5 ms·

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

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.
    - gavinlynch 13y ago
      Your entirely uninformed comments which you make without providing an ounce of information backing your claim is what is useless. This whole thread is ridiculous. Has anyone upvoting these comments ever used Uber and do they understand how it works and it's niche within the industry? Because I see a lot of hyperbole and about zero facts.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jdminhbg 13y ago
> a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization ... > we take a slightly more nuanced view Yeah, sure sounds like it.
- geon 13y ago
  > ...to the role of government regulation. What did he write that conflicts with this?
  - seanica 13y ago
    "tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization". ...is hardly nuanced parlance.
    - glimmung 13y ago
      Perhaps not, but the context is that this dialogue is a response to Uber's response to the situation in Sweden, which is at best jarringly strident in tone. Dialogue that doesn't /start/ nuanced rarely becomes so half way through...
chrisrhoden 13y ago
So, part of the problem is that in the US, not only would such things fly, but they have been on the receiving end of some suspect pressure and investigations. Most of the taxi systems in Uber's homeland are highly regulated and effectively run by strong lobbying organizations who are very vocal about their concerns and distaste for having their business threatened. In the US, such allegations are not only reasonable, but they're not even really a sign of corruption - typically, the people who get their way are the people who ask the loudest and most frequently, and that doesn't mean that anyone is acting in an unsavory manner. This isn't to say that there isn't a twinge of tinfoil hattery going on, or to say that the same tactic is appropriate here, but the fact is that they've had tremendous success asking their users to tell the authorities that they're good guys in the past - they had success in this endeavor here, for that matter. The fact that there is a blog post calling them out doesn't really seem to have had a strong impact on the support that their users are giving them. Moreover, this blog post smacks of tinfoil hattery - is the suggestion that, by not signaling itself as a taxi, Uber is attempting to confuse users? To my knowledge, they're not picking people up on the street - only people who have signed up for an account and are well aware of the price differences. It seems likely that they're less interested in removing the need for the meter and more interested in removing the need for external signals that the car is fared similarly to a taxi - which is, after all, 50% of what they're offering. So a yellow license plate, sign, and fare sticker might have the larger impact in their eyes. Based on that, do you not think that it's reasonable that, in an, "unregulated," market, they should be allowed to charge people who have jumped through the hoops to actually get into an Uber car, with all of the fare information shoved in their faces a number of times, however they have agreed upon with their customers? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but let's please be intellectually honest.
- subsystem 13y ago
  They only thing they (or their subcontractors) have done to date is apply for an exemption which they weren't covered by and then complain about it. If they include the proper information in their app and get it certified as a meter than they might have a case. Now they just come of as spoiled and childish. Also a sign isn't required and the yellow plate gives you advantages in traffic (bus lanes etc.), but they'll probably want an exemption from that too?
jbooth 13y ago
It's a legitimate business, and they've generally been a bit smoother than this hacktastic email. It just so happens that they're entering a regulated market, and some observers will go full tea-party upon hearing things like "we have extra regulation applying to taxi services due to some experiences we've had over the last hundred years." Better dispatch over the internet doesn't change everything. This email reminds me of talking to some idiot soda lobbyist at a cocktail party in 2009, telling me she doesn't understand why her boss told her equating taxes on soda with fascism was a bad idea.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > some observers It's the company itself which did that, not "observers".
- willurd 13y ago
  Can we please stop using "tea-party" as a derogatory term? Not only is it needlessly offensive (and I'm not even a member of the tea-party), it doesn't even make sense. Since when did "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" and "reducing U.S. government spending and taxes" (see Wikipedia) mean "retarded" (as in, "full retard", as in where you got the "full XYZ" template)?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
illuminate 13y ago
I can't be the only person who utilizes Uber/Sidecar/etc and shuns deregulationism, can I? The problem in many of these situations is the nebulous definition of "taxi", "towncar", and other conveyances, along with the protectionistic (for self-preservation) industry. If the definitions had anything to do with consumer safety/protection, I'd be opposing Uber as well. Are there any cities in the US and abroad who have handled the Uber problem by updating their regulations in a more harmonious manner? I'm aware of those who have tried to ban Uber's loopholes outright, but I'm curious how any may have integrated these services while eliminating perceived exploitative aspects of their business model.
pg 13y ago
Far from it. Uber is a remarkably professionally run company that has transformed transportation in the US cities where it operates. I'm surprised (or more precisely, dismayed) that a comment with such comically excessive language received so many upvotes. This is how a forum turns into a self-caricature.
- willurd 13y ago
  I wish I was surprised. Frankly, I've come to expect that type of reaction to anything that challenges the establishment.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  It seems purpose built to garner upvotes from many of those who frequent HN - insults the American right wing while praising European level-headedness and rationalism. Add in a final parting shot at American stereotypes and I'm not surprised at all I found it at the top.
- freshhawk 13y ago
  > remarkably professionally run company That may be true, you certainly would know better than most here, but the press about them and statements from Mr. Kalanick really don't give that impression.
willurd 13y ago
"hyperbolic scream fests" Hyperbolic, you say? "tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization" "culturally insensitive American douchebags" Also, thanks US government. Because of you, this is what the rest of the world thinks of us.

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.
  - gavinlynch 13y ago
    Your entirely uninformed comments which you make without providing an ounce of information backing your claim is what is useless. This whole thread is ridiculous. Has anyone upvoting these comments ever used Uber and do they understand how it works and it's niche within the industry? Because I see a lot of hyperbole and about zero facts.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jdminhbg 13y ago

> a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization ... > we take a slightly more nuanced view Yeah, sure sounds like it.

geon 13y ago
> ...to the role of government regulation. What did he write that conflicts with this?
- seanica 13y ago
  "tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization". ...is hardly nuanced parlance.
  - glimmung 13y ago
    Perhaps not, but the context is that this dialogue is a response to Uber's response to the situation in Sweden, which is at best jarringly strident in tone. Dialogue that doesn't /start/ nuanced rarely becomes so half way through...

chrisrhoden 13y ago

So, part of the problem is that in the US, not only would such things fly, but they have been on the receiving end of some suspect pressure and investigations. Most of the taxi systems in Uber's homeland are highly regulated and effectively run by strong lobbying organizations who are very vocal about their concerns and distaste for having their business threatened. In the US, such allegations are not only reasonable, but they're not even really a sign of corruption - typically, the people who get their way are the people who ask the loudest and most frequently, and that doesn't mean that anyone is acting in an unsavory manner. This isn't to say that there isn't a twinge of tinfoil hattery going on, or to say that the same tactic is appropriate here, but the fact is that they've had tremendous success asking their users to tell the authorities that they're good guys in the past - they had success in this endeavor here, for that matter. The fact that there is a blog post calling them out doesn't really seem to have had a strong impact on the support that their users are giving them. Moreover, this blog post smacks of tinfoil hattery - is the suggestion that, by not signaling itself as a taxi, Uber is attempting to confuse users? To my knowledge, they're not picking people up on the street - only people who have signed up for an account and are well aware of the price differences. It seems likely that they're less interested in removing the need for the meter and more interested in removing the need for external signals that the car is fared similarly to a taxi - which is, after all, 50% of what they're offering. So a yellow license plate, sign, and fare sticker might have the larger impact in their eyes. Based on that, do you not think that it's reasonable that, in an, "unregulated," market, they should be allowed to charge people who have jumped through the hoops to actually get into an Uber car, with all of the fare information shoved in their faces a number of times, however they have agreed upon with their customers? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but let's please be intellectually honest.

subsystem 13y ago
They only thing they (or their subcontractors) have done to date is apply for an exemption which they weren't covered by and then complain about it. If they include the proper information in their app and get it certified as a meter than they might have a case. Now they just come of as spoiled and childish. Also a sign isn't required and the yellow plate gives you advantages in traffic (bus lanes etc.), but they'll probably want an exemption from that too?

jbooth 13y ago

It's a legitimate business, and they've generally been a bit smoother than this hacktastic email. It just so happens that they're entering a regulated market, and some observers will go full tea-party upon hearing things like "we have extra regulation applying to taxi services due to some experiences we've had over the last hundred years." Better dispatch over the internet doesn't change everything. This email reminds me of talking to some idiot soda lobbyist at a cocktail party in 2009, telling me she doesn't understand why her boss told her equating taxes on soda with fascism was a bad idea.

masklinn 13y ago
> some observers It's the company itself which did that, not "observers".
willurd 13y ago
Can we please stop using "tea-party" as a derogatory term? Not only is it needlessly offensive (and I'm not even a member of the tea-party), it doesn't even make sense. Since when did "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" and "reducing U.S. government spending and taxes" (see Wikipedia) mean "retarded" (as in, "full retard", as in where you got the "full XYZ" template)?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

illuminate 13y ago

I can't be the only person who utilizes Uber/Sidecar/etc and shuns deregulationism, can I? The problem in many of these situations is the nebulous definition of "taxi", "towncar", and other conveyances, along with the protectionistic (for self-preservation) industry. If the definitions had anything to do with consumer safety/protection, I'd be opposing Uber as well. Are there any cities in the US and abroad who have handled the Uber problem by updating their regulations in a more harmonious manner? I'm aware of those who have tried to ban Uber's loopholes outright, but I'm curious how any may have integrated these services while eliminating perceived exploitative aspects of their business model.

pg 13y ago

Far from it. Uber is a remarkably professionally run company that has transformed transportation in the US cities where it operates. I'm surprised (or more precisely, dismayed) that a comment with such comically excessive language received so many upvotes. This is how a forum turns into a self-caricature.

willurd 13y ago
I wish I was surprised. Frankly, I've come to expect that type of reaction to anything that challenges the establishment.
cobrausn 13y ago
It seems purpose built to garner upvotes from many of those who frequent HN - insults the American right wing while praising European level-headedness and rationalism. Add in a final parting shot at American stereotypes and I'm not surprised at all I found it at the top.
freshhawk 13y ago
> remarkably professionally run company That may be true, you certainly would know better than most here, but the press about them and statements from Mr. Kalanick really don't give that impression.

willurd 13y ago

"hyperbolic scream fests" Hyperbolic, you say? "tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization" "culturally insensitive American douchebags" Also, thanks US government. Because of you, this is what the rest of the world thinks of us.