3 ms·
> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sid
by chx 6y ago
> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides.
Uber is a mess.
It clearly needs to be a franchise.
You have Mother Uber that develops the app and sells the franchise and Uber SF, Uber LA, Uber Seattle etc that hires the drivers. It's utterly unclear to me what efficiencies can be found for having one company doing all that.
- SrslyJosh 6y ago> It clearly needs to be a franchise. Think bigger. Why should transportation infrastructure (which is a public good) be controlled by a private, for-profit corporation?
- brianwawok 6y agoBecause that’s how innovation happens in the US? How are passengers trains innovating over the past 60 years?
- SrslyJosh 6y agoYes, the US sucks at investing in public infrastructure, especially transit. Obviously we should do nothing to try to change that. =)
- TheColorYellow 6y agoNot the GP, but what would you suggest is a realistic alternative in the current state? Reforming public institutions to more effectively build public transportation infrastructure seems to be incredibly difficult. Local institutions seem to have maxed out their ability to improve beyond what exists. So why not let the private market innovate and improve? If the public institutions where smarter they'd be taking advantage of these innovations the same way as has happened in reverse when public institutions have had success with innovation.
- cycomanic 6y agoWell one alternative is to not vote for parties which have a history of gutting government services to make them unviable and then saying "look here this must be run private" giving private companies a license to print money by offering less service for more money. Just look at what is happening with the USPS right now.