to provide business there?
- csours 10y ago
  It's my impression that they thought of Austin as an "innovation friendly" place and they were "offended" that Austin tried to regulate them.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Neither. It was to prevent establishing a legal precedent of being treated the same as taxi companies.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
Interesting that Uber and Lyft work together on political influence campaigns like this, given Uber's strategy of bleeding out Lyft through their VC subsidized capital advantage. I would think that just letting them both get shut out of a given city would be a win for Uber.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  They weren't "shut out" they were subjected to a popularly-enacted municipal ordinance requiring Austin-administered finger-printing of drivers and decided to stop providing service to Austin.

NathanKP 10y ago

Yep I wasn't clear. Austin banned some of the wild west behavior of Uber and Lyft, and they refused to follow along with reasonable restrictions and decided to protest by leaving Austin.

r00fus 10y ago

#3 if anything should be proof to Uber's potential future investors that they need to be wary that Uber has anything but name recognition and first mover advantage. They have no moat, no barrier to entry, and a whole lot of hubris just waiting to mature in the form of fierce competitors and negative PR.

pm90 10y ago
To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads. e.g. I would not, from experience, trust fasten to get me back home at 2.30am on a weekend night (even if I'm willing to pay their "boosted" fares). Its not an unsolvable problem though. I bet if they could hire more/better engineers and invest in infra for reliability they could be a lot better. And it might actually happen if Uber suddenly raises its prices and people look around for alternatives. I think Uber and Lyft have made a huge mistake by leaving Austin. First of all they showed drivers and passengers just how little they cared about them; a lot of people in Austin were really angry at them and continue to be. Second, their stunt did not work. There was, obviously, a lot of backlash against the Mayor and local politicians but that has died down and the city has moved on. But lastly, and most importantly, the Austin market became available exclusively to all the other ridesharing apps, giving them a leg up and a source of reliable income and feedback. I get the feeling that next time this happens in another city, the other apps will similarly step in and take over the market. But this time they will be faster and better prepared.
- vikiomega9 10y ago
  > To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads Doesn't this count as first-mover advantage?
- r00fus 10y ago
  What happens when Google, Apple, Amazon or other company with a solid cloud app team steps in? Austin's homegrown competitors may not be fearful, but one of the existing majors could single-handedly shatter Uber's image with a half-decent app, esp if it's integrated with something like Google Maps or Apple Wallet or equivalent feed.
  - Applejinx 10y ago
    Why could this not be a public service? Sort of like the very public highways the cars drive on.
    - pm90 10y ago
      Hmmm... interesting idea. I wonder it autonomous vehicles would enable this even more? I wouldn't mind paying a little extra tax to my local government to enable them to maintain a fleet of self-driving vehicles that I could summon with an app.
      - fwn 10y ago
        Imagine the beauty of this tax if it were not mandatory. Kind of like a gov. service, but without any threat attached to it. Like a private startup out something..
      - pm24601 10y ago
        Oh .. you mean buses, paratransit, and other mass transit vehicles :-)
    - foxylad 10y ago
      What are you, communist or something?! I read a poignant comment on Twitter the other day, about how nowadays public libraries and fire services would never be funded - perhaps we'd give illiterate people tax credits for buying books, and insurance companies would have private fire engines. The neo-liberal agenda of not allowing any public entity to provide services that could possibly compete with a private corporation has succeeded too well.

mahyarm 10y ago

Are you sure it was to make an example or there was something unique / different about Austin that made both companies not want to provide business there?

csours 10y ago
It's my impression that they thought of Austin as an "innovation friendly" place and they were "offended" that Austin tried to regulate them.
enraged_camel 10y ago
Neither. It was to prevent establishing a legal precedent of being treated the same as taxi companies.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

Interesting that Uber and Lyft work together on political influence campaigns like this, given Uber's strategy of bleeding out Lyft through their VC subsidized capital advantage. I would think that just letting them both get shut out of a given city would be a win for Uber.

wavefunction 10y ago
They weren't "shut out" they were subjected to a popularly-enacted municipal ordinance requiring Austin-administered finger-printing of drivers and decided to stop providing service to Austin.