3 ms·

From a close examination, yes. But when I step back and look at Uber, I wonder if I am not looking at a company that is seeking to become competitive in the hir

From a close examination, yes. But when I step back and look at Uber, I wonder if I am not looking at a company that is seeking to become competitive in the hired-car space mainly by weaseling around liabilities, which to me is shady.

_delirium 13y ago
I don't think there's any doubt at this point that Uber is a shady company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7115177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7115177
fleitz 13y ago
Fundamentally Uber is competing against a government mandated and enforced cartel, when you go up against such a monster it's difficult to maintain a competitive advantage while not engaging in unsavoury practices. Ideally getting a taxi cab license would be much like getting a driver's license where anyone who wanted one could get one with a minimum of hassle while still enforcing a regulatory framework. The situation between uber, its drivers, and victims of traffic accidents is definitely subpar, I think there's a lot of blame to go around between uber, the taxi cartels, its regulators, and its legislators.
- couradical 13y ago
  See, I think the whole "remote hired livery car" things was brilliant, works around the hailing rate limitation, and it's only the subsequent forays into UberX and Taxi hiring that have brought the unsavory side of things. Before the push to dethrone taxis, I think they were a reasonably priced upmarket good, priced north of taxis, but infinitely more convenient and flexible than hiring a car service. That's not a 10+x multiplier on investment though, and it's not a high-margin business, especially if you want to retain good livery drivers. That said, the pressure probably would've provided a few things: a. a graceful decline in medallion prices b. catalyst for change in Taxi markets I don't know where they want to go with the service, but I know that the decided anti-regulatory push, combined with the tone of Uber's public statements has pushed me towards more traditional taxis (who in Boston actually have e-hail).

_delirium 13y ago

I don't think there's any doubt at this point that Uber is a shady company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7115177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7115177

fleitz 13y ago

Fundamentally Uber is competing against a government mandated and enforced cartel, when you go up against such a monster it's difficult to maintain a competitive advantage while not engaging in unsavoury practices. Ideally getting a taxi cab license would be much like getting a driver's license where anyone who wanted one could get one with a minimum of hassle while still enforcing a regulatory framework. The situation between uber, its drivers, and victims of traffic accidents is definitely subpar, I think there's a lot of blame to go around between uber, the taxi cartels, its regulators, and its legislators.

couradical 13y ago
See, I think the whole "remote hired livery car" things was brilliant, works around the hailing rate limitation, and it's only the subsequent forays into UberX and Taxi hiring that have brought the unsavory side of things. Before the push to dethrone taxis, I think they were a reasonably priced upmarket good, priced north of taxis, but infinitely more convenient and flexible than hiring a car service. That's not a 10+x multiplier on investment though, and it's not a high-margin business, especially if you want to retain good livery drivers. That said, the pressure probably would've provided a few things: a. a graceful decline in medallion prices b. catalyst for change in Taxi markets I don't know where they want to go with the service, but I know that the decided anti-regulatory push, combined with the tone of Uber's public statements has pushed me towards more traditional taxis (who in Boston actually have e-hail).