4 ms·

Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem, but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not Uber. If NYC got rid of their antiquated la

Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem, but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not Uber. If NYC got rid of their antiquated laws, this would be a non-issue, and, rides would likely be cheaper and easier to obtain. Not to mention you really don't want big names like Uber/Lyft to be the only players that can enter the game because they have the resources to enter a complex regulatory market.

tivert 2y ago
> Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem, but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not Uber. If NYC got rid of their antiquated laws, this would be a non-issue, and, rides would likely be cheaper and easier to obtain. No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to Uber's model. The problem is the fault of Uber. > Not to mention you really don't want big names like Uber/Lyft to be the only players that can enter the game because they have the resources to enter a complex regulatory market. It sounds the additional tech required to "enter a complex regulatory market" is a boolean flag.
- gruez 2y ago
  >No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to Uber's model. >The problem is the fault of Uber. Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass? I'm not claiming that, but I agree it is an Uber problem. Uber chose to enter this market knowing the rules in advance. They didn't petition the system to get an exception to operate as they wanted, they just "disrupted" and did what they wanted operating under the ask for forgiveness not permission mindset. If you're not going to play by the rules, you don't get to cry to your mummy about the rules being unfair.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >I'm not claiming that, but I agree it is an Uber problem. Uber chose to enter this market knowing the rules in advance. but the law in question (ie. the one mandating minimum pay for workers) were passed in 2023, well after they entered the market? Moreover, despite all the vague gesturing that they broke some sort of existing law, I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits against them[1]. At best you could argue that the broke the spirit of the regulations. [1] from wikipedia: Taxi companies sued Uber in numerous American cities, alleging that Uber's policy of violating taxi regulations was a form of unfair competition or a violation of antitrust law.[80] Although some courts did find that Uber intentionally violated the taxi rules, Uber prevailed in every case, including the only case to proceed to trial.[81]

tivert 2y ago

> Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem, but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not Uber. If NYC got rid of their antiquated laws, this would be a non-issue, and, rides would likely be cheaper and easier to obtain. No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to Uber's model. The problem is the fault of Uber. > Not to mention you really don't want big names like Uber/Lyft to be the only players that can enter the game because they have the resources to enter a complex regulatory market. It sounds the additional tech required to "enter a complex regulatory market" is a boolean flag.

gruez 2y ago
>No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to Uber's model. >The problem is the fault of Uber. Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass?
- dylan604 2y ago
  > Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass? I'm not claiming that, but I agree it is an Uber problem. Uber chose to enter this market knowing the rules in advance. They didn't petition the system to get an exception to operate as they wanted, they just "disrupted" and did what they wanted operating under the ask for forgiveness not permission mindset. If you're not going to play by the rules, you don't get to cry to your mummy about the rules being unfair.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >I'm not claiming that, but I agree it is an Uber problem. Uber chose to enter this market knowing the rules in advance. but the law in question (ie. the one mandating minimum pay for workers) were passed in 2023, well after they entered the market? Moreover, despite all the vague gesturing that they broke some sort of existing law, I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits against them[1]. At best you could argue that the broke the spirit of the regulations. [1] from wikipedia: Taxi companies sued Uber in numerous American cities, alleging that Uber's policy of violating taxi regulations was a form of unfair competition or a violation of antitrust law.[80] Although some courts did find that Uber intentionally violated the taxi rules, Uber prevailed in every case, including the only case to proceed to trial.[81]