10 ms·

This being a techie-oriented site I'm sure I'll find myself in the minority here, but here goes. I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by

by bedhead 12y ago

This being a techie-oriented site I'm sure I'll find myself in the minority here, but here goes. I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by assholes. Rideshare services like UberX and Lyft are going to get more-or-less shut down, and deservedly so. Remember that period in like 1999 before Napster got shut down? Yeah, that's rideshare right now. While many consumers cry "choice!" and "innovation!", the reality is that these services operate in a loophole which any objective observer will point out is complete bullshit. We have a system, which is probably unfair to begin with, but an existing and functional system nonetheless that rideshares effectively hacked. One group plays by the rules and is taxed and regulated and fee'd, the other magically escapes it. If you have a complaint it should be with cities that require medallions - they are the ones to blame for the current situation. Maybe we should get rid of medallions completely, I dunno. But be careful what you wish for.

dspillett 12y ago
> I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by assholes. This is a common theme, that there are a lot of arseholes running growing companies, from which I conclude that being an arsehole brings something to the business. Certainly arseholes tend to be determined in the pursuit of their goals which is useful when those goals overlap with a company's needs, particularly as a newer business grows. Of course it might not bring something to the customers, the workers, or the general public, hence we think they are arseholes but the board of the company see them as useful go-getters.
- arethuza 12y ago
  You might find this interesting: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
temuze 12y ago
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Napster and all the early music apps were basically a form of stealing. No one got money off downloads. It wasn't a sustainable model for the music industry. Uber has made the market more efficient. If anything, it's making the industry more sustainable.
- tgrass 12y ago
  Mike Munger suggests that (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html) by allowing Uber/Lyft the local government is committing a regulatory takings by devalueing the existing medallions. So not stealing, but not straight forward competition either.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
themartorana 12y ago
It's rare that bad business regulations and/or government sponsored monopolies are just, ya know, fixed. Quite often, people need to be shown how bad things have gotten before anything changes. It's even worse when the target of those regulations don't want things fixed either. Taxi companies pay crazy medallion fees, but expect exclusivity (perhaps rightly so) for that fee. Government doesn't want the fee income to go away, taxi companies enjoy their monopoly. Sometimes it takes someone breaking the rules - and more importantly, with the general full support of the public - to really cause any change in the old, entrenched ways.
- uptown 12y ago
  Breaking the rules doesn't require you to knee-cap your competition - but it says a lot about the ethics of your business. I wouldn't entrust my safety to a company that's so flagrant about their ethics.
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    This is just nonsensical. You're talking about getting a ride in a car.
    - thesteamboat 12y ago
      Which is, statistically speaking, one of the most dangerous things you do every day.
      - bithive123 12y ago
        Right, and when there are statistics showing that Uber drivers pose a greater danger to their passengers than any other road hazards created by unethical companies then the sentiment will be meaningful.
        sliverstorm 12y ago
        I don't need statistics to elect not to put my life in somebody's hands.
sheetjs 12y ago
There was an excellent comment some months ago that best captures my thought on the matter (and on the players): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7384317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7384317 > If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan. > Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders.
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  But Uber does actually exist as a "cab company with excellent technological underpinnings." You can request actual licensed taxis and licenced black hire cars through Uber. But they are heavily regulated though. For example, at least in Australia, a taxi has to be a particular make/model/style of car, and a hire cars can only be cars more expensive than $60k AUD [1]. There's no room in the middle for a nice, normal car that's not too expensive that it jacks up fares. I think Uber's biggest problem is not actually knowing or understanding what Uber is - I have friends say to be all the time 'Uber, isnt that illegal?', where it's only a very recent product of Uber (UberX) that's in a weird legal gray area. Ubers original, best and most popular (I presume) product, Uber Black - is just standard hire car service with a fancy app and payment system. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_Car_Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_Car_Tax
  - nl 12y ago
    For example, at least in Australia, a taxi has to be a particular make/model/style of car Citation needed. I can't find anything that specifies that, but the Wikipedia article[1] lists a large number of cars in use just in NSW. and a hire cars can only be cars more expensive than $60k AUD[1] Again, citation needed (and I'm not sure why you are linking to the Luxury Car Tax - that applies to all cars). The NT legislation[1] doesn't say that, and the Victorian Government's taxi website[3] says the opposite: >Hire cars can only operate after being previously booked. They can be luxury sedans, stretched limousines, hybrids and non-luxury vehicles. (Emphasis mine) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia#New_South_Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia#New_South... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_reg/lr238/ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_reg/lr238/ [3] http://www.taxi.vic.gov.au/owners-and-operators/hire-cars http://www.taxi.vic.gov.au/owners-and-operators/hire-cars
barce 12y ago
Honestly, I don't see how ridesharing is like stealing music. The ridesharing services are all competing fairly for riders except for Ubers underhanded tactics. The medallions capped the number of taxis so that cabbies could make a fair living, but this created a false scarcity. Market forces were legally not allowed to create more drivers. Yes, I agree that the complaint should be with cities that required medallions in the first place. I disagree with you that the system was ever functional. Anybody from the 1990s in San Francisco remembers 90 minute waits for taxis that were crappy. Uber is way better, and shouldn't have to resort to underhanded tactics to compete.
- bedhead 12y ago
  No. They are NOT competing fairly, because they figured out (or simply fell ass backwards into it) how to hack the rules. Rideshares have a wildly unfair cost advantage because they do not need to purchase medallions, have commercial auto insurance, pass annual maintenance checks, comply with a long list of regulations, etc. It is the very definition of unfair, if only because the government, for better or worse, has made it that way. Sure it sounds great...until there's a problem. Until the car crashes into a school bus. Or you've got 50,000 gas guzzlers on the road. Or they get into fights with customers. Or there is some other worse criminal activity. Just because you like the app doesn't mean it's justified in its current form. There may very well be artificial supply with respect to medallions, except there's one major indefensible problem with that position - I don't know any cab drivers living the high life. Do you?
  - cglace 12y ago
    "I don't know any cab drivers living the high life" I'm pretty sure the cab drivers themselves do not own the medallions.
    - aetherson 12y ago
      It depends! Generalizations about taxis are usually false. In San Francisco, cab drivers do own medallions -- you actually have to drive a cab at least 800 hours per year in order to own a medallion. Not every driver in SF owns a medallion. Drivers who are owners can and do rent out the medallions to other drivers for when the owner is not himself out driving. In this way, medallions can theoretically be utilized 100% of the time. The way it works in SF is that most drivers are affiliated with a fleet (they are not employees of the fleet). The fleets typically (though not always) own the vehicles. The fleets rent the medallions and then hand them out along with the vehicles to the drivers, and the fleets also handle insurance and other infrastructure stuff, plus dispatch. The drivers pay a "gate fee" at the start of their shift to the fleet, and then keep their earnings that they make during the shift (so they start out in the hole and earn out their gate fee (hopefully!) and then anything on top of that is profit to them). It may be completely different in other cities. My understanding is that in NYC, drivers are typically not medallion owners, and there aren't really fleets in the SF sense -- instead there are taxi yards that offer some of the same functions, but have a less exclusive relationship with taxis and some kind of different business model. But I don't know much about NYC. In cities with less expensive medallions, I'm sure it works differently again. Source: I am an employee of Flywheel -- we work closely with SF cabs. EDIT: By the way, again in SF at least, where medallions recently cost $250k (they've gone down since), you might ask "How does a cab driver pay $250k"? The answer was simple: they get loans. There are or were bank loans available to get a medallion, on the basis that medallions gave you the earning power necessary to pay back the loans. So, given that banks are not charitable organizations, if you're wondering who got the excess value created by the legal monopoly of the medallion, part of the answer is "banks."
electromagnetic 12y ago
Agreed. There's lots of government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. Taxies are often one due to the sheer logistics required. Your city either has a taxi service, or doesn't. There's unfathomable liability not having a taxi service. Are you going to start paying designated drivers? Because it'll be the city on the line when there's no operating taxi service and drunk driving rates skyrocket and a judge is forced to punish people who had no practical way to get home. Construction companies are the same, there's only one big company that does roadwork where I live. I got a driveway in, the job was given to a bunch of different contractors to do the sidewalk as they had to be city approved. It took 3 contractors 4 visits to do the prep for the sidewalk: they marked it twice, cut and removed it but did it to the wrong marks, framed it. We complained and complained and nothing happened. Finally the concrete company that does all the roadworks was the final contractor, I run out and explain it to them and the guys like "yeah no problem, happens all the time. We just bill the city for the extras." That was the day I stopped questioning why there was one big contractor, its because the little guys just can't coordinate it. Uber will get squashed for the very reason it is disruptive. Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance, no quality regulation, its a recipie for massive lawsuits, tax agencies alleging tax fraud and worse Uber will be targeted for aiding tax evasion.
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  > Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. This happens already? Here's my trip from last night http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png > No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance Taxes have nothing to do with this - everyone still needs to report their regular income - Uber doesnt change this. Also, the majority of fares on Uber are actually through Uber taxi, black or SUV. They are all licensed and already carry commercial insurance (as some of them accept fares outside of Uber). For the drivers that don't have their own commercial insurance (e.g. UberX), Uber covers them with their own insurance (which you can actually read yourself as it was leaked not too long ago).
  - 12y ago
jonknee 12y ago
> I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by assholes. If true that is still a giant improvement over your average taxi company. Uber might be run by assholes, but it's not run by the mob or by cronyism.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  I honestly don't see that big of a difference between Uber and the medallion-mafia. The only real difference is that Uber is the underdog - we've already seen proof that they'll use abusive, borderline illegal, behavior to sideline competitors instead of honest competition. "Giant improvement" Uber is not. It's wannabe robber baron vs. incumbent robber baron. They'll be a net benefit to consumers as long as they're the underdog - God help us if they ever get into the top spot. I'm a fan of disrupting the old medallion cabs, they've been sitting idle getting by on substandard product for eons. But I'm adamantly opposed to letting Uber write the new rulebook - from everything we've seen from them they're less interested in evening the playing field than locking everyone else out of the market except themselves. They will abuse transport regulation - just like the old cab companies - to monopolize the market if we let them.
  - jonknee 12y ago
    The huge giant glaring difference is Uber is being aggressive to provide a better service while the mobbed up medallion racket is being aggressive to line their pockets. I know which one I prefer! The cancelled rides here are part of the giant recruitment drive both companies are in as they rapidly try and scale up--they're trying to hire away each other's drivers.
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      And once the mobbed up medallion racket dies, you think Uber will still be aggressive about providing a better service? Uber is no different than any other wannabe monopolist - they'll fight hard to monopolize the market - whether by regulatory capture or sketchy fraudulent activity like what we're looking at today (based on what we've seen from Uber, it's a mix of both). Once they do it's game over for consumers. How do you think the medallion racket got here? This is how we got here in the first place - lots of shitty unregulated cars engaging in awful abuses, prompting public outcry. Cab companies upped their game, consolidated, fought for regulation, and successfully drove that element of their industry out. And then promptly started feeding at the trough. Once upon a time, the evil cab companies were the good guys. There's no reason to believe Uber is any different. They've already demonstrated all the willingness to skirt basic business ethics. Uber is a necessary evil to shake up the entrenched awfulness of the cab industry. It also needs to be kept on a very short leash lest we end up with the new boss, same as the old boss.
hyperpape 12y ago
Like Napster: a flawed product that nonetheless helped catalyze awesome results (iTunes, and eventually ubiquitous DRM free music) over the protests of a shitty industry that refused to change? That comparison might be the most positive thing anyone has said about Uber in this whole thread. (For the record, I was nodding my head when you lead with "they're a bunch of assholes."
wyager 12y ago
>We have a system, which is probably unfair to begin with, but an existing and functional system nonetheless that rideshares effectively hacked. Yeah, and made it 100x better. Why should I be mad about this?
mikeash 12y ago
Similar arguments were made about VoIP and various other internet services versus incumbents in the 90s. Thank goodness the upstarts didn't have qualms about using loopholes. Often the best way to get rid of bad regulations is to show how much better things can be without them.
- brownbat 12y ago
  MCI expanded long distance communications over microwaves just to dodge the AT&T monopoly. They ended up breaking up the telco monopoly and creating a competitive long distance industry. The sad part of the story is that it had to move it's HQ to Washington DC because its business was essentially lobbying and lawsuits for half a century, and that AT&T reacquired most of its regional components after its breakup. More at Tim Wu's excellent "The Master Switch," naturally.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    Another example of using loopholes to open up a market comes from Europe: In Sweden we used to have only 2 channels government public broadcasting. Commercial television was thought of as something evil that will corrupt the innocent minds of the population. The loophole used by the first commercial broadcaster was satellite - they headquartered themselves and broadcast from the UK to a satellite and then sold satellite subscriptions in Sweden. Eventually the government relented to the popularity of commercial TV and the first terrestrial commercial station started broadcasting in 1991.
RandallBrown 12y ago
What loophole are UberX and Lyft using? Major markets (San Francisco and Seattle for example) have written laws to regulate, and legitimize, ridesharing.
philwelch 12y ago
In Seattle at least, they've been retroactively legalized. Sometimes you have to ask forgiveness rather than permission, and if they're going to be assholes, I'd rather they be assholes to the cab mafia on my behalf, rather than the status quo, which is a bunch of cabbies who are assholes to me.
CodeWriter23 12y ago
In CA, they don't exist in a loophole, they are licensed by the California Public Utilities Commission to operate, just like any limousine company that has a TCP number on its cars: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC_Licenses_Issued.htm http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC_Licenses_Issu...
anigbrowl 12y ago
Yeah, I was very supportive f Uber when they got started because the taxi monopoly in SF is wildly inefficient at best and corrupt at worst, but unfortunately Uber seem determined to outdo them in that area too.
abritishguy 12y ago
The US is not the only country.
baddox 12y ago
> We have a system, which is probably unfair to begin with, but an existing and functional system nonetheless that rideshares effectively hacked. I don't get it. Your faint praise for the government's system is that it is "existing and functional." And yet, the new system, with ride sharing services, is equally existing, and I would argue much more functional.
archagon 12y ago
If a new service comes along and is better enough than what came before that it upheaves the industry, I'm sorry, but you can't just regulate it away. Napster may have been shut down, but the music industry is still reeling from the effects of piracy, and now we have services like Spotify that compete with "free" directly. (Oh, and piracy is bigger than ever.) People love Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. They won't be going anywhere.
walshemj 12y ago
The medallion system is a corrupt one a system like Londons "the knowledge" plus some basic BG checks is a fairer way.
mathattack 12y ago
A small fixed quantity of medallions with a strong one-issue political base is a terrible system.

by bedhead 12y ago

dspillett 12y ago

> I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by assholes. This is a common theme, that there are a lot of arseholes running growing companies, from which I conclude that being an arsehole brings something to the business. Certainly arseholes tend to be determined in the pursuit of their goals which is useful when those goals overlap with a company's needs, particularly as a newer business grows. Of course it might not bring something to the customers, the workers, or the general public, hence we think they are arseholes but the board of the company see them as useful go-getters.

arethuza 12y ago
You might find this interesting: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...

temuze 12y ago

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Napster and all the early music apps were basically a form of stealing. No one got money off downloads. It wasn't a sustainable model for the music industry. Uber has made the market more efficient. If anything, it's making the industry more sustainable.

tgrass 12y ago
Mike Munger suggests that (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html) by allowing Uber/Lyft the local government is committing a regulatory takings by devalueing the existing medallions. So not stealing, but not straight forward competition either.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

themartorana 12y ago

It's rare that bad business regulations and/or government sponsored monopolies are just, ya know, fixed. Quite often, people need to be shown how bad things have gotten before anything changes. It's even worse when the target of those regulations don't want things fixed either. Taxi companies pay crazy medallion fees, but expect exclusivity (perhaps rightly so) for that fee. Government doesn't want the fee income to go away, taxi companies enjoy their monopoly. Sometimes it takes someone breaking the rules - and more importantly, with the general full support of the public - to really cause any change in the old, entrenched ways.

uptown 12y ago
Breaking the rules doesn't require you to knee-cap your competition - but it says a lot about the ethics of your business. I wouldn't entrust my safety to a company that's so flagrant about their ethics.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  This is just nonsensical. You're talking about getting a ride in a car.
  - thesteamboat 12y ago
    Which is, statistically speaking, one of the most dangerous things you do every day.
    - bithive123 12y ago
      Right, and when there are statistics showing that Uber drivers pose a greater danger to their passengers than any other road hazards created by unethical companies then the sentiment will be meaningful.
      - sliverstorm 12y ago
        I don't need statistics to elect not to put my life in somebody's hands.

sheetjs 12y ago

There was an excellent comment some months ago that best captures my thought on the matter (and on the players): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7384317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7384317 > If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan. > Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders.

madeofpalk 12y ago
But Uber does actually exist as a "cab company with excellent technological underpinnings." You can request actual licensed taxis and licenced black hire cars through Uber. But they are heavily regulated though. For example, at least in Australia, a taxi has to be a particular make/model/style of car, and a hire cars can only be cars more expensive than $60k AUD [1]. There's no room in the middle for a nice, normal car that's not too expensive that it jacks up fares. I think Uber's biggest problem is not actually knowing or understanding what Uber is - I have friends say to be all the time 'Uber, isnt that illegal?', where it's only a very recent product of Uber (UberX) that's in a weird legal gray area. Ubers original, best and most popular (I presume) product, Uber Black - is just standard hire car service with a fancy app and payment system. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_Car_Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_Car_Tax
- nl 12y ago
  For example, at least in Australia, a taxi has to be a particular make/model/style of car Citation needed. I can't find anything that specifies that, but the Wikipedia article[1] lists a large number of cars in use just in NSW. and a hire cars can only be cars more expensive than $60k AUD[1] Again, citation needed (and I'm not sure why you are linking to the Luxury Car Tax - that applies to all cars). The NT legislation[1] doesn't say that, and the Victorian Government's taxi website[3] says the opposite: >Hire cars can only operate after being previously booked. They can be luxury sedans, stretched limousines, hybrids and non-luxury vehicles. (Emphasis mine) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia#New_South_Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia#New_South... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_reg/lr238/ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_reg/lr238/ [3] http://www.taxi.vic.gov.au/owners-and-operators/hire-cars http://www.taxi.vic.gov.au/owners-and-operators/hire-cars

barce 12y ago

Honestly, I don't see how ridesharing is like stealing music. The ridesharing services are all competing fairly for riders except for Ubers underhanded tactics. The medallions capped the number of taxis so that cabbies could make a fair living, but this created a false scarcity. Market forces were legally not allowed to create more drivers. Yes, I agree that the complaint should be with cities that required medallions in the first place. I disagree with you that the system was ever functional. Anybody from the 1990s in San Francisco remembers 90 minute waits for taxis that were crappy. Uber is way better, and shouldn't have to resort to underhanded tactics to compete.

bedhead 12y ago
No. They are NOT competing fairly, because they figured out (or simply fell ass backwards into it) how to hack the rules. Rideshares have a wildly unfair cost advantage because they do not need to purchase medallions, have commercial auto insurance, pass annual maintenance checks, comply with a long list of regulations, etc. It is the very definition of unfair, if only because the government, for better or worse, has made it that way. Sure it sounds great...until there's a problem. Until the car crashes into a school bus. Or you've got 50,000 gas guzzlers on the road. Or they get into fights with customers. Or there is some other worse criminal activity. Just because you like the app doesn't mean it's justified in its current form. There may very well be artificial supply with respect to medallions, except there's one major indefensible problem with that position - I don't know any cab drivers living the high life. Do you?
- cglace 12y ago
  "I don't know any cab drivers living the high life" I'm pretty sure the cab drivers themselves do not own the medallions.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    It depends! Generalizations about taxis are usually false. In San Francisco, cab drivers do own medallions -- you actually have to drive a cab at least 800 hours per year in order to own a medallion. Not every driver in SF owns a medallion. Drivers who are owners can and do rent out the medallions to other drivers for when the owner is not himself out driving. In this way, medallions can theoretically be utilized 100% of the time. The way it works in SF is that most drivers are affiliated with a fleet (they are not employees of the fleet). The fleets typically (though not always) own the vehicles. The fleets rent the medallions and then hand them out along with the vehicles to the drivers, and the fleets also handle insurance and other infrastructure stuff, plus dispatch. The drivers pay a "gate fee" at the start of their shift to the fleet, and then keep their earnings that they make during the shift (so they start out in the hole and earn out their gate fee (hopefully!) and then anything on top of that is profit to them). It may be completely different in other cities. My understanding is that in NYC, drivers are typically not medallion owners, and there aren't really fleets in the SF sense -- instead there are taxi yards that offer some of the same functions, but have a less exclusive relationship with taxis and some kind of different business model. But I don't know much about NYC. In cities with less expensive medallions, I'm sure it works differently again. Source: I am an employee of Flywheel -- we work closely with SF cabs. EDIT: By the way, again in SF at least, where medallions recently cost $250k (they've gone down since), you might ask "How does a cab driver pay $250k"? The answer was simple: they get loans. There are or were bank loans available to get a medallion, on the basis that medallions gave you the earning power necessary to pay back the loans. So, given that banks are not charitable organizations, if you're wondering who got the excess value created by the legal monopoly of the medallion, part of the answer is "banks."

electromagnetic 12y ago

Agreed. There's lots of government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. Taxies are often one due to the sheer logistics required. Your city either has a taxi service, or doesn't. There's unfathomable liability not having a taxi service. Are you going to start paying designated drivers? Because it'll be the city on the line when there's no operating taxi service and drunk driving rates skyrocket and a judge is forced to punish people who had no practical way to get home. Construction companies are the same, there's only one big company that does roadwork where I live. I got a driveway in, the job was given to a bunch of different contractors to do the sidewalk as they had to be city approved. It took 3 contractors 4 visits to do the prep for the sidewalk: they marked it twice, cut and removed it but did it to the wrong marks, framed it. We complained and complained and nothing happened. Finally the concrete company that does all the roadworks was the final contractor, I run out and explain it to them and the guys like "yeah no problem, happens all the time. We just bill the city for the extras." That was the day I stopped questioning why there was one big contractor, its because the little guys just can't coordinate it. Uber will get squashed for the very reason it is disruptive. Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance, no quality regulation, its a recipie for massive lawsuits, tax agencies alleging tax fraud and worse Uber will be targeted for aiding tax evasion.

madeofpalk 12y ago
> Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. This happens already? Here's my trip from last night http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png > No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance Taxes have nothing to do with this - everyone still needs to report their regular income - Uber doesnt change this. Also, the majority of fares on Uber are actually through Uber taxi, black or SUV. They are all licensed and already carry commercial insurance (as some of them accept fares outside of Uber). For the drivers that don't have their own commercial insurance (e.g. UberX), Uber covers them with their own insurance (which you can actually read yourself as it was leaked not too long ago).
- 12y ago

jonknee 12y ago

> I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by assholes. If true that is still a giant improvement over your average taxi company. Uber might be run by assholes, but it's not run by the mob or by cronyism.

potatolicious 12y ago
I honestly don't see that big of a difference between Uber and the medallion-mafia. The only real difference is that Uber is the underdog - we've already seen proof that they'll use abusive, borderline illegal, behavior to sideline competitors instead of honest competition. "Giant improvement" Uber is not. It's wannabe robber baron vs. incumbent robber baron. They'll be a net benefit to consumers as long as they're the underdog - God help us if they ever get into the top spot. I'm a fan of disrupting the old medallion cabs, they've been sitting idle getting by on substandard product for eons. But I'm adamantly opposed to letting Uber write the new rulebook - from everything we've seen from them they're less interested in evening the playing field than locking everyone else out of the market except themselves. They will abuse transport regulation - just like the old cab companies - to monopolize the market if we let them.
- jonknee 12y ago
  The huge giant glaring difference is Uber is being aggressive to provide a better service while the mobbed up medallion racket is being aggressive to line their pockets. I know which one I prefer! The cancelled rides here are part of the giant recruitment drive both companies are in as they rapidly try and scale up--they're trying to hire away each other's drivers.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    And once the mobbed up medallion racket dies, you think Uber will still be aggressive about providing a better service? Uber is no different than any other wannabe monopolist - they'll fight hard to monopolize the market - whether by regulatory capture or sketchy fraudulent activity like what we're looking at today (based on what we've seen from Uber, it's a mix of both). Once they do it's game over for consumers. How do you think the medallion racket got here? This is how we got here in the first place - lots of shitty unregulated cars engaging in awful abuses, prompting public outcry. Cab companies upped their game, consolidated, fought for regulation, and successfully drove that element of their industry out. And then promptly started feeding at the trough. Once upon a time, the evil cab companies were the good guys. There's no reason to believe Uber is any different. They've already demonstrated all the willingness to skirt basic business ethics. Uber is a necessary evil to shake up the entrenched awfulness of the cab industry. It also needs to be kept on a very short leash lest we end up with the new boss, same as the old boss.

hyperpape 12y ago

Like Napster: a flawed product that nonetheless helped catalyze awesome results (iTunes, and eventually ubiquitous DRM free music) over the protests of a shitty industry that refused to change? That comparison might be the most positive thing anyone has said about Uber in this whole thread. (For the record, I was nodding my head when you lead with "they're a bunch of assholes."

wyager 12y ago

>We have a system, which is probably unfair to begin with, but an existing and functional system nonetheless that rideshares effectively hacked. Yeah, and made it 100x better. Why should I be mad about this?

mikeash 12y ago

Similar arguments were made about VoIP and various other internet services versus incumbents in the 90s. Thank goodness the upstarts didn't have qualms about using loopholes. Often the best way to get rid of bad regulations is to show how much better things can be without them.

brownbat 12y ago
MCI expanded long distance communications over microwaves just to dodge the AT&T monopoly. They ended up breaking up the telco monopoly and creating a competitive long distance industry. The sad part of the story is that it had to move it's HQ to Washington DC because its business was essentially lobbying and lawsuits for half a century, and that AT&T reacquired most of its regional components after its breakup. More at Tim Wu's excellent "The Master Switch," naturally.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Another example of using loopholes to open up a market comes from Europe: In Sweden we used to have only 2 channels government public broadcasting. Commercial television was thought of as something evil that will corrupt the innocent minds of the population. The loophole used by the first commercial broadcaster was satellite - they headquartered themselves and broadcast from the UK to a satellite and then sold satellite subscriptions in Sweden. Eventually the government relented to the popularity of commercial TV and the first terrestrial commercial station started broadcasting in 1991.

RandallBrown 12y ago

What loophole are UberX and Lyft using? Major markets (San Francisco and Seattle for example) have written laws to regulate, and legitimize, ridesharing.

philwelch 12y ago

In Seattle at least, they've been retroactively legalized. Sometimes you have to ask forgiveness rather than permission, and if they're going to be assholes, I'd rather they be assholes to the cab mafia on my behalf, rather than the status quo, which is a bunch of cabbies who are assholes to me.

CodeWriter23 12y ago

In CA, they don't exist in a loophole, they are licensed by the California Public Utilities Commission to operate, just like any limousine company that has a TCP number on its cars: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC_Licenses_Issued.htm http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC_Licenses_Issu...

anigbrowl 12y ago

Yeah, I was very supportive f Uber when they got started because the taxi monopoly in SF is wildly inefficient at best and corrupt at worst, but unfortunately Uber seem determined to outdo them in that area too.

abritishguy 12y ago

The US is not the only country.

baddox 12y ago

> We have a system, which is probably unfair to begin with, but an existing and functional system nonetheless that rideshares effectively hacked. I don't get it. Your faint praise for the government's system is that it is "existing and functional." And yet, the new system, with ride sharing services, is equally existing, and I would argue much more functional.

archagon 12y ago

If a new service comes along and is better enough than what came before that it upheaves the industry, I'm sorry, but you can't just regulate it away. Napster may have been shut down, but the music industry is still reeling from the effects of piracy, and now we have services like Spotify that compete with "free" directly. (Oh, and piracy is bigger than ever.) People love Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. They won't be going anywhere.

walshemj 12y ago

The medallion system is a corrupt one a system like Londons "the knowledge" plus some basic BG checks is a fairer way.

mathattack 12y ago

A small fixed quantity of medallions with a strong one-issue political base is a terrible system.