6 ms·

curious to see what you think about the government's reluctance to adapt though. south korea is one of the few developed countries where UberX still can't opera

curious to see what you think about the government's reluctance to adapt though. south korea is one of the few developed countries where UberX still can't operate, and a similar Korean rideshare company (Tada) was forced to pivot after taxi drivers protested. on the topic of mobility: e-scooter businesses are also now at risk technically you need a literal drivers license to ride one since November...

neom 6y ago
They "adapt" just fine, actually changing regulation to block foreign companies is them adapting. it seems to work pretty well, Uber isn't in the Chaebol so why should uber operate? It provides no value to further the ecosystem in SK. It's much easier for kakao to watch how other companies do it and simply copy it. SK is more similar to China in that regard, and it's probably to their favour. As of December 10th, scooters got reclassified to bikes, so now you just need to be over 10 and you do not require a drivers license. People of all ages use Lime in Seoul, there is no verification.
- tooltalk 6y ago
  >>They "adapt" just fine, actually changing regulation to block foreign companies is them adapting. Can you give an example of "blocking" foreign companies? My understanding is that under recent trade agreement with America, for instance, American import cars are exempt from South Korean's regulation and don't even have to satisfy Korea's local safety standard. There are also similar arrangements with EU and Japan. Also due to the country's lax product liability laws that often favor business than consumers, a lot of domestic, foreign car makers have been getting away with defects that would have certainly raised ire elsewhere. The share of imported cars likewise has been increasing quite a bit: in 2019, there were 1.5M new passenger car registrations in South Korea; 250K were imports -- mostly Germans though -- or about 16% of all registered cars. The share of foreign companies' cars almost tripled in 10 years. >> It's much easier for kakao to watch how other companies do it and simply copy it. SK is more similar to China in that regard ... Uber isn't in the Chaebol so why should uber operate?... I don't think I could agree with this either. Both Uber and other domestic ride hailing services, most notably Kakao and Tada, faced significant pushback from taxi drivers. Tada as mentioned by @albertshin was forced to shutdown after the National assembly essentially made it illegal after such pushback from organized labor unions and the taxi industry: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3076144/south-korea-ride-hailing-apps-face-against-powerful-taxi-unions https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3076144/sou... Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the militant labor movement in SK, but I don't there is hardly anything equivalent to this elsewhere in China.
  - neom 6y ago
    Kakao Taxi can operate because it's app hails cabs that are not owned by kakao, they are independently owned cabs. Tata was shut down because it owned the cabs and the app. Uber has faced extreme regulatory issues in Seoul and SK generally yet operated under the Kakao T model.
    - tooltalk 6y ago
      Tada's business model was challenged in court, but they won. After Tada's legal victory, the National assembly under pressure from the taxi industry changed the law to essentially kill the "domestic" company -- under the new law, Tada was only allowed to serve tourists and the pick-up's and drop-off's limited to airports / seaports. Sure, Uber was the first to arrive in the SK market and it immediately faced fierce pushback from the taxi union and regulators. South Korea's transport law does not allow private vehicles for commercial purposes, but it makes an exception for "car pool." Uber was declared illegal because it used private vehicles for commercial purppose and the company subsequently pulled out in 2015. Kakao launched the following year, but avoided Uber's misfortune by using registered taxis only. It appeased the taxi union, but it also meant that the company couldn't make any money and it is probably not the best example of the "shared economy" business model promoted by Uber. South Korea's "domestic" companies like Tada and Kakao tried to enter carpool business afterward, but, after no fewer than 3 taxi driver suicides in protest, two in horrific self-immolation, and the gov't intervention, Tada was forced to close their shop this year; Kaokao's capool service is limited to only 4hr/day and during rush hours on weekdays. That is not what Uber would have pursued in SK. I don't think Uber's failure in SK is good evidence to prove your case as many domestic companies, big or small, suffered similar legal troubles and fierce resistance from the taxi industry. I'd generally agree that SK doesn't have the best business climate, but I just don't see where it is necessarily hostile to foreign companies, or where "domestic" companies are favored over foreign competitors; or where all they do is to copy foreign companies similiar to China.

neom 6y ago

They "adapt" just fine, actually changing regulation to block foreign companies is them adapting. it seems to work pretty well, Uber isn't in the Chaebol so why should uber operate? It provides no value to further the ecosystem in SK. It's much easier for kakao to watch how other companies do it and simply copy it. SK is more similar to China in that regard, and it's probably to their favour. As of December 10th, scooters got reclassified to bikes, so now you just need to be over 10 and you do not require a drivers license. People of all ages use Lime in Seoul, there is no verification.

tooltalk 6y ago
>>They "adapt" just fine, actually changing regulation to block foreign companies is them adapting. Can you give an example of "blocking" foreign companies? My understanding is that under recent trade agreement with America, for instance, American import cars are exempt from South Korean's regulation and don't even have to satisfy Korea's local safety standard. There are also similar arrangements with EU and Japan. Also due to the country's lax product liability laws that often favor business than consumers, a lot of domestic, foreign car makers have been getting away with defects that would have certainly raised ire elsewhere. The share of imported cars likewise has been increasing quite a bit: in 2019, there were 1.5M new passenger car registrations in South Korea; 250K were imports -- mostly Germans though -- or about 16% of all registered cars. The share of foreign companies' cars almost tripled in 10 years. >> It's much easier for kakao to watch how other companies do it and simply copy it. SK is more similar to China in that regard ... Uber isn't in the Chaebol so why should uber operate?... I don't think I could agree with this either. Both Uber and other domestic ride hailing services, most notably Kakao and Tada, faced significant pushback from taxi drivers. Tada as mentioned by @albertshin was forced to shutdown after the National assembly essentially made it illegal after such pushback from organized labor unions and the taxi industry: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3076144/south-korea-ride-hailing-apps-face-against-powerful-taxi-unions https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3076144/sou... Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the militant labor movement in SK, but I don't there is hardly anything equivalent to this elsewhere in China.
- neom 6y ago
  Kakao Taxi can operate because it's app hails cabs that are not owned by kakao, they are independently owned cabs. Tata was shut down because it owned the cabs and the app. Uber has faced extreme regulatory issues in Seoul and SK generally yet operated under the Kakao T model.
  - tooltalk 6y ago
    Tada's business model was challenged in court, but they won. After Tada's legal victory, the National assembly under pressure from the taxi industry changed the law to essentially kill the "domestic" company -- under the new law, Tada was only allowed to serve tourists and the pick-up's and drop-off's limited to airports / seaports. Sure, Uber was the first to arrive in the SK market and it immediately faced fierce pushback from the taxi union and regulators. South Korea's transport law does not allow private vehicles for commercial purposes, but it makes an exception for "car pool." Uber was declared illegal because it used private vehicles for commercial purppose and the company subsequently pulled out in 2015. Kakao launched the following year, but avoided Uber's misfortune by using registered taxis only. It appeased the taxi union, but it also meant that the company couldn't make any money and it is probably not the best example of the "shared economy" business model promoted by Uber. South Korea's "domestic" companies like Tada and Kakao tried to enter carpool business afterward, but, after no fewer than 3 taxi driver suicides in protest, two in horrific self-immolation, and the gov't intervention, Tada was forced to close their shop this year; Kaokao's capool service is limited to only 4hr/day and during rush hours on weekdays. That is not what Uber would have pursued in SK. I don't think Uber's failure in SK is good evidence to prove your case as many domestic companies, big or small, suffered similar legal troubles and fierce resistance from the taxi industry. I'd generally agree that SK doesn't have the best business climate, but I just don't see where it is necessarily hostile to foreign companies, or where "domestic" companies are favored over foreign competitors; or where all they do is to copy foreign companies similiar to China.