16 ms·

Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

193 points by pathy 13y ago

andrewcooke 13y ago
this approach has worked well for uber in the usa. wonder if they've made a mistake by assuming that anti-govt sentiment in other countries is similar? or by simply copying the technique without thinking? but this is from a single english-language post. what is the rest of the local reaction like? [ah, see reply below - i missed "response was huge" (in the sense of support for uber)]
- _delirium 13y ago
  I suspect the angle of an Ayn-Rand-quoting American who sees himself as Galt won't play quite as well in Sweden, either...
  - Uchikoma 13y ago
    What I find funny - and I like a lot of Rand, though I've understood the books completely different as most Americans - is that many of the Americans that quote and evangelize Rand would be "parasites" in a Galt world, e.g. all the Republican politicians who never produced or created anything in the Galt sense and are paid by the state.
    - willurd 13y ago
      Let's be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of Democratic politicians who, also, have never produced anything and are paid by the state.
      - jhnala 13y ago
        That's besides the point because you don't see Democratic politicians promoting the Ayn Rand philosophy, unlike a large number of Republicans.
      - Uchikoma 13y ago
        Yes, and this is in which way relevant to the point?
  - mindjiver 13y ago
    There are strong libertarian strands in several swedish parties so there are some comrades in arms. Quoting Ayn Rand in parliament has happened. But even as a libertarian leaning swede I find myself quite annoyed by Uber. In the 1990s, IIRC, the taxi market was striktly regulated and finding taxis where a problem. Now in Stockholm there are many, many taxis all over the place so I personally don't get what problem Uber is really trying to solve here.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      The problem of how to cash higher in an IPO and be hailed by the media as the next next Zuckebergs.
- masklinn 13y ago
  TFA notes > The response was pretty huge. What surprised me was that people who are bright and often critical of sources jumped on the wagon without asking obvious questions: Since the original Uber post was in swedish and targeted at swedes, I expect it was local reaction.
- effn 13y ago
  The mistake was not researching local laws before entering a new market. It has nothing to do with anti-govt sentiment.
  - ankitml 13y ago
    The mistake(s) : Not researching local laws, not co-operating with govt when they come to know about the laws, and then not following a proper channel of communication if they thought its a dispute.
  - eli 13y ago
    Why do you assume they didn't know the local laws?
- matthiasl 13y ago
  I'm a local. This is the first time I've heard of Uber, so in a sense the PR has worked. Looking at the 20 or so comments (in Swedish) below Uber's original press release/blog entry (http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/25/transportstyrelsen-forsoker-stoppa-uber-i-stockholm-vi-behover-din-hjalp-nu/ http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/25/transportstyrelsen-forsoker-...), they're almost all opposed to part or all of Uber's post. The biggest non-tabloid newspaper, DN, hasn't mentioned Uber at all. The next biggest, SvD, hasn't mentioned the current spat, but had an interview (a month ago) with Simon Breakwell from Uber. Choice quote: Reporter: You've encountered resistance from taxi companies in some cities. Simon: Right, but that's mostly in the USA. Before we enter a new market, we conduct a thorough investigation into the local rules and regulations to avoid nasty surprises. We've never encountered resistance based on Uber itself being illegal. (Source: http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/handel-och-tjanster/han-vill-ta-lyxtaxin-till-alla-storstader_8003774.svd http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/handel-och-tjanster/h... I translated it by hand.)
  - ewalk153 13y ago
    I know for a fact that Uber has encountered resistance in Paris for not complying with local transportation-for-hire laws.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  Just based on this blog post it appears to have done well. He (?) starts off discussing that people seem to have believed and rallied around the Uber story without applying any critical thinking. So I'm guessing it did resonate.
derefr 13y ago
I find it odd that Uber is constantly fighting various countries' laws to be considered "a taxi service, but not a taxi service", when they could just change their business model a tiny bit and fall straight into the middle of the "limousine service" classification. Why not charge just-time instead of time+distance? Would it screw over the drivers?
- ubersync 13y ago
  Exactly, they have to obey the law of the land. If the limousines in Sweden are supposed to charge by time, then do that. Change your app to charge by time in that particular country.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    It's not really about limo v not limo, it's really the other way around: you can charge either for time only or for time + distance, if you charge for time + distance you need a tamper-proof meter. Time-based is mostly used by limousine services and time+distance for "regular" taxis for obvious reasons (a limo tends to be rented for a long time but not to move far, the opposite is true of regular taxis) but nothing prevents a limo service from charging for time+distance (besides looking cheap) and nothing prevents "regular" cabs from charging for time only.
- kmfrk 13y ago
  Maybe they saw the manufactured outrage as a good PR opportunity. That only lasts so long, until people get tired of it and start looking into the details, of course.
  - untog 13y ago
    This definitely seems to have been Uber's tactic since the day they launched. In SF it worked because the taxi industry is an unholy mess, but that isn't replicable everywhere.
- dantheman 13y ago
  Why not work to change the law since it doesn't make sense? What's the point of keeping it?
ubersync 13y ago
I was on Uber's side for a long time initially. But with what's have been going on in the past few months, I am more than willing to believe the author. Especially after that protest by some drivers, outside their office in SF. "It was only a handful of drivers", you might argue. But the fact that none of the company officials came down to listen to them, just points out their "we don't give a fuck" attitude. And it is this arrogance, that brings down corporates and even empires.
- jfoster 13y ago
  I don't think their failure to attend the protest was necessarily "we don't give a fuck." If only for self preservation reasons they almost certainly do care. They likely didn't attend because they didn't want to increase the likelihood of the protest becoming a larger story on the media. They're much better off only engaging drivers in private meetings.
  - ubersync 13y ago
    Having been part of student protests in the past, I believe this is one of the worst ways to handle a protest.
    - jfoster 13y ago
      I agree that it's imperfect, but what's the alternative? How would you envisage that alternative playing out for each of the parties?
oleganza 13y ago
Some quotes from the article: "The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your services." "You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market." "You do need a permit to have a taxi service." "The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on unfair grounds" Notice some contradictions here? Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair, but then admits there is regulation and legal requirements (that cost real money). If you want to make a nice private taxi service with 2x lower prices, you cannot because you have to pay local government for all licenses and whatever taximeter they provide you, not the one you design for your own company and your customers' safety. When talking about "unfair advantage", author makes presupposition that existing regulations and licensing are "fair". Well, that needs to be proven. Saying "somebody voted for it in a democracy" is not a proof, sorry. Try that with a scientific study: "scientists voted that P != NP with 58% majority".
- ubersync 13y ago
  >whatever taximeter they provide you The author mentions that Uber could have tried to get their App approved as a taximeter, but they did not even try. > Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair, but then admits there is regulation Getting a license is not a "regulation". What the author means is, that the prices are not regulated and the taxis are free to charge whatever they want. So Uber can offer their service at any price, without being forced to a minimum or a maximum.
- effn 13y ago
  > you cannot because you have to pay local government for all licenses and whatever taximeter they provide you, not the one you design for your own company and your customers' safety. The reason you can't provide a service with 2x lower prices is that you would make a huge loss doing that, and it has nothing to do with regulations. You are allowed to design your own taximeters btw. And the regulation is "fair" in the sense that it applies equally to all companies (note that Uber is trying to get exepmtion from a rule that their competitors comply with).
- claudius 13y ago
  The market is unregulated in that each driver is free to set their price, as compared to other places where there is a fixed, state-mandated price per kilometer. The fact that you need a permit does not constitute regulation in any sensible sense (unless you call everything regulation), since you need a permit for basically everything. The fact that you need a certified taximeter is customer protection – given that Uber charges per kilometer and time unit, I don’t see why they oppose a certified taximeter. Similarly, you cannot make a nice private business selling X, because you have to pay income tax and VAT.
zalew 13y ago
I don't understand it. Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? Can't they just obtain ones just like the rest of driver services or do the authorities owe them something?
- Retric 13y ago
  Livences often cost a lot of money. Enough that buying one can easily make there model unprofitable in many areas. Ex: In NYC there worth 750,000+ USD at 4% thasts 30,000 dollars plus added per taxi every year.
  - zalew 13y ago
    "do the same as the competition but illegally so it's cheaper" as a business model is just begging for trouble. around here we have discount taxi-but-not-a-taxi who manage to skip the regulations, yeah, they're cheap, but it's not like they don't generate a lot of controversies. and it's not like one of them after 30hrs of driving without sleep didn't crash into my gf's car on the parking lot and fainted. transport regulations have their faults, but they are invented for a reason.
  - dagw 13y ago
    In Sweden anybody can get a taxi license by passing a written and practical test and filing some paperwork. The whole processes costs less than $1000. To actually operate a taxi company you also need insurance and to meet certain capital requirements, but it's nothing that any serious company should have any problem meeting.
- _pmf_ 13y ago
  > Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? I don't know about Sweden, but here in Germany licenses are limited, i.e. there is no infinite amount of taxi license per city.
  - zalew 13y ago
    in Poland we have a similar situation, but it's just a problem of increasing (or lifting) the cap, not deregulating everything.
Nursie 13y ago
So what exactly is their model? I found it hard to figure out from their website how they differ from any other taxi service with online ordering and payment. Also, if there are rules in Sweden about meters and price displays, there's probably a consumer-focussed reason for them.
- arethuza 13y ago
  I've wondered that myself for a while - I guess there are problems with the market for taxis in the US but that level of service has been available here for a long time.
- _delirium 13y ago
  In the U.S., one difference is that they have more convenient and reliable dispatch than regular taxis, focused on virtually "hailing" a nearby car through their mobile app, rather than the two traditional options of: 1) trying to flag down a taxi on the street, or 2) booking one over the phone or internet and then waiting for it to come. I think that's less novel in Sweden, though. Taxi apps are already common, and "virtual hailing" is how most younger people already hail taxis. In addition, there are a number of taxi companies, each of which can set their own prices and position themselves in different market niches, so you can choose one you like. In that market, Über may just be another taxi company with an app, and not have enough differentiation: http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockholm-taxi-wars-uber-fail/ http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockho... Starting in SF probably helped them, too: SF's taxi system is worse than most.
scbrg 13y ago
Reading their press release (the Swedish one, I'm a native Swedish speaker) I get a feeling that they are, quite frankly, not a serious business. It's filled with paranoid tinfoil hattery where they claim the Big Nasty Government is out to get them without actually pointing out what rules they're asked to comply with. Sweden is fairly big on consumer protection, and price comparisons is generally a mandatory part of that (all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km). That they're being asked to follow those rules is hardly government bullying - in the eyes of most everyone here that definitely counts as "consumer protection". It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all. To be honest, I'd never heard of this story before I saw it here. It certainly hasn't been covered by mainstream press. I don't live in Stockholm though, so it might be bigger there.
- dopamean 13y ago
  Seems to me like this is the double edged sword of consumer protection. I think Sweden has the right idea here but I can also see how someone starting a business might think that these consumer protection laws protect the existing players in an industry. In America we have a lot of laws governing the hotel industry. For the most part I think they are in place to protect the millions of Americans and tourists who stay in hotels here every year. However, if I understand correctly, some of those laws have made it difficult for new businesses to enter the market.
  - scbrg 13y ago
    You are most likely right. I have never been involved in any business that targets the consumer market, so I have little first hand knowledge, but I once had the misfortune to be involved in a project to design software to aid the government procurement process. There's a huge amount of laws there, which makes it darn near impossible to submit a tender, much less design a valid request for tenders. These laws are there to combat corruption (the point is that it should be virtually impossible to, as a government employee, simply award a government project to your brother in law if he really doesn't provide the best offer), but the amount of red tape involved turned out to be staggering. According to our expert source on the laws involved, it was in fact impossible to not break the law, as there were parts of it that were conflicting with itself. That said - sorry for going on an off topic tangent - I think that over all the consumer protection laws have public support, and the possible downsides they come with w/r to establishing new actors in a market are outweighed by the benefits they have to consumer. But nothing is without its cost, you say.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
Entrenched taxi industry suppresses competitors in the name of "protecting" the consumers who choose them, claiming that it's "unfair" they're operating with a different business model... Oldest story in the book. Bureaucracy. I hope you choke on it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- subsystem 13y ago
  FUD. What different business model? It's fairly similar to what's already being offered by other companies (nice cars, phone app, good service) and all they have to do to comply is a price sticker and a meter.
  - dantheman 13y ago
    Dynamic pricing is a different business model -- it's kind of incompatible with a sticker.
    - subsystem 13y ago
      Unless you use a screen. They could probably get away with showing the price in the app, it just have to be in the 10 km in 15 min format. They would still have to have a meter or their app certified. Or provide a fixed price option in the app based on from and where you're going like the other companies do, in which case I imagine they would be covered by the exemption.
onemorepassword 13y ago
The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive start-up. This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation. Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody please disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market), but in cultures where simply sitting down and figuring out how to remove the obstacles is the custom, hyperbolic scream fests by an American company is not going to work. Especially not an American company that thinks it's a good idea to conquer Europe with a name like "Uber"... Both the company name and their PR strategy scream "culturally insensitive American douchebags".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- noonespecial 13y ago
  If the devil didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Uber was built from the ground up to tangle with cantankerous and corrupt authorities whose first impulse is to outlaw it. Even if that enemy turns out not to exist, they operate as if it does. Its their nature.
  - Uchikoma 13y ago
    Uber was built from the ground up to make money. Everything else is PR.
    - noonespecial 13y ago
      That's certainly true but it's how they were built to make money that's important here. If I ask what the case of the new MacBook is made of and you reply "atoms", it's true enough but it isn't exactly useful.
      - Uchikoma 13y ago
        How? They have created an app connecting two market participants that before were not connected.
Indyan 13y ago
They did the same thing in USA. Here's a series of articles penned by Paul Carr documenting what Uber did in the US. http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or... [written by Nathaniel] http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-their-ghastly-attempt-to-spin-their-way-to-sainthood/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-th... http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-victory-against-dc-lawmakers-by-actually-negotiating-with-dc-lawmakers/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-victory-a... http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-months-can-make-the-consistent-and-in-no-way-disingenuous-messaging-of-travis-kalanick/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-month...
- viggity 13y ago
  regarding the first link, in which Uber jumped fares during Hurricane Sandy - People who think price gouging have obviously never given the consequences more than a moments thought. He even mentioned that Uber reported the supply of drivers went up 50%. Isn't that a major, important factor. The author just blows it off and calls the Uber evil. fuck that. I'd rather know that a service is going to be available, but at a higher price than to not have the service available at all. Supply and demand is economic law, bitches. Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. If I'm reasonably well stocked on batteries, and a business isn't allowed to raise prices during a hurricane, I have no dis-incentive from clearing off the shelf and buying all of them. However if the prices get jacked up, I won't buy them if I don't need them. It also provides an incentive and encourages people to be well prepared. http://mises.org/daily/1593/Price-Gouging-Saves-Lives-in-a-Hurricane http://mises.org/daily/1593/Price-Gouging-Saves-Lives-in-a-H...
  - untog 13y ago
    Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to people with excess income to absorb the gouged price. The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is that it was an exceptional event, and maybe not one we should leave to market forces. If every grocery store tripled the price of bottled water and essential supplies then many people would be unable to afford them and starve. How is that a good thing?
netcan 13y ago
Taxis tend to be locally regulated. Regulations are good and bad. In some places, they ended up with plainly stupid rules. In some places the are about protecting drivers' revenues. But, they also protect consumers. IE, some of these regulations are not net bad, even if they are inconvenient or have some bad side effects. Even good regulation creates inflexibility. It's just a cost. It takes into account the way things are now and makes it difficult to allow new business models to develop. It makes it difficult for companies to operate in multiple regulatory regions. They can lock in revenue streams and/or profit margins for companies, drivers or taxmen. Uber's a new player threatening income streams. That will rattle cages. But they are also a global company and an innovative^ one. Being innovative means they clash with existing rules and policies by not fitting into existing classifications. Being multi-regional means they have a hard time being flexible themselves. They want to be able to drop in their system in every city they operate in. They want to represent themselves as on a collision course with bad/corrupt regulation. But, they are really on an unavoidable collision course with all taxi regulators everywhere.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > But they are also [...] an innovative [company]. Not really, at least not as far as Stockholm is concerned. Unless by "innovative" you mean that they innovate in their ignorance and refusal to comply with regulations not matter how sensible those are (or, according to TFAA, how people attempt to help them: it was noted they could get their application certified as a meter and people have come forward to help with that, it would seem uber didn't even try doing that).
  - netcan 13y ago
    Innovative, in this context, means they are doing things in a way that was not previously done. IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay. The current system is built around (presumably) people calling or waving & paying with cash or CC.
    - paradoja 13y ago
      If you read other comments in this thread by swedish people, they tell that other companies already do that.
don_draper 13y ago
>>Also, they finally answered my question about how many cars they have in Stockholm by saying “Like all companies we have numbers we don’t give out”. And unlike other companies our press releases are written by children.
- bobsoap 13y ago
  Fixed: >> And unlike other companies our press releases are written by pubescent teenagers.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jgalt212 13y ago
Uber loves operating by "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" proverb. But what they fail to realize or discount its importance is that the squeaky wheel is also the first one to be replaced.
venomsnake 13y ago
Disruption for the sake of disruption. Some of the taxi regulations are there for good reasons. If Uber cannot provide better, cheaper and safer service at lower price with the same rules they do not have right to exist. And if they want to bring a regulation down they should do it for the whole industry if it is already obsolete.
- nmcfarl 13y ago
  I'm just going to say that here in Seattle Uber provide better, cheaper, and, I'd guess, safer service with /significantly/ higher prices. I choose them exclusively. You don't have to be perfect to be better...
- ryanmolden 13y ago
  A cheaper price for goods and services is not a necessary precondition to existence. People are free to pay more than absolute rock-bottom if they feel the more expensive goods/service are superior. Unless you intended your list to be disjunctive and I read it as conjunctive, if so, apologies.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Sorry ... I meant in Stockholm. There the market is free (as few swedes here comment) with no artificial barriers on entry like medallions. There are rules but they are for everybody. So if Uber cannot make their model work they should not operate there and not whine for exceptions. So they should just find ways to make money or seize to operate there. They could bring efficiency - cheaper, quality - faster response time etc or better cars or something.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sesqu 13y ago
What a odd pricing model. 50 SEK + 175 SEK/10 km at moderate speeds, with a jump discontinuity to 50 SEK + 600 SEK/10 km and above at low speeds - such as traffic lights. Taxi Stockholm charges 45 SEK + 246-280 SEK/10 km, which looks like more, but it's hard to compare without knowing how much of the time is spent at low speeds. Taking the pessimal estimate of 15 minutes in a standstill to charge the hyperdrive, followed by a 10 kilometer spurt at lightspeed, we get an upper bound of 50 SEK + 445 SEK/10 km, or 165% of the article's index fare. I honestly can't tell if that's competitive. I imagine that's why they don't want to make a sticker. Oh, and then there's the much higher fixed price for city center travel. I trust that doesn't get added on to a trip that crosses the boundary.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mixedbit 13y ago
"... such a qualitative, safe and modern mode of transportation should be available for everyone" This is such a BS. Stockholm is one of the best capital city to live in, and one of the reasons is that the car traffic has the lowest priority there. You actually need to pay to enter the city centre by car, which I would consider much more modern approach than giving everyone an easy way to drive a limo.
lnanek2 13y ago
Really long post claiming, basically, that Uber needs a sticker and to charge a certain way for consumer safety. Neither really makes any sense. I know how Uber charges when I call a car, I don't need a sticker on the window. It's useless. Taximeters are also useless with Uber, it takes care of all the payments and tips for you automatically. I hate it when I have to cab with someone who insists on paying then takes ten minutes digging through their wallet and screwing around. With Uber I just hop out of the car and it's done. I wonder if the writer has ever even used it.
craigslistmodel 13y ago
wow
59nadir 13y ago
One would think a company that has success in mind would have the brains/motivation to actually learn about the culture they're setting up in. [A pattern could emerge if one were to draw parallels to wars in far-away Asian countries, though.] They can't have that good of a grasp of Swedish culture if they thought this would work. I'm struggling to find a hypothetical country in Europe where "obnoxious American" is the preferred type of American.

193 points by pathy 13y ago

this approach has worked well for uber in the usa. wonder if they've made a mistake by assuming that anti-govt sentiment in other countries is similar? or by simply copying the technique without thinking? but this is from a single english-language post. what is the rest of the local reaction like? [ah, see reply below - i missed "response was huge" (in the sense of support for uber)]

_delirium 13y ago
I suspect the angle of an Ayn-Rand-quoting American who sees himself as Galt won't play quite as well in Sweden, either...
- Uchikoma 13y ago
  What I find funny - and I like a lot of Rand, though I've understood the books completely different as most Americans - is that many of the Americans that quote and evangelize Rand would be "parasites" in a Galt world, e.g. all the Republican politicians who never produced or created anything in the Galt sense and are paid by the state.
  - willurd 13y ago
    Let's be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of Democratic politicians who, also, have never produced anything and are paid by the state.
    - jhnala 13y ago
      That's besides the point because you don't see Democratic politicians promoting the Ayn Rand philosophy, unlike a large number of Republicans.
    - Uchikoma 13y ago
      Yes, and this is in which way relevant to the point?
- mindjiver 13y ago
  There are strong libertarian strands in several swedish parties so there are some comrades in arms. Quoting Ayn Rand in parliament has happened. But even as a libertarian leaning swede I find myself quite annoyed by Uber. In the 1990s, IIRC, the taxi market was striktly regulated and finding taxis where a problem. Now in Stockholm there are many, many taxis all over the place so I personally don't get what problem Uber is really trying to solve here.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    The problem of how to cash higher in an IPO and be hailed by the media as the next next Zuckebergs.
masklinn 13y ago
TFA notes > The response was pretty huge. What surprised me was that people who are bright and often critical of sources jumped on the wagon without asking obvious questions: Since the original Uber post was in swedish and targeted at swedes, I expect it was local reaction.
effn 13y ago
The mistake was not researching local laws before entering a new market. It has nothing to do with anti-govt sentiment.
- ankitml 13y ago
  The mistake(s) : Not researching local laws, not co-operating with govt when they come to know about the laws, and then not following a proper channel of communication if they thought its a dispute.
- eli 13y ago
  Why do you assume they didn't know the local laws?
matthiasl 13y ago
I'm a local. This is the first time I've heard of Uber, so in a sense the PR has worked. Looking at the 20 or so comments (in Swedish) below Uber's original press release/blog entry (http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/25/transportstyrelsen-forsoker-stoppa-uber-i-stockholm-vi-behover-din-hjalp-nu/ http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/25/transportstyrelsen-forsoker-...), they're almost all opposed to part or all of Uber's post. The biggest non-tabloid newspaper, DN, hasn't mentioned Uber at all. The next biggest, SvD, hasn't mentioned the current spat, but had an interview (a month ago) with Simon Breakwell from Uber. Choice quote: Reporter: You've encountered resistance from taxi companies in some cities. Simon: Right, but that's mostly in the USA. Before we enter a new market, we conduct a thorough investigation into the local rules and regulations to avoid nasty surprises. We've never encountered resistance based on Uber itself being illegal. (Source: http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/handel-och-tjanster/han-vill-ta-lyxtaxin-till-alla-storstader_8003774.svd http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/handel-och-tjanster/h... I translated it by hand.)
- ewalk153 13y ago
  I know for a fact that Uber has encountered resistance in Paris for not complying with local transportation-for-hire laws.
jusben1369 13y ago
Just based on this blog post it appears to have done well. He (?) starts off discussing that people seem to have believed and rallied around the Uber story without applying any critical thinking. So I'm guessing it did resonate.

derefr 13y ago

I find it odd that Uber is constantly fighting various countries' laws to be considered "a taxi service, but not a taxi service", when they could just change their business model a tiny bit and fall straight into the middle of the "limousine service" classification. Why not charge just-time instead of time+distance? Would it screw over the drivers?

ubersync 13y ago
Exactly, they have to obey the law of the land. If the limousines in Sweden are supposed to charge by time, then do that. Change your app to charge by time in that particular country.
- masklinn 13y ago
  It's not really about limo v not limo, it's really the other way around: you can charge either for time only or for time + distance, if you charge for time + distance you need a tamper-proof meter. Time-based is mostly used by limousine services and time+distance for "regular" taxis for obvious reasons (a limo tends to be rented for a long time but not to move far, the opposite is true of regular taxis) but nothing prevents a limo service from charging for time+distance (besides looking cheap) and nothing prevents "regular" cabs from charging for time only.
kmfrk 13y ago
Maybe they saw the manufactured outrage as a good PR opportunity. That only lasts so long, until people get tired of it and start looking into the details, of course.
- untog 13y ago
  This definitely seems to have been Uber's tactic since the day they launched. In SF it worked because the taxi industry is an unholy mess, but that isn't replicable everywhere.
dantheman 13y ago
Why not work to change the law since it doesn't make sense? What's the point of keeping it?

ubersync 13y ago

I was on Uber's side for a long time initially. But with what's have been going on in the past few months, I am more than willing to believe the author. Especially after that protest by some drivers, outside their office in SF. "It was only a handful of drivers", you might argue. But the fact that none of the company officials came down to listen to them, just points out their "we don't give a fuck" attitude. And it is this arrogance, that brings down corporates and even empires.

jfoster 13y ago
I don't think their failure to attend the protest was necessarily "we don't give a fuck." If only for self preservation reasons they almost certainly do care. They likely didn't attend because they didn't want to increase the likelihood of the protest becoming a larger story on the media. They're much better off only engaging drivers in private meetings.
- ubersync 13y ago
  Having been part of student protests in the past, I believe this is one of the worst ways to handle a protest.
  - jfoster 13y ago
    I agree that it's imperfect, but what's the alternative? How would you envisage that alternative playing out for each of the parties?

oleganza 13y ago

Some quotes from the article: "The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your services." "You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market." "You do need a permit to have a taxi service." "The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on unfair grounds" Notice some contradictions here? Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair, but then admits there is regulation and legal requirements (that cost real money). If you want to make a nice private taxi service with 2x lower prices, you cannot because you have to pay local government for all licenses and whatever taximeter they provide you, not the one you design for your own company and your customers' safety. When talking about "unfair advantage", author makes presupposition that existing regulations and licensing are "fair". Well, that needs to be proven. Saying "somebody voted for it in a democracy" is not a proof, sorry. Try that with a scientific study: "scientists voted that P != NP with 58% majority".

ubersync 13y ago
>whatever taximeter they provide you The author mentions that Uber could have tried to get their App approved as a taximeter, but they did not even try. > Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair, but then admits there is regulation Getting a license is not a "regulation". What the author means is, that the prices are not regulated and the taxis are free to charge whatever they want. So Uber can offer their service at any price, without being forced to a minimum or a maximum.
effn 13y ago
> you cannot because you have to pay local government for all licenses and whatever taximeter they provide you, not the one you design for your own company and your customers' safety. The reason you can't provide a service with 2x lower prices is that you would make a huge loss doing that, and it has nothing to do with regulations. You are allowed to design your own taximeters btw. And the regulation is "fair" in the sense that it applies equally to all companies (note that Uber is trying to get exepmtion from a rule that their competitors comply with).
claudius 13y ago
The market is unregulated in that each driver is free to set their price, as compared to other places where there is a fixed, state-mandated price per kilometer. The fact that you need a permit does not constitute regulation in any sensible sense (unless you call everything regulation), since you need a permit for basically everything. The fact that you need a certified taximeter is customer protection – given that Uber charges per kilometer and time unit, I don’t see why they oppose a certified taximeter. Similarly, you cannot make a nice private business selling X, because you have to pay income tax and VAT.

zalew 13y ago

I don't understand it. Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? Can't they just obtain ones just like the rest of driver services or do the authorities owe them something?

Retric 13y ago
Livences often cost a lot of money. Enough that buying one can easily make there model unprofitable in many areas. Ex: In NYC there worth 750,000+ USD at 4% thasts 30,000 dollars plus added per taxi every year.
- zalew 13y ago
  "do the same as the competition but illegally so it's cheaper" as a business model is just begging for trouble. around here we have discount taxi-but-not-a-taxi who manage to skip the regulations, yeah, they're cheap, but it's not like they don't generate a lot of controversies. and it's not like one of them after 30hrs of driving without sleep didn't crash into my gf's car on the parking lot and fainted. transport regulations have their faults, but they are invented for a reason.
- dagw 13y ago
  In Sweden anybody can get a taxi license by passing a written and practical test and filing some paperwork. The whole processes costs less than $1000. To actually operate a taxi company you also need insurance and to meet certain capital requirements, but it's nothing that any serious company should have any problem meeting.
_pmf_ 13y ago
> Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? I don't know about Sweden, but here in Germany licenses are limited, i.e. there is no infinite amount of taxi license per city.
- zalew 13y ago
  in Poland we have a similar situation, but it's just a problem of increasing (or lifting) the cap, not deregulating everything.

Nursie 13y ago

So what exactly is their model? I found it hard to figure out from their website how they differ from any other taxi service with online ordering and payment. Also, if there are rules in Sweden about meters and price displays, there's probably a consumer-focussed reason for them.

arethuza 13y ago
I've wondered that myself for a while - I guess there are problems with the market for taxis in the US but that level of service has been available here for a long time.
_delirium 13y ago
In the U.S., one difference is that they have more convenient and reliable dispatch than regular taxis, focused on virtually "hailing" a nearby car through their mobile app, rather than the two traditional options of: 1) trying to flag down a taxi on the street, or 2) booking one over the phone or internet and then waiting for it to come. I think that's less novel in Sweden, though. Taxi apps are already common, and "virtual hailing" is how most younger people already hail taxis. In addition, there are a number of taxi companies, each of which can set their own prices and position themselves in different market niches, so you can choose one you like. In that market, Über may just be another taxi company with an app, and not have enough differentiation: http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockholm-taxi-wars-uber-fail/ http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockho... Starting in SF probably helped them, too: SF's taxi system is worse than most.

scbrg 13y ago

Reading their press release (the Swedish one, I'm a native Swedish speaker) I get a feeling that they are, quite frankly, not a serious business. It's filled with paranoid tinfoil hattery where they claim the Big Nasty Government is out to get them without actually pointing out what rules they're asked to comply with. Sweden is fairly big on consumer protection, and price comparisons is generally a mandatory part of that (all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km). That they're being asked to follow those rules is hardly government bullying - in the eyes of most everyone here that definitely counts as "consumer protection". It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all. To be honest, I'd never heard of this story before I saw it here. It certainly hasn't been covered by mainstream press. I don't live in Stockholm though, so it might be bigger there.

dopamean 13y ago
Seems to me like this is the double edged sword of consumer protection. I think Sweden has the right idea here but I can also see how someone starting a business might think that these consumer protection laws protect the existing players in an industry. In America we have a lot of laws governing the hotel industry. For the most part I think they are in place to protect the millions of Americans and tourists who stay in hotels here every year. However, if I understand correctly, some of those laws have made it difficult for new businesses to enter the market.
- scbrg 13y ago
  You are most likely right. I have never been involved in any business that targets the consumer market, so I have little first hand knowledge, but I once had the misfortune to be involved in a project to design software to aid the government procurement process. There's a huge amount of laws there, which makes it darn near impossible to submit a tender, much less design a valid request for tenders. These laws are there to combat corruption (the point is that it should be virtually impossible to, as a government employee, simply award a government project to your brother in law if he really doesn't provide the best offer), but the amount of red tape involved turned out to be staggering. According to our expert source on the laws involved, it was in fact impossible to not break the law, as there were parts of it that were conflicting with itself. That said - sorry for going on an off topic tangent - I think that over all the consumer protection laws have public support, and the possible downsides they come with w/r to establishing new actors in a market are outweighed by the benefits they have to consumer. But nothing is without its cost, you say.

fennecfoxen 13y ago

Entrenched taxi industry suppresses competitors in the name of "protecting" the consumers who choose them, claiming that it's "unfair" they're operating with a different business model... Oldest story in the book. Bureaucracy. I hope you choke on it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
subsystem 13y ago
FUD. What different business model? It's fairly similar to what's already being offered by other companies (nice cars, phone app, good service) and all they have to do to comply is a price sticker and a meter.
- dantheman 13y ago
  Dynamic pricing is a different business model -- it's kind of incompatible with a sticker.
  - subsystem 13y ago
    Unless you use a screen. They could probably get away with showing the price in the app, it just have to be in the 10 km in 15 min format. They would still have to have a meter or their app certified. Or provide a fixed price option in the app based on from and where you're going like the other companies do, in which case I imagine they would be covered by the exemption.

onemorepassword 13y ago

The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive start-up. This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation. Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody please disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market), but in cultures where simply sitting down and figuring out how to remove the obstacles is the custom, hyperbolic scream fests by an American company is not going to work. Especially not an American company that thinks it's a good idea to conquer Europe with a name like "Uber"... Both the company name and their PR strategy scream "culturally insensitive American douchebags".

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 13y ago
If the devil didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Uber was built from the ground up to tangle with cantankerous and corrupt authorities whose first impulse is to outlaw it. Even if that enemy turns out not to exist, they operate as if it does. Its their nature.
- Uchikoma 13y ago
  Uber was built from the ground up to make money. Everything else is PR.
  - noonespecial 13y ago
    That's certainly true but it's how they were built to make money that's important here. If I ask what the case of the new MacBook is made of and you reply "atoms", it's true enough but it isn't exactly useful.
    - Uchikoma 13y ago
      How? They have created an app connecting two market participants that before were not connected.

Indyan 13y ago

They did the same thing in USA. Here's a series of articles penned by Paul Carr documenting what Uber did in the US. http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or... [written by Nathaniel] http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-their-ghastly-attempt-to-spin-their-way-to-sainthood/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-th... http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-victory-against-dc-lawmakers-by-actually-negotiating-with-dc-lawmakers/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-victory-a... http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-months-can-make-the-consistent-and-in-no-way-disingenuous-messaging-of-travis-kalanick/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-month...

viggity 13y ago
regarding the first link, in which Uber jumped fares during Hurricane Sandy - People who think price gouging have obviously never given the consequences more than a moments thought. He even mentioned that Uber reported the supply of drivers went up 50%. Isn't that a major, important factor. The author just blows it off and calls the Uber evil. fuck that. I'd rather know that a service is going to be available, but at a higher price than to not have the service available at all. Supply and demand is economic law, bitches. Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. If I'm reasonably well stocked on batteries, and a business isn't allowed to raise prices during a hurricane, I have no dis-incentive from clearing off the shelf and buying all of them. However if the prices get jacked up, I won't buy them if I don't need them. It also provides an incentive and encourages people to be well prepared. http://mises.org/daily/1593/Price-Gouging-Saves-Lives-in-a-Hurricane http://mises.org/daily/1593/Price-Gouging-Saves-Lives-in-a-H...
- untog 13y ago
  Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to people with excess income to absorb the gouged price. The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is that it was an exceptional event, and maybe not one we should leave to market forces. If every grocery store tripled the price of bottled water and essential supplies then many people would be unable to afford them and starve. How is that a good thing?

netcan 13y ago

Taxis tend to be locally regulated. Regulations are good and bad. In some places, they ended up with plainly stupid rules. In some places the are about protecting drivers' revenues. But, they also protect consumers. IE, some of these regulations are not net bad, even if they are inconvenient or have some bad side effects. Even good regulation creates inflexibility. It's just a cost. It takes into account the way things are now and makes it difficult to allow new business models to develop. It makes it difficult for companies to operate in multiple regulatory regions. They can lock in revenue streams and/or profit margins for companies, drivers or taxmen. Uber's a new player threatening income streams. That will rattle cages. But they are also a global company and an innovative^ one. Being innovative means they clash with existing rules and policies by not fitting into existing classifications. Being multi-regional means they have a hard time being flexible themselves. They want to be able to drop in their system in every city they operate in. They want to represent themselves as on a collision course with bad/corrupt regulation. But, they are really on an unavoidable collision course with all taxi regulators everywhere.

masklinn 13y ago
> But they are also [...] an innovative [company]. Not really, at least not as far as Stockholm is concerned. Unless by "innovative" you mean that they innovate in their ignorance and refusal to comply with regulations not matter how sensible those are (or, according to TFAA, how people attempt to help them: it was noted they could get their application certified as a meter and people have come forward to help with that, it would seem uber didn't even try doing that).
- netcan 13y ago
  Innovative, in this context, means they are doing things in a way that was not previously done. IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay. The current system is built around (presumably) people calling or waving & paying with cash or CC.
  - paradoja 13y ago
    If you read other comments in this thread by swedish people, they tell that other companies already do that.

don_draper 13y ago

>>Also, they finally answered my question about how many cars they have in Stockholm by saying “Like all companies we have numbers we don’t give out”. And unlike other companies our press releases are written by children.

bobsoap 13y ago
Fixed: >> And unlike other companies our press releases are written by pubescent teenagers.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jgalt212 13y ago

Uber loves operating by "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" proverb. But what they fail to realize or discount its importance is that the squeaky wheel is also the first one to be replaced.

venomsnake 13y ago

Disruption for the sake of disruption. Some of the taxi regulations are there for good reasons. If Uber cannot provide better, cheaper and safer service at lower price with the same rules they do not have right to exist. And if they want to bring a regulation down they should do it for the whole industry if it is already obsolete.

nmcfarl 13y ago
I'm just going to say that here in Seattle Uber provide better, cheaper, and, I'd guess, safer service with /significantly/ higher prices. I choose them exclusively. You don't have to be perfect to be better...
ryanmolden 13y ago
A cheaper price for goods and services is not a necessary precondition to existence. People are free to pay more than absolute rock-bottom if they feel the more expensive goods/service are superior. Unless you intended your list to be disjunctive and I read it as conjunctive, if so, apologies.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Sorry ... I meant in Stockholm. There the market is free (as few swedes here comment) with no artificial barriers on entry like medallions. There are rules but they are for everybody. So if Uber cannot make their model work they should not operate there and not whine for exceptions. So they should just find ways to make money or seize to operate there. They could bring efficiency - cheaper, quality - faster response time etc or better cars or something.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sesqu 13y ago

What a odd pricing model. 50 SEK + 175 SEK/10 km at moderate speeds, with a jump discontinuity to 50 SEK + 600 SEK/10 km and above at low speeds - such as traffic lights. Taxi Stockholm charges 45 SEK + 246-280 SEK/10 km, which looks like more, but it's hard to compare without knowing how much of the time is spent at low speeds. Taking the pessimal estimate of 15 minutes in a standstill to charge the hyperdrive, followed by a 10 kilometer spurt at lightspeed, we get an upper bound of 50 SEK + 445 SEK/10 km, or 165% of the article's index fare. I honestly can't tell if that's competitive. I imagine that's why they don't want to make a sticker. Oh, and then there's the much higher fixed price for city center travel. I trust that doesn't get added on to a trip that crosses the boundary.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mixedbit 13y ago

"... such a qualitative, safe and modern mode of transportation should be available for everyone" This is such a BS. Stockholm is one of the best capital city to live in, and one of the reasons is that the car traffic has the lowest priority there. You actually need to pay to enter the city centre by car, which I would consider much more modern approach than giving everyone an easy way to drive a limo.

lnanek2 13y ago

Really long post claiming, basically, that Uber needs a sticker and to charge a certain way for consumer safety. Neither really makes any sense. I know how Uber charges when I call a car, I don't need a sticker on the window. It's useless. Taximeters are also useless with Uber, it takes care of all the payments and tips for you automatically. I hate it when I have to cab with someone who insists on paying then takes ten minutes digging through their wallet and screwing around. With Uber I just hop out of the car and it's done. I wonder if the writer has ever even used it.

craigslistmodel 13y ago

wow

59nadir 13y ago

One would think a company that has success in mind would have the brains/motivation to actually learn about the culture they're setting up in. [A pattern could emerge if one were to draw parallels to wars in far-away Asian countries, though.] They can't have that good of a grasp of Swedish culture if they thought this would work. I'm struggling to find a hypothetical country in Europe where "obnoxious American" is the preferred type of American.