5 ms·

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then yo

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instead of suing. The last time I got a taxi it was $80 for a 10km trip that's $32 on Uber. If they weren't so terrible then Uber would have never had an in on the market in the first place.

mvdtnz 3y ago
Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them. > "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
    - protocolture 3y ago
      >They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
      - mvdtnz 3y ago
        Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
        theshackleford 3y ago
        > Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
        NoPicklez 3y ago
        Exactly. Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming. Just the basics they never had
        protocolture 3y ago
        They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.
  - weq 3y ago
    The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol. This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.
    - protocolture 3y ago
      Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players. Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place. Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse. >If a regular joe did that he would gaol. Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.
      - mvdtnz 3y ago
        You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The law of the land is, in fact, very relevant in a lawsuit.
        protocolture 3y ago
        Its a thought terminating cliche. A law being a law doesnt end an argument. If the law shouldn't be, we are permitted to continue thinking towards its removal.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
EarthMephit 3y ago
At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them). If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  >If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations? Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last? Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?
    - abigail95 3y ago
      if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums. those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
    - protocolture 3y ago
      Just the ones designed to protect cabcharges monopoly.
    - lannisterstark 3y ago
      Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages." You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
    - 3y ago
zeofig 3y ago
They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.
- protocolture 3y ago
  >They broke the law. Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it. >Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices. >the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC. Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.
  - zeofig 3y ago
    >Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it. I disagree that they had a moral imperative to break it. But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them while claiming the moral highground. >And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices. Is there any successful rideshare company without similar financial practices? I admit I don't know much about any of them other than Uber. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm glad to hear that uber isn't seeking a monopoly. >Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it. Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the take
    - protocolture 3y ago
      The biggest issue with Ubers financial practices (other than, not having much money) is that in the US they can also provide car finance, and can take the car payments directly from the trip payment. Its got a whiff of the company store about it. As far as I am aware none of their competitors do this anywhere. Considering the low value proposition of the Uber app, I am relatively surprised that theres no strong open source competitor with a very modest sum going to maintain the app. Such a hypothetical competitor would now also be allowed after ubers entrance.
whiterknight 3y ago
Yep and government can continue to squeeze because their options are leave (immediately replaced with competitor apps) or give them their cut.

mvdtnz 3y ago

Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them. > "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.

NoPicklez 3y ago
I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
  - protocolture 3y ago
    >They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
      - theshackleford 3y ago
        > Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
        NoPicklez 3y ago
        Exactly. Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming. Just the basics they never had
      - protocolture 3y ago
        They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.
- weq 3y ago
  The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol. This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.
  - protocolture 3y ago
    Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players. Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place. Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse. >If a regular joe did that he would gaol. Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The law of the land is, in fact, very relevant in a lawsuit.
      - protocolture 3y ago
        Its a thought terminating cliche. A law being a law doesnt end an argument. If the law shouldn't be, we are permitted to continue thinking towards its removal.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

EarthMephit 3y ago

At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them). If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

lannisterstark 3y ago
>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations? Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last? Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?
  - abigail95 3y ago
    if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums. those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
  - protocolture 3y ago
    Just the ones designed to protect cabcharges monopoly.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages." You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
  - 3y ago

zeofig 3y ago

They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.

protocolture 3y ago
>They broke the law. Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it. >Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices. >the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC. Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.
- zeofig 3y ago
  >Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it. I disagree that they had a moral imperative to break it. But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them while claiming the moral highground. >And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices. Is there any successful rideshare company without similar financial practices? I admit I don't know much about any of them other than Uber. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm glad to hear that uber isn't seeking a monopoly. >Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it. Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the take
  - protocolture 3y ago
    The biggest issue with Ubers financial practices (other than, not having much money) is that in the US they can also provide car finance, and can take the car payments directly from the trip payment. Its got a whiff of the company store about it. As far as I am aware none of their competitors do this anywhere. Considering the low value proposition of the Uber app, I am relatively surprised that theres no strong open source competitor with a very modest sum going to maintain the app. Such a hypothetical competitor would now also be allowed after ubers entrance.

whiterknight 3y ago

Yep and government can continue to squeeze because their options are leave (immediately replaced with competitor apps) or give them their cut.