4 ms·

Why? These sorts of descriptions are incredibly useful for getting people to understand your value proposition. Just because you mention this doesn't mean you'r

by Niksko 7y ago

Why? These sorts of descriptions are incredibly useful for getting people to understand your value proposition. Just because you mention this doesn't mean you're going to adopt Uber or Facebook's moral code.

lightedman 7y ago
What's more accurate, saying "Delivery for X" or "Uber for X"? In almost every spiel I've heard as an "Uber for X" it has been a delivery service. The usage of a pre-existing company name is meant to mislead people into using their service. This has been a common practice for a long time, which is one of the myriad reasons why we have things like trademark laws to curb such language in advertising (in which a sales pitch counts as such.) I've been guilty of the same thing roughly 15 years ago. Once I realized the wrong I was actually committing, I stopped. I've got a strong sense of justice/fairness, and the usage of another company's name to hawk your similar yet wholly unrelated service rang wrong with me once I understood the history behind the laws.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  “Uber for XYZ” implies a hell of a lot more than “delivery for XYZ”. For example, it implies some kind of “everybody is a contractor” business model. People have been saying “the $brand of XYZ” forever and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with that at all.
andrepd 7y ago
>Uber or Facebook's moral code They are corporations, corporations don't have morals apart from "maximise profit".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  Uber repeatedly flouted bans and circumvented regulators.
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Arguably to everyone's benefit. It took Uber coming in and flouting those regulations to prove that the medallion laws and such were more about regulatory capture than safety, and as a bonus it provided a kick in the ass to the established players to start competing on serivce, if not price.
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      No. The rules around breaking the law are very clear. If you feel that a law is unjust, you can do an MLK and openly flout it and then take the consequences. If you think it's just unwise, you can lobby against it. You don't get to just break laws "because internet and libertarianism". That behavior should get you thrown in jail. On the specific question of medallions, medallions have the ostensible purpose of managing traffic congestion. Libertarians contend that this reasoning is just a cover for rent seeking by suppressing competition. Libertarians have been proven wrong by the huge increase in traffic in NYC as ride hailing congests the streets.
  - ddalex 7y ago
    People running Uber did. Uber is a magical entity that lives in the minds of people, it has no will on its own.
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      Thank you for this pertinent clarification.
      - ddalex 7y ago
        My point was actually that you can do an Uber for X without necessarily breaking the laws, the fact that Uber breaks the laws isn't invalidating the business model.
toomanybeersies 7y ago
In the specific case of "Facebook for X", it's because there's a company that exists to do exactly that, it's called Facebook. More generally if your business model is "X for Y", where X is an existing company, you've possibly a lazy and uninspired USP which can easily be copied and your only real selling point is having the first-movers advantage and hopefully enough capitalisation that you can lead the market before the competition. You're just copying a business model and applying it to a different market, it's often a solution in search for a problem. I could make an Uber for farriers (the people who put horseshoes on horses), but is there actually a need? Do horse owners currently have a problem finding farriers? And if they did, some other company could easily make a competing app, and if they had more capital and resources could easily crush Horse-Shuber.

by Niksko 7y ago

lightedman 7y ago

What's more accurate, saying "Delivery for X" or "Uber for X"? In almost every spiel I've heard as an "Uber for X" it has been a delivery service. The usage of a pre-existing company name is meant to mislead people into using their service. This has been a common practice for a long time, which is one of the myriad reasons why we have things like trademark laws to curb such language in advertising (in which a sales pitch counts as such.) I've been guilty of the same thing roughly 15 years ago. Once I realized the wrong I was actually committing, I stopped. I've got a strong sense of justice/fairness, and the usage of another company's name to hawk your similar yet wholly unrelated service rang wrong with me once I understood the history behind the laws.

spookthesunset 7y ago
“Uber for XYZ” implies a hell of a lot more than “delivery for XYZ”. For example, it implies some kind of “everybody is a contractor” business model. People have been saying “the $brand of XYZ” forever and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with that at all.

andrepd 7y ago

>Uber or Facebook's moral code They are corporations, corporations don't have morals apart from "maximise profit".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
earthboundkid 7y ago
Uber repeatedly flouted bans and circumvented regulators.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  Arguably to everyone's benefit. It took Uber coming in and flouting those regulations to prove that the medallion laws and such were more about regulatory capture than safety, and as a bonus it provided a kick in the ass to the established players to start competing on serivce, if not price.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    No. The rules around breaking the law are very clear. If you feel that a law is unjust, you can do an MLK and openly flout it and then take the consequences. If you think it's just unwise, you can lobby against it. You don't get to just break laws "because internet and libertarianism". That behavior should get you thrown in jail. On the specific question of medallions, medallions have the ostensible purpose of managing traffic congestion. Libertarians contend that this reasoning is just a cover for rent seeking by suppressing competition. Libertarians have been proven wrong by the huge increase in traffic in NYC as ride hailing congests the streets.
- ddalex 7y ago
  People running Uber did. Uber is a magical entity that lives in the minds of people, it has no will on its own.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    Thank you for this pertinent clarification.
    - ddalex 7y ago
      My point was actually that you can do an Uber for X without necessarily breaking the laws, the fact that Uber breaks the laws isn't invalidating the business model.

toomanybeersies 7y ago

In the specific case of "Facebook for X", it's because there's a company that exists to do exactly that, it's called Facebook. More generally if your business model is "X for Y", where X is an existing company, you've possibly a lazy and uninspired USP which can easily be copied and your only real selling point is having the first-movers advantage and hopefully enough capitalisation that you can lead the market before the competition. You're just copying a business model and applying it to a different market, it's often a solution in search for a problem. I could make an Uber for farriers (the people who put horseshoes on horses), but is there actually a need? Do horse owners currently have a problem finding farriers? And if they did, some other company could easily make a competing app, and if they had more capital and resources could easily crush Horse-Shuber.