4 ms·

The jobs weren't decent before. Cabbies were underpayed independent contractors who had to pay to work, by renting medallions from people like Gene Freidman (NY

The jobs weren't decent before. Cabbies were underpayed independent contractors who had to pay to work, by renting medallions from people like Gene Freidman (NYC's "Taxi King", now under prosecution). Many reports of the lives of cab drivers, much too old to be PR submarines for Uber, tell the story: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-d... Uber is not a good company, and I'm hoping they go away now that we have competitors. But this idea that they ruined the working conditions of drivers is just propaganda.

iamben 7y ago
The problem with competition is the fracturing in the market. It's just as painful to install 6 taxi apps as it was to call 6 taxi companies and see when they could get you a ride. More so, it's really frustrating when the drivers are running 2 (or more) apps and it says "will be with you in 2 minutes" when they're clearly finishing a job on another platform. What it needs is an open source system that stitches them all together, but let's the drivers choose whatever company they want. I use one app, every company has the chance to make money, drivers go with what works for them. But I think that's about as realistically as me only needing one subscription to watch all the TV and film I actually want to see.
- polskibus 7y ago
  There should be just one public transport world-wide app to which local regulators can plugin their markets. Just like there is a global banking system, which allows people to send money across borders.
  - iamben 7y ago
    I don't mind many apps - perhaps that's even a good thing, I can choose the one with the UX that works best for me - but they all need to work from the same system. The app I use has a chance to get any taxi from all the connected systems.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      There should be many apps, and there should be many services, and apps and services should be separate markets. This way you could choose the UX that works for you and use it to consume services you want. IMO, a situation in which you're e.g. forced to use Uber only through Uber's app should not be allowed.
      - iamben 7y ago
        Yes, exactly this. I'd like the same with TV and film as well!
      - 18pfsmt 7y ago
        One thing I've noticed over the years, is your propensity toward forcing other people toward your preference using the government. You are welcome to that view in your country (i.e. European), but that is so anti-American and illiberal that it's simplly not a universal truth. All countries do not need to operate in the same command-and-control way. We need diversity in governance. The USA is not some 'blood and soil' country with a history of aristocracy. We subsidize the national defense and drug R&D costs of your entire continent. Freedom lovers of all ethnicities recognize America's unique nature as the sole proponent of freedom, and they flock here.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > One thing I've noticed over the years, is your propensity toward forcing other people toward your preference using the government. In my defense, it does not come from some innate desire to boss people around. The reason I mention governments often is simple: in a problem of prisonner's dilemma nature (so-called "coordination problem"), where a bunch of actors make rational decisions in their short-term interest at the detriment of everyone's long-term interest, the only way to force coordination and realize the long-term benefits is to have an external party enforcing the coordination, by penalizing the choice of short-term benefits. You'll observe that a lot of problems in the society have this nature, and usually the solution is government or other body that can set the rules recognized by all involved parties (and dispense punishments for breaking them). This is the classical solution to prisonner's dilemma (a mob boss punishing snitches), overfishing (regulatory body dispensing quotas), etc. It's not about what's European or American. It's about effective solutions to problems. In our times, we know enough about the dynamics of people interacting with each other at scale to recognize some common failure modes, like coordination problems, and ways to solve them.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    We've got SWIFT, SEPA, CIPS, whatever Iran ends up using, whatever Russia may come up with (extended NSPK?), WorldRemit, ... It's not all great and unified yet.
    - polskibus 7y ago
      If there was a public transport system with SWIFT coverage, I believe most ppl would be happy. Part of the fragmentation comes from sanctions - this would affect any international system, either established by a company or an international regulation. Getting banned from several such systems is a good reason to play by the rules and not get sanctions.
- nradov 7y ago
  6 taxi apps are actually far easier and more reliable than 6 phone calls.
  - iamben 7y ago
    Sure, and one is far easier than six.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > What it needs is an open source system that stitches them all together, but let's the drivers choose whatever company they want. I use one app, every company has the chance to make money, drivers go with what works for them. This is a general problem - for taxis, public transportation services, ordering food, e-commerce, movie streaming services, etc. Companies fracture the market on purpose, in hopes of exploiting the inconvenience of managing multiple service subscriptions or accounts. What we need is some pressure[0] to force companies to relinquish the user interface. In a perfect world, all these services would be consuming API calls, and would be independent of the actual means users use to place orders. There should be a separate market for services, and a separate market for interfaces to those services. -- [0] - which probably would have to be regulatory, since it goes against the short-term interest of any company.
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    Do you remember what Google did to Yahoo!? Using the government is an authoritarian way to achieve your goals. It's fascist by definition. It is very disturbing to read stuff like this. Patience is a virtue; I'm sorry free enterprise (and liberty, in general) is not fast enough for you. The ends do not justify the means, no matter how great your intentions.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > It is very disturbing to read stuff like this. Like what? Like the footnote about pressure likely needing to be regulatory, because there's literally no way the market will do the right thing on its own? > Patience is a virtue; I'm sorry free enterprise (and liberty, in general) is not fast enough for you. It's more that it never happens when it should. Proper balance is achieved - if at all - when a piece of technology becomes boring so commercial entities don't care, because they're busy balkanizing a newer technology. So yes, it takes too long, human lives are too short, and I'd like the world to move to the point where new technologies aren't kept in perpetual state of sucking until they're bled dry of profits. > The ends do not justify the means, no matter how great your intentions. Come on, we're not talking about killing people here, just about discouraging greedy behaviour. Also, what you consider "fascist" I'd consider leveling the playing field and allowing smaller actors to participate. At the very least, I'd like to see legal protections around IP and terms of service weakened, to promote what EFF calls "adversarial interoperability".
blunte 7y ago
Uber didn't fix life for drivers; they just changed it. It is still a relatively low paying, sucky job. The only thing Uber did that is worth admiring is fixing the "get a ride" situation. Skirting regulation is not ok if you believe in rule of law. If the law is bad, then money can be spent to improve that law. Uber's approach (and Airbnb's, for a long time) just shifts problems around. Yes, there are some benefits for some people for some time, but it is not the way society and civilization should behave. Microsoft did this for years in the 90s. They would steal technology and then pay the occasional pittance of court judgement to the rightful owners. meanwhile, they gained dominance by some degree of theft. All these companies are just proving that laws don't matter if you have enough money. That kind of system is, as we say, unsustainable. If left to continue its course, it will result in some of the tech-dystopian societies which make for fascinating dark books and movies.
- ralfd 7y ago
  > Skirting regulation is not ok if you believe in rule of law. If the law is bad, then money can be spent to improve that law. I don’t want to snark on that idealism, but it is noteworthy that this didn’t happen. Instead everyone suffered in silence about horrible taxi systems until Uber changed everything.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > I don’t want to snark on that idealism, but it is noteworthy that this didn’t happen. In some places in the US. And whatever improvements happened, were only side effects. The problem with Uber is that they applied the same disregard for law to every market they entered; it was never about improving things, it was about anticompetitive behavior sustained by investor money and moving fast enough to stay inside local regulators' OODA loops.
- nradov 7y ago
  Which technology did Microsoft steal?
  - blunte 7y ago

iamben 7y ago

The problem with competition is the fracturing in the market. It's just as painful to install 6 taxi apps as it was to call 6 taxi companies and see when they could get you a ride. More so, it's really frustrating when the drivers are running 2 (or more) apps and it says "will be with you in 2 minutes" when they're clearly finishing a job on another platform. What it needs is an open source system that stitches them all together, but let's the drivers choose whatever company they want. I use one app, every company has the chance to make money, drivers go with what works for them. But I think that's about as realistically as me only needing one subscription to watch all the TV and film I actually want to see.

polskibus 7y ago
There should be just one public transport world-wide app to which local regulators can plugin their markets. Just like there is a global banking system, which allows people to send money across borders.
- iamben 7y ago
  I don't mind many apps - perhaps that's even a good thing, I can choose the one with the UX that works best for me - but they all need to work from the same system. The app I use has a chance to get any taxi from all the connected systems.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    There should be many apps, and there should be many services, and apps and services should be separate markets. This way you could choose the UX that works for you and use it to consume services you want. IMO, a situation in which you're e.g. forced to use Uber only through Uber's app should not be allowed.
    - iamben 7y ago
      Yes, exactly this. I'd like the same with TV and film as well!
    - 18pfsmt 7y ago
      One thing I've noticed over the years, is your propensity toward forcing other people toward your preference using the government. You are welcome to that view in your country (i.e. European), but that is so anti-American and illiberal that it's simplly not a universal truth. All countries do not need to operate in the same command-and-control way. We need diversity in governance. The USA is not some 'blood and soil' country with a history of aristocracy. We subsidize the national defense and drug R&D costs of your entire continent. Freedom lovers of all ethnicities recognize America's unique nature as the sole proponent of freedom, and they flock here.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > One thing I've noticed over the years, is your propensity toward forcing other people toward your preference using the government. In my defense, it does not come from some innate desire to boss people around. The reason I mention governments often is simple: in a problem of prisonner's dilemma nature (so-called "coordination problem"), where a bunch of actors make rational decisions in their short-term interest at the detriment of everyone's long-term interest, the only way to force coordination and realize the long-term benefits is to have an external party enforcing the coordination, by penalizing the choice of short-term benefits. You'll observe that a lot of problems in the society have this nature, and usually the solution is government or other body that can set the rules recognized by all involved parties (and dispense punishments for breaking them). This is the classical solution to prisonner's dilemma (a mob boss punishing snitches), overfishing (regulatory body dispensing quotas), etc. It's not about what's European or American. It's about effective solutions to problems. In our times, we know enough about the dynamics of people interacting with each other at scale to recognize some common failure modes, like coordination problems, and ways to solve them.
- viraptor 7y ago
  We've got SWIFT, SEPA, CIPS, whatever Iran ends up using, whatever Russia may come up with (extended NSPK?), WorldRemit, ... It's not all great and unified yet.
  - polskibus 7y ago
    If there was a public transport system with SWIFT coverage, I believe most ppl would be happy. Part of the fragmentation comes from sanctions - this would affect any international system, either established by a company or an international regulation. Getting banned from several such systems is a good reason to play by the rules and not get sanctions.
nradov 7y ago
6 taxi apps are actually far easier and more reliable than 6 phone calls.
- iamben 7y ago
  Sure, and one is far easier than six.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> What it needs is an open source system that stitches them all together, but let's the drivers choose whatever company they want. I use one app, every company has the chance to make money, drivers go with what works for them. This is a general problem - for taxis, public transportation services, ordering food, e-commerce, movie streaming services, etc. Companies fracture the market on purpose, in hopes of exploiting the inconvenience of managing multiple service subscriptions or accounts. What we need is some pressure[0] to force companies to relinquish the user interface. In a perfect world, all these services would be consuming API calls, and would be independent of the actual means users use to place orders. There should be a separate market for services, and a separate market for interfaces to those services. -- [0] - which probably would have to be regulatory, since it goes against the short-term interest of any company.
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  Do you remember what Google did to Yahoo!? Using the government is an authoritarian way to achieve your goals. It's fascist by definition. It is very disturbing to read stuff like this. Patience is a virtue; I'm sorry free enterprise (and liberty, in general) is not fast enough for you. The ends do not justify the means, no matter how great your intentions.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > It is very disturbing to read stuff like this. Like what? Like the footnote about pressure likely needing to be regulatory, because there's literally no way the market will do the right thing on its own? > Patience is a virtue; I'm sorry free enterprise (and liberty, in general) is not fast enough for you. It's more that it never happens when it should. Proper balance is achieved - if at all - when a piece of technology becomes boring so commercial entities don't care, because they're busy balkanizing a newer technology. So yes, it takes too long, human lives are too short, and I'd like the world to move to the point where new technologies aren't kept in perpetual state of sucking until they're bled dry of profits. > The ends do not justify the means, no matter how great your intentions. Come on, we're not talking about killing people here, just about discouraging greedy behaviour. Also, what you consider "fascist" I'd consider leveling the playing field and allowing smaller actors to participate. At the very least, I'd like to see legal protections around IP and terms of service weakened, to promote what EFF calls "adversarial interoperability".

blunte 7y ago

Uber didn't fix life for drivers; they just changed it. It is still a relatively low paying, sucky job. The only thing Uber did that is worth admiring is fixing the "get a ride" situation. Skirting regulation is not ok if you believe in rule of law. If the law is bad, then money can be spent to improve that law. Uber's approach (and Airbnb's, for a long time) just shifts problems around. Yes, there are some benefits for some people for some time, but it is not the way society and civilization should behave. Microsoft did this for years in the 90s. They would steal technology and then pay the occasional pittance of court judgement to the rightful owners. meanwhile, they gained dominance by some degree of theft. All these companies are just proving that laws don't matter if you have enough money. That kind of system is, as we say, unsustainable. If left to continue its course, it will result in some of the tech-dystopian societies which make for fascinating dark books and movies.

ralfd 7y ago
> Skirting regulation is not ok if you believe in rule of law. If the law is bad, then money can be spent to improve that law. I don’t want to snark on that idealism, but it is noteworthy that this didn’t happen. Instead everyone suffered in silence about horrible taxi systems until Uber changed everything.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > I don’t want to snark on that idealism, but it is noteworthy that this didn’t happen. In some places in the US. And whatever improvements happened, were only side effects. The problem with Uber is that they applied the same disregard for law to every market they entered; it was never about improving things, it was about anticompetitive behavior sustained by investor money and moving fast enough to stay inside local regulators' OODA loops.
nradov 7y ago
Which technology did Microsoft steal?
- blunte 7y ago