7 ms·

“Comments like these show Seoul is in danger of remaining trapped in the past and getting left behind by the global ‘sharing economy’ movement,” the statement s

by abduhl 12y ago

“Comments like these show Seoul is in danger of remaining trapped in the past and getting left behind by the global ‘sharing economy’ movement,” the statement said. You know, I don't particularly like the "sharing economy" movement. The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated. Airbnb acts, essentially, as a parent company for a hotel chain without any of the actual power or responsibility of the traditional holding company. Uber/Lyft act as car dispatchers without any of the power or responsibility of traditional taxi/limo companies. The ability of these companies to outcompete traditional companies on price in their spaces is due to their choice to not follow regulations as much as possible. The reasoning Uber gives in the article for not being in violation of the law sounds suspiciously like the reasoning given by escorts ("You're paying for my time"). If this trend continues we will see additional disregard for regulation with more and more absurd reasoning ("We aren't breaking the law on regulation because we are simply a technology company that connects your phone with another phone who happens to be in the possession of a guy in a car and whatever happens after that is between two consenting adults"). How far can this race to the bottom go before our search for low costs starts to war with our sense of personal safety and social responsibility? As an aside, I use Uber pretty regularly in any city where it's available simply because I generally don't have the local taxi numbers. Does this make me a hypocrite? Probably.

BrianEatWorld 12y ago
Instead of viewing them as a race to the bottom, perhaps it would be better to think of them as shining a light on the current systems. Just because they aren't regulated now, doesn't mean they can't be in the future. In a way, they offer another chance at regulating areas that have entrenched interests and decades of poor regulation that prevent efficient solutions from emerging today.
- abduhl 12y ago
  The only light these companies shine is that of capitalism. Why should we believe that they will be regulated meaningfully in the future and that the regulations won't just serve to bring them into the fold of existing regulations? What is to stop the next "innovator" from coming in to the same space and repeating the same argument about <insert timeframe> of poor regulation preventing efficient solutions? How does re-regulation do anything but protect these companies that have essentially ignored the law? As I said, where does our search for low costs end up battling our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    How does re-regulation do anything but protect these companies that have essentially ignored the law? You mean, like the current laws, which were often written to stop taxi drivers rioting and destroying others' property[1]? As I said, where does our search for low costs end up battling our sense of personal safety and social responsibility? What about allowing each person to choose for herself? [1] http://www.britishpathe.com/video/u-s-taxi-strike http://www.britishpathe.com/video/u-s-taxi-strike
bmelton 12y ago
> The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated. In the case of Uber, in particular, the self-regulation they impose is much greater than the regulation that the government does, and accounts for a MUCH higher quality of service than the very heavily regulated taxi cabs. Maybe that doesn't work for every instance or every company, but the crowd-sourcing of relevant data seems, to me, a far more effective solution than the protectionist bureaucracy masquerading as regulation that exists.
- untog 12y ago
  > In the case of Uber, in particular, the self-regulation they impose is much greater than the regulation that the government does Citation needed? There have been numerous stories of Uber drivers and cars not matching expectations.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I don't think Uber's quality of service is the result of crowd sourced feedback. I think its the result of Uber as a company being aware of the intense scrutiny of its business model, and self-regulating accordingly. If the threat of shutdown wasn't looming overhead, and you saw the kind of competition in this space that you do with regular taxicabs (dozens of little cab companies), I don't think crowd sourced feedback would be effective.
- brudgers 12y ago
  It's private regulation. The public has no voice despite Uber utilizing public resources. For example, the public has an interest in efficient pickup and drop off at their airport. The public has an interest in the driving skill of professional drivers. The public has an interest in universal access to public transportation. Above all the public has an interest in determining what is and is not lawful. The people of Korea have spent more than 100 years (since colonialization by Japan in the 1890's) in a struggle for self-determination. Under what kind of logic does the profit of Silicon Valley venture capital trump the interests of the Korean people?
  - bmelton 12y ago
haberman 12y ago
While I agree with some amount of regulation, part of the benefit of "app-driven" business models is that some of the regulations become obsolete. For example, one of the major reasons for taxi regulation is so you don't have to negotiate a fare after flagging down the car. The rate is regulated so you know what it will be before you flag down the taxi, and the regulated meter gives you assurances that you're not being cheated. This bit of regulation becomes obsolete with an Uber model: if you request an Uber ride with the app, you know you'll be paying Uber prices (and you can even get an estimate in the app IIRC). There is no need to regulate the price because consumers are empowered to do informed comparison shopping prior to the hail. Regulations should not be imposed on a business who has made the rationale for that regulation obsolete. Other regulations may still be important though.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  That is only because Uber has decided to. Tomorrow Uber could put a price on the app and then when you get there double it for "unforeseen traffic conditions". Before regulation taxis were experts at scamming and scheming their way into higher fares. I'm not sure why you think Uber, who outwardly admits profit is their only motive, won't use similar tricks if it benefits their bottom line. Or any number of similar copy cat services that will arrive if the Uber model finally does replace taxis.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Agreed. By the same token, we should also fix by the decree the price of any service - after all, companies can put surcharges and other tricks after you signed up. I say the Legislature of California should decide how much is fair for a SaaS company in SF to charge for its apps. Clearly they know better than the consumer. And it should be a standard price, none of this nonsense of different companies charging different prices.
    - techpeace 12y ago
      see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
NotOscarWilde 12y ago
I would like to add that quotes like this make me sympathize with abduhl's opinion even more: > An Uber spokesman in Seoul denied that the service was illegal as Uber is “a technology company that connects drivers with passengers” and doesn’t directly run a taxi service with rented cars. I know they want to claim they're not a (distributed) taxi company but that's what they are; they pay drivers, verify the drivers, help the drivers get insured and connect them with their passengers. That's what a taxi service is. Yes, they don't rent cars, but that is not the defining trait. If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences?
- josu 12y ago
  >If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? They are there to make money, and if fighting an injustice system is aligned with their goal of making money, they will fihgt. I get the feeling that Uber is idealized, same as Tesla.
  - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
    Right, and I don't have a problem with them fighting the system; in fact, I believe as most of us do that the regulations may be too strict in most areas. However, this "half-fighting" when you criticise the regulations and at the same time you claim you're outside the law because you're just a "service" -- this rubs me the wrong way. It is this "half-fighting, half-outside" approach that is most evident in corporations. It's similar to corporations dealing with censorship -- everyone, even executives, agree that censorship is a bad thing but the company still wants to make money in China, so they have to obey it and respect it at the same time.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? If you're trying to fight an existing, firmly entrenched system, you don't walk up to the front door as early as possible, knock, and say "Hi, I'm here to destroy you." You become as popular as possible as quickly as possible, and then you might have the ability to survive such a challenge. One notable advantage this gives: if you follow the letter of the law as written, any subsequent change to the law is effectively targeting you specifically, which gives you a substantial amount of high ground to operate from. Assuming you're doing something that people actually want, you're then much more likely to have the general public on your side.
opendais 12y ago
> You know, I don't particularly like the "sharing economy" movement. The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated. I mostly agree with you but I think the sharing economy is something that needs to happen in a better regulated way. Let's face it, wage growth is stagnant and the only way the average person is able to improve their financial situation is to be more efficient. [e.g. sharing cars, renting out spare rooms, moonlighting as an Uber driver] My main problem with Uber is the fact it isn't paying the same tax rates to the local government as the Taxi companies. My main problem with AirBnb is they don't even bother with building an address list to filter out apartment complexes [almost all of which don't allow subleasing in the US] & condos [ditto]. They need to do that and require a copy of the person's lease to be on file with them showing they can sublease, etc.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > the only way the average person is able to improve their financial situation is to be more efficient AirBNB doesn't provide the average renter a way to improve their financial situation in the long run. For renters in non-regulated units (ie, no rent control/stabilization), if you can make an extra $200/week on AirBNB and your landlord knows it, he or she will simply raise the rent by $800/month the next time your lease is up for renewal. (Or, if he knows this in advance, this becomes the market rate for your initial lease to begin with). This is very easily corroborated by the studies showing that AirBNB led to an increase in rent in several cities (linked in other HN discussions, and also very easy to find elsewhere). This isn't a statement about AirBNB; it's just basic economics. Absent regulation or other market "stickiness", the money eventually flows to the individual or entity who owns the capital - in this case, the real estate. (The etymology of the word "capitalism" is not coincidental!). For property owners, the math is different (though still not as good for the owner as one might think).
  - opendais 12y ago
    > For renters in non-regulated units (ie, no rent control/stabilization), if you can make an extra $200/week on AirBNB and your landlord knows it, he or she will simply raise the rent by $800/month the next time your lease is up for renewal. > This isn't a statement about AirBNB; it's just basic economics. Absent regulation or other market "stickiness", the money eventually flows to the individual or entity who owns the capital - in this case, the real estate. (The etymology of the word "capitalism" is not coincidental!). Please provide evidence that this doesn't happen with normal split leases, normal renting of rooms out to people, using craigslist to rent temporary rooms, and is directly linked to AirBnb. Like many things in life "basic economics" is not "basic" when you have multiple equal solutions that bring about equivalent outcomes. The same effects happen when people split rent [e.g. they can afford more, on average]. Also? They'd be able to do this without AirBNB and people did for a long time. AirBNB has only increased the supply & demand by making it easier.
joshu 12y ago
I feel like the term "sharing economy" would be better suited to something like where you share tools with your neighbors or something. Uber is a great business, but it's not sharing anything. It's a bunch of contractors and a communication network. If you are paying for the service it is not sharing, is it?
- mindslight 12y ago
  When learning the workings of the Internet, one feels an overwhelming sense of the empowering possibilities that global peer to peer communication brings. The marketing coup of modern web companies is to make us think that relying on centralized code out of our control embodies this spirit, and is thus the future. This involves downplaying these companies' powerful (and lucrative) roles, by making people focus only on what they facilitate. Thus, it makes perfect sense why the industry brands itself as "sharing" based - it makes you think about the interactions between participants, and ignore the cut going to the new middlemen.
- mercer 12y ago
  CouchSurfing would be a better example of 'sharing economy'...
- avz 12y ago
  > If you are paying for the service it is not sharing, is it? Yes, it is. In sharing there is no implication that it is for free, "to share" means simply "to use or enjoy something jointly or in turns." Source: http://thefreedictionary.com/share http://thefreedictionary.com/share
  - joshu 12y ago
    that's not really the connotation that everybody else shares.
dilap 12y ago
This is true, but it is possible that less regulation is necessary because of improvements to tech. E.g., I've found both Uber and Lyft drivers in SF to be way better than cab drivers. I've had cab drivers that seemed visibly high, stopped to open their door and cat-call women, etc. -- nothing like this has ever happened in Lyft or Uber for me, and it would be very unlikely, because a driver that did that would get low reviews and be kicked off the service very quickly. The drivers I've talked too have been really happy with the services too. It seems much more equitable and less exploitative than the standard cab setup. (Something like Airbnb seems much more a mix of good and bad.)
Kenji 12y ago
"How far can this race to the bottom go before our search for low costs starts to war with our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?" As far as people want to give up state-"guaranteed" safety for a better price. The state shouldn't have any saying in how ready I am to take risks. Who is the state to tell me in whose car I sit to go from A to B? In this particular case, the state is only a hinderance for the market to adjust to the personal needs of people.
- Elessar 12y ago
  Taxi regulation for safety reasons increases the trust in taxis for people that don't know the area: tourists. Harp about personal freedom and responsibility of the state all you want, but the regulation is for people that don't know the area and could get hurt by stepping into the wrong car. Because when the day occurs that a tourist is kidnapped or hurt because of this service, it will ruin the local industry. Uber may not care about the locals once it is sufficiently global (what's one city?), but the municipality does and this is precisely the reason why they're stepping in.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    State regulation didn't seem to stop Gurmeet Singh, licensed NYC cab driver, from kidnapping and raping a woman just a couple of months ago. Regulations are not magic, they can't tell if someone is a rapist. All they can do is check the criminal records, which Uber also does[1]. [1] http://blog.uber.com/driverscreening http://blog.uber.com/driverscreening
    - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
      So you believe there should be taxi services which can skip the background check but otherwise can have their cars look like any other taxi service? Uber may do the checks voluntarily, but having no regulation means you wish for a company that can refuse to do so.
      - icebraining 12y ago
bobcostas55 12y ago
>We aren't breaking the law on regulation because we are simply a technology company that connects your phone with another phone who happens to be in the possession of a guy in a car and whatever happens after that is between two consenting adults You say that like it's a bad thing.
AlisdairO 12y ago
I have less of a problem with Uber than with Airbnb. I do believe that Uber deals with issues of trustworthiness and reliability that taxi regulations were put in place to solve, without many major downsides. I think this is one area where technology makes regulation less necessary. Evaluating taxicab service is fairly easy, and reputation works well. Airbnb is more difficult. Evaluation doesn't replace regulation as easily in this case - I'm unlikely to pay that much attention to, say, fire safety unless I've experienced fire problems in the past. There's also much bigger externalities - for other residents in the same building as an Airbnb let, for example.
rhino369 12y ago
There is also no reason Uber can't operate a true communication and payment service. In Chicago they ran a service called UberTaxi. You'd get a regulated Chicago taxi and you'd pay the regulated rates. The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation. The regulations are often a burden on the taxi drivers for the good of the public. Of course you can beat their prices if you don't have to follow. That's not competition.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation. What the hell does it matter what the innovation is? We're not talking about including Uber as a subject in business class; we're talking about its relationship to governments.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation. As far as Uber is concerned, though, the hard part of their business IS skirting local regulations. Their core competence is not running a payment system - it's being able to lobby successfully to enter protected markets where other taxi companies couldn't. Once they've got first mover advantage the network effect takes over.
imgabe 12y ago
If the regulations are not working in the consumer's favor, why shouldn't we disregard them? In DC we just last year, that's right 2013, got taxis to agree to universally accept credit cards. Why? Because Uber came to town and people finally had another option aside from the generally terrible taxis in this city.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> The ability of these companies to outcompete traditional companies on price in their spaces is due to their choice to not follow regulations as much as possible. The only significant regulation affecting price that Uber carefully avoids is the limit on the number of taxi "medallions" issued. If you're in favor of regulating that industry, could you explain how a limit on taxi medallions is in any way good for taxi passengers?
- krschultz 12y ago
  The number of medallions is set in an effort to reduce the total number of taxis in the city. This is not good for any one particular person trying to get a cab. However, it is good for the total traffic situation in the city. If there were a significantly greater number of taxis, gridlock would be all but unavoidable. Then no one could take a taxi anywhere. It's one of those situations where the negative eternality is felt a tiny bit by everyone, so the regulation needs to take that into account. I'm not saying we have the perfect scheme - if we did congestion pricing would be higher, street parking prices would be way higher - but there is actually a rationale behind it. Most of the people are hyper focused on the rider/driver interaction, but there is a bigger city wide transit question in play that is often ignored.
avz 12y ago
I used to think taxis and hotels needed to be regulated to ensure quality and safety of the services. I don't anymore. It's pretty obvious by now that users have more trust in the sharing economy services like Uber than they do in the old taxi service. Yet another case where technology has improved on an older solution built by legal means alone.

by abduhl 12y ago

BrianEatWorld 12y ago

Instead of viewing them as a race to the bottom, perhaps it would be better to think of them as shining a light on the current systems. Just because they aren't regulated now, doesn't mean they can't be in the future. In a way, they offer another chance at regulating areas that have entrenched interests and decades of poor regulation that prevent efficient solutions from emerging today.

abduhl 12y ago
The only light these companies shine is that of capitalism. Why should we believe that they will be regulated meaningfully in the future and that the regulations won't just serve to bring them into the fold of existing regulations? What is to stop the next "innovator" from coming in to the same space and repeating the same argument about <insert timeframe> of poor regulation preventing efficient solutions? How does re-regulation do anything but protect these companies that have essentially ignored the law? As I said, where does our search for low costs end up battling our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?
- icebraining 12y ago
  How does re-regulation do anything but protect these companies that have essentially ignored the law? You mean, like the current laws, which were often written to stop taxi drivers rioting and destroying others' property[1]? As I said, where does our search for low costs end up battling our sense of personal safety and social responsibility? What about allowing each person to choose for herself? [1] http://www.britishpathe.com/video/u-s-taxi-strike http://www.britishpathe.com/video/u-s-taxi-strike

bmelton 12y ago

> The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated. In the case of Uber, in particular, the self-regulation they impose is much greater than the regulation that the government does, and accounts for a MUCH higher quality of service than the very heavily regulated taxi cabs. Maybe that doesn't work for every instance or every company, but the crowd-sourcing of relevant data seems, to me, a far more effective solution than the protectionist bureaucracy masquerading as regulation that exists.

untog 12y ago
> In the case of Uber, in particular, the self-regulation they impose is much greater than the regulation that the government does Citation needed? There have been numerous stories of Uber drivers and cars not matching expectations.
rayiner 12y ago
I don't think Uber's quality of service is the result of crowd sourced feedback. I think its the result of Uber as a company being aware of the intense scrutiny of its business model, and self-regulating accordingly. If the threat of shutdown wasn't looming overhead, and you saw the kind of competition in this space that you do with regular taxicabs (dozens of little cab companies), I don't think crowd sourced feedback would be effective.
brudgers 12y ago
It's private regulation. The public has no voice despite Uber utilizing public resources. For example, the public has an interest in efficient pickup and drop off at their airport. The public has an interest in the driving skill of professional drivers. The public has an interest in universal access to public transportation. Above all the public has an interest in determining what is and is not lawful. The people of Korea have spent more than 100 years (since colonialization by Japan in the 1890's) in a struggle for self-determination. Under what kind of logic does the profit of Silicon Valley venture capital trump the interests of the Korean people?
- bmelton 12y ago

haberman 12y ago

While I agree with some amount of regulation, part of the benefit of "app-driven" business models is that some of the regulations become obsolete. For example, one of the major reasons for taxi regulation is so you don't have to negotiate a fare after flagging down the car. The rate is regulated so you know what it will be before you flag down the taxi, and the regulated meter gives you assurances that you're not being cheated. This bit of regulation becomes obsolete with an Uber model: if you request an Uber ride with the app, you know you'll be paying Uber prices (and you can even get an estimate in the app IIRC). There is no need to regulate the price because consumers are empowered to do informed comparison shopping prior to the hail. Regulations should not be imposed on a business who has made the rationale for that regulation obsolete. Other regulations may still be important though.

fred_durst 12y ago
That is only because Uber has decided to. Tomorrow Uber could put a price on the app and then when you get there double it for "unforeseen traffic conditions". Before regulation taxis were experts at scamming and scheming their way into higher fares. I'm not sure why you think Uber, who outwardly admits profit is their only motive, won't use similar tricks if it benefits their bottom line. Or any number of similar copy cat services that will arrive if the Uber model finally does replace taxis.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Agreed. By the same token, we should also fix by the decree the price of any service - after all, companies can put surcharges and other tricks after you signed up. I say the Legislature of California should decide how much is fair for a SaaS company in SF to charge for its apps. Clearly they know better than the consumer. And it should be a standard price, none of this nonsense of different companies charging different prices.
  - techpeace 12y ago
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

NotOscarWilde 12y ago

I would like to add that quotes like this make me sympathize with abduhl's opinion even more: > An Uber spokesman in Seoul denied that the service was illegal as Uber is “a technology company that connects drivers with passengers” and doesn’t directly run a taxi service with rented cars. I know they want to claim they're not a (distributed) taxi company but that's what they are; they pay drivers, verify the drivers, help the drivers get insured and connect them with their passengers. That's what a taxi service is. Yes, they don't rent cars, but that is not the defining trait. If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences?

josu 12y ago
>If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? They are there to make money, and if fighting an injustice system is aligned with their goal of making money, they will fihgt. I get the feeling that Uber is idealized, same as Tesla.
- NotOscarWilde 12y ago
  Right, and I don't have a problem with them fighting the system; in fact, I believe as most of us do that the regulations may be too strict in most areas. However, this "half-fighting" when you criticise the regulations and at the same time you claim you're outside the law because you're just a "service" -- this rubs me the wrong way. It is this "half-fighting, half-outside" approach that is most evident in corporations. It's similar to corporations dealing with censorship -- everyone, even executives, agree that censorship is a bad thing but the company still wants to make money in China, so they have to obey it and respect it at the same time.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? If you're trying to fight an existing, firmly entrenched system, you don't walk up to the front door as early as possible, knock, and say "Hi, I'm here to destroy you." You become as popular as possible as quickly as possible, and then you might have the ability to survive such a challenge. One notable advantage this gives: if you follow the letter of the law as written, any subsequent change to the law is effectively targeting you specifically, which gives you a substantial amount of high ground to operate from. Assuming you're doing something that people actually want, you're then much more likely to have the general public on your side.

opendais 12y ago

> You know, I don't particularly like the "sharing economy" movement. The whole thing seems predicated on deregulation of industries that I honestly think should be regulated. I mostly agree with you but I think the sharing economy is something that needs to happen in a better regulated way. Let's face it, wage growth is stagnant and the only way the average person is able to improve their financial situation is to be more efficient. [e.g. sharing cars, renting out spare rooms, moonlighting as an Uber driver] My main problem with Uber is the fact it isn't paying the same tax rates to the local government as the Taxi companies. My main problem with AirBnb is they don't even bother with building an address list to filter out apartment complexes [almost all of which don't allow subleasing in the US] & condos [ditto]. They need to do that and require a copy of the person's lease to be on file with them showing they can sublease, etc.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> the only way the average person is able to improve their financial situation is to be more efficient AirBNB doesn't provide the average renter a way to improve their financial situation in the long run. For renters in non-regulated units (ie, no rent control/stabilization), if you can make an extra $200/week on AirBNB and your landlord knows it, he or she will simply raise the rent by $800/month the next time your lease is up for renewal. (Or, if he knows this in advance, this becomes the market rate for your initial lease to begin with). This is very easily corroborated by the studies showing that AirBNB led to an increase in rent in several cities (linked in other HN discussions, and also very easy to find elsewhere). This isn't a statement about AirBNB; it's just basic economics. Absent regulation or other market "stickiness", the money eventually flows to the individual or entity who owns the capital - in this case, the real estate. (The etymology of the word "capitalism" is not coincidental!). For property owners, the math is different (though still not as good for the owner as one might think).
- opendais 12y ago
  > For renters in non-regulated units (ie, no rent control/stabilization), if you can make an extra $200/week on AirBNB and your landlord knows it, he or she will simply raise the rent by $800/month the next time your lease is up for renewal. > This isn't a statement about AirBNB; it's just basic economics. Absent regulation or other market "stickiness", the money eventually flows to the individual or entity who owns the capital - in this case, the real estate. (The etymology of the word "capitalism" is not coincidental!). Please provide evidence that this doesn't happen with normal split leases, normal renting of rooms out to people, using craigslist to rent temporary rooms, and is directly linked to AirBnb. Like many things in life "basic economics" is not "basic" when you have multiple equal solutions that bring about equivalent outcomes. The same effects happen when people split rent [e.g. they can afford more, on average]. Also? They'd be able to do this without AirBNB and people did for a long time. AirBNB has only increased the supply & demand by making it easier.

joshu 12y ago

I feel like the term "sharing economy" would be better suited to something like where you share tools with your neighbors or something. Uber is a great business, but it's not sharing anything. It's a bunch of contractors and a communication network. If you are paying for the service it is not sharing, is it?

mindslight 12y ago
When learning the workings of the Internet, one feels an overwhelming sense of the empowering possibilities that global peer to peer communication brings. The marketing coup of modern web companies is to make us think that relying on centralized code out of our control embodies this spirit, and is thus the future. This involves downplaying these companies' powerful (and lucrative) roles, by making people focus only on what they facilitate. Thus, it makes perfect sense why the industry brands itself as "sharing" based - it makes you think about the interactions between participants, and ignore the cut going to the new middlemen.
mercer 12y ago
CouchSurfing would be a better example of 'sharing economy'...
avz 12y ago
> If you are paying for the service it is not sharing, is it? Yes, it is. In sharing there is no implication that it is for free, "to share" means simply "to use or enjoy something jointly or in turns." Source: http://thefreedictionary.com/share http://thefreedictionary.com/share
- joshu 12y ago
  that's not really the connotation that everybody else shares.

dilap 12y ago

This is true, but it is possible that less regulation is necessary because of improvements to tech. E.g., I've found both Uber and Lyft drivers in SF to be way better than cab drivers. I've had cab drivers that seemed visibly high, stopped to open their door and cat-call women, etc. -- nothing like this has ever happened in Lyft or Uber for me, and it would be very unlikely, because a driver that did that would get low reviews and be kicked off the service very quickly. The drivers I've talked too have been really happy with the services too. It seems much more equitable and less exploitative than the standard cab setup. (Something like Airbnb seems much more a mix of good and bad.)

Kenji 12y ago

"How far can this race to the bottom go before our search for low costs starts to war with our sense of personal safety and social responsibility?" As far as people want to give up state-"guaranteed" safety for a better price. The state shouldn't have any saying in how ready I am to take risks. Who is the state to tell me in whose car I sit to go from A to B? In this particular case, the state is only a hinderance for the market to adjust to the personal needs of people.

Elessar 12y ago
Taxi regulation for safety reasons increases the trust in taxis for people that don't know the area: tourists. Harp about personal freedom and responsibility of the state all you want, but the regulation is for people that don't know the area and could get hurt by stepping into the wrong car. Because when the day occurs that a tourist is kidnapped or hurt because of this service, it will ruin the local industry. Uber may not care about the locals once it is sufficiently global (what's one city?), but the municipality does and this is precisely the reason why they're stepping in.
- icebraining 12y ago
  State regulation didn't seem to stop Gurmeet Singh, licensed NYC cab driver, from kidnapping and raping a woman just a couple of months ago. Regulations are not magic, they can't tell if someone is a rapist. All they can do is check the criminal records, which Uber also does[1]. [1] http://blog.uber.com/driverscreening http://blog.uber.com/driverscreening
  - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
    So you believe there should be taxi services which can skip the background check but otherwise can have their cars look like any other taxi service? Uber may do the checks voluntarily, but having no regulation means you wish for a company that can refuse to do so.
    - icebraining 12y ago

bobcostas55 12y ago

>We aren't breaking the law on regulation because we are simply a technology company that connects your phone with another phone who happens to be in the possession of a guy in a car and whatever happens after that is between two consenting adults You say that like it's a bad thing.

AlisdairO 12y ago

I have less of a problem with Uber than with Airbnb. I do believe that Uber deals with issues of trustworthiness and reliability that taxi regulations were put in place to solve, without many major downsides. I think this is one area where technology makes regulation less necessary. Evaluating taxicab service is fairly easy, and reputation works well. Airbnb is more difficult. Evaluation doesn't replace regulation as easily in this case - I'm unlikely to pay that much attention to, say, fire safety unless I've experienced fire problems in the past. There's also much bigger externalities - for other residents in the same building as an Airbnb let, for example.

rhino369 12y ago

There is also no reason Uber can't operate a true communication and payment service. In Chicago they ran a service called UberTaxi. You'd get a regulated Chicago taxi and you'd pay the regulated rates. The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation. The regulations are often a burden on the taxi drivers for the good of the public. Of course you can beat their prices if you don't have to follow. That's not competition.

saraid216 12y ago
> The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation. What the hell does it matter what the innovation is? We're not talking about including Uber as a subject in business class; we're talking about its relationship to governments.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>The app and payment is the true innovation. Skirting local regulations by hiring out contractors isn't innovation. As far as Uber is concerned, though, the hard part of their business IS skirting local regulations. Their core competence is not running a payment system - it's being able to lobby successfully to enter protected markets where other taxi companies couldn't. Once they've got first mover advantage the network effect takes over.

imgabe 12y ago

If the regulations are not working in the consumer's favor, why shouldn't we disregard them? In DC we just last year, that's right 2013, got taxis to agree to universally accept credit cards. Why? Because Uber came to town and people finally had another option aside from the generally terrible taxis in this city.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

> The ability of these companies to outcompete traditional companies on price in their spaces is due to their choice to not follow regulations as much as possible. The only significant regulation affecting price that Uber carefully avoids is the limit on the number of taxi "medallions" issued. If you're in favor of regulating that industry, could you explain how a limit on taxi medallions is in any way good for taxi passengers?

krschultz 12y ago
The number of medallions is set in an effort to reduce the total number of taxis in the city. This is not good for any one particular person trying to get a cab. However, it is good for the total traffic situation in the city. If there were a significantly greater number of taxis, gridlock would be all but unavoidable. Then no one could take a taxi anywhere. It's one of those situations where the negative eternality is felt a tiny bit by everyone, so the regulation needs to take that into account. I'm not saying we have the perfect scheme - if we did congestion pricing would be higher, street parking prices would be way higher - but there is actually a rationale behind it. Most of the people are hyper focused on the rider/driver interaction, but there is a bigger city wide transit question in play that is often ignored.

avz 12y ago

I used to think taxis and hotels needed to be regulated to ensure quality and safety of the services. I don't anymore. It's pretty obvious by now that users have more trust in the sharing economy services like Uber than they do in the old taxi service. Yet another case where technology has improved on an older solution built by legal means alone.