9 ms·

As a regular HN reader the number one thing I've learned about business from the comments people post here is that every business is so nuanced that applying sw

As a regular HN reader the number one thing I've learned about business from the comments people post here is that every business is so nuanced that applying sweeping generalisations without any domain knowledge is ultimately pointless. HN has so many smart, knowledgeable and experienced people in every business you can imagine that you should take the opportunity to learn why Boston Cab Dispatch are doing this. Furthermore the issue Boston Cab Dispatch has (as explained in the article) is not that Uber has an app, it's that Uber is breaking cab regulations that Boston Cab Dispatch must abide by if they want to continue to operate. Barenholtz pointed out that Boston Cab also has a smart phone app, but nevertheless has to comply with industry regulations.

didgeoridoo 14y ago
If those regulations actually protected riders and cabbies instead of entrenched cab company profits, don't you think Uber would have folded by now under the weight of consumer complaints? By giving the rules a run-around, Uber has done a great job of proving the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of those rules in the first place.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  Taxis have existed for more than half a century, the current regulations are built around the current model and are the culmination of over 50 years of knowledge, to discount the value of those regulations because a new company is having success by ignoring them is a mistake, just like it's a mistake for the regulations to not be revisited in light of the options new technology is creating. What Uber is doing is interesting but there are real problems that need to be addressed, labelling every opponent in the business as "idiots" ignores the problems. Let's say hypothetically Uber becomes the biggest source of taxis in Boston, they drive out the incumbent "idiot" companies[1] that can't compete with the service Uber provides and then once Uber has an 80% market share they decide to increase their prices 50%? They decide to ban rides of less than 1 mile because that is hurting their bottom line? They decide that if you want to ride in an Uber cab you need to provide ID and have your fingerprints taken in case of crime? If they're a company built around ignoring regulations and have effectively killed all alternatives, then what? People can't just boycott Uber, because they have no other choices. The current taxi companies cannot compete with Uber; if they try to they will lose their licenses to operate and they're not big enough to swallow the losses and evolve into an Uber alternative... by ignoring regulations Uber is making it impossible for anyone to compete. The regulations now are not perfect, as many articles have explained there are problems with them (such as restricted licensing to operate, huge start up costs...) but just ignoring them is not the solution. As others have pointed out in this thread, there are ways to innovate within the taxi business while respecting the regulations and there are businesses doing that now, if Uber wants to genuinely protect consumer interests in the long term they should be pushing for the regulations to be addressed; not ignoring them and putting consumers at risk in the long term. [1] Companies that have identified the regulations as not being perfect.
  - allenp 14y ago
    I agree about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however what prevents other Uber-like competitors from popping up to compete with the evil-Uber you describe? How do you capture the market in taxi rides in an unregulated market? It isn't like a telecom where there is only so much physical infrastructure.
  - dpatru 14y ago
    The regulations are not there to protect consumers. They are there to protect the existing cab companies from competition. It is instructive to note that it is not the consumers who are suing Uber, it is the cab companies.
    - intended 14y ago
      Yes, it very likely that the regulations have worked great so far and that the customers have gotten used to its benefits and accept the status quo as a given natural state of nature. Its very unlikely that customers will complain if a law isn't framed and they are enjoying a benefit. Customers will complain later though, once something goes wrong.
  - nawitus 14y ago
    You can have a general law against monopolies (or near monopolies), e.g. if a company gets 80% of the market share, then the company is regulated. You don't need to proactively use regulation to prevent that from happening, because the chances are that the regulation is not necessary and factually speaking decreases competition.

didgeoridoo 14y ago

If those regulations actually protected riders and cabbies instead of entrenched cab company profits, don't you think Uber would have folded by now under the weight of consumer complaints? By giving the rules a run-around, Uber has done a great job of proving the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of those rules in the first place.

citricsquid 14y ago
Taxis have existed for more than half a century, the current regulations are built around the current model and are the culmination of over 50 years of knowledge, to discount the value of those regulations because a new company is having success by ignoring them is a mistake, just like it's a mistake for the regulations to not be revisited in light of the options new technology is creating. What Uber is doing is interesting but there are real problems that need to be addressed, labelling every opponent in the business as "idiots" ignores the problems. Let's say hypothetically Uber becomes the biggest source of taxis in Boston, they drive out the incumbent "idiot" companies[1] that can't compete with the service Uber provides and then once Uber has an 80% market share they decide to increase their prices 50%? They decide to ban rides of less than 1 mile because that is hurting their bottom line? They decide that if you want to ride in an Uber cab you need to provide ID and have your fingerprints taken in case of crime? If they're a company built around ignoring regulations and have effectively killed all alternatives, then what? People can't just boycott Uber, because they have no other choices. The current taxi companies cannot compete with Uber; if they try to they will lose their licenses to operate and they're not big enough to swallow the losses and evolve into an Uber alternative... by ignoring regulations Uber is making it impossible for anyone to compete. The regulations now are not perfect, as many articles have explained there are problems with them (such as restricted licensing to operate, huge start up costs...) but just ignoring them is not the solution. As others have pointed out in this thread, there are ways to innovate within the taxi business while respecting the regulations and there are businesses doing that now, if Uber wants to genuinely protect consumer interests in the long term they should be pushing for the regulations to be addressed; not ignoring them and putting consumers at risk in the long term. [1] Companies that have identified the regulations as not being perfect.
- allenp 14y ago
  I agree about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however what prevents other Uber-like competitors from popping up to compete with the evil-Uber you describe? How do you capture the market in taxi rides in an unregulated market? It isn't like a telecom where there is only so much physical infrastructure.
- dpatru 14y ago
  The regulations are not there to protect consumers. They are there to protect the existing cab companies from competition. It is instructive to note that it is not the consumers who are suing Uber, it is the cab companies.
  - intended 14y ago
    Yes, it very likely that the regulations have worked great so far and that the customers have gotten used to its benefits and accept the status quo as a given natural state of nature. Its very unlikely that customers will complain if a law isn't framed and they are enjoying a benefit. Customers will complain later though, once something goes wrong.
- nawitus 14y ago
  You can have a general law against monopolies (or near monopolies), e.g. if a company gets 80% of the market share, then the company is regulated. You don't need to proactively use regulation to prevent that from happening, because the chances are that the regulation is not necessary and factually speaking decreases competition.