4 ms·

Uber is fighting governments in plenty of places where there aren't legal monopolies, so I'm not sure that's the explanation, or at least not all of it. They've

Uber is fighting governments in plenty of places where there aren't legal monopolies, so I'm not sure that's the explanation, or at least not all of it. They've had run-ins with Stockholm, for example, even though Sweden has deregulated taxi pricing and no medallions. Anyone who's properly licensed and insured can start up a taxi service, charging anything they want, even $1000/km if they want [1]. However, while you can charge anything you want, you have to post what that's going to be, publicly and conspicuously on the outside of the cab, which Uber doesn't want to do. Maybe that shouldn't be required either, but it's definitely not a taxi-monopoly question. [1] This part has caused some problems with legally overpriced taxis ripping off tourists. The fact that Sweden uses SEK rather than EUR helps that scam, because some tourists initially arriving don't yet have any intuitive feel for what 100 or 1000 or 10,000 SEK is worth, and naively assume whatever the taxi is charging must be "the going rate", since they assume taxi fares are probably regulated (like in most places).

eglover 12y ago
"BlaBlaCar is restricted by unnecessary and economically damaging laws, but puts up with them. Uber and Lyft fight them" That's the take away. You can't compare the two and say one is simply being "polite". They take different approaches. Uber and Lyft are doing a whole lot of good and making big and beneficial waves. BlaBlaCar simply offers a competitive service where it's allowed to do so. The article smells of a "holier-than-thou" attitude which is completely unfounded.
- _delirium 12y ago
  I guess that's the part I disagree with. I think Uber and Lyft are mostly doing harm, and not even an interesting new kind of harm: shady taxi companies skirting laws to up their profits is as old as the taxi business. (And doing it "with an app" doesn't make it tech, either, any more than Domino's Pizza is a tech company.) And in some cases (like Sweden) I suspect the conflict is even manufactured for PR purposes: Uber relies on "disruption" PR for its marketing, so has to manufacture disruption even where there isn't anything actually standing in the way of just running a legit taxi company.
  - wuliwong 12y ago
    So your stance is that Uber is doing "harm" as a "shady" NON TECH company manufacturing "conflict PR"? 1. How do you define harm? My experience is that every one of my friends who use Uber really like it and the drivers I've spoken to along my rides have all said they like working with Uber too. Is the "harm" done to the other taxi companies? Would you say that Apple did "harm" when they released the iPhone because people who would have bought other company's products bought an iPhone instead? Because that's essentially what is happening here. Uber's product is perceived by my friends as vastly superior to the taxis in Atlanta. In fact, before Uber, they mostly didn't even use taxis. But now that Uber exists, they will often take Uber to and from their destinations so they don't have to worry about a designated driver. 2. I guess you define "shady" as a company that doesn't want agree to current regulations from the government. So whoever the govt. deems "not shady" is basically your definition of not shady. 3. The core differentiator of Uber and a regular taxi is the app. Obviously they are a blend of tech and transportation but just because they have some "non tech" elements, I don't believe that precludes them being considered a tech company. But, this is all subjective, there's no actual meaning to the word "tech" in tech company. 4. Do you have anything to back up these claims of Uber manufacturing fake PR? They have been outlawed a bunch of times in a bunch of cities of which none of those cases were made up by Uber. It is very very hard for me to believe that they would go to the trouble of making up fake stories in the cities where things were going well.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      On #4, I don't see any evidence they attempted to follow the laws. The Swedish taxi market is deregulated and not a cartel. You can enter it, as long as you follow some fairly simple consumer-protection regulations! Uber is just not interested. I suspect that part of the reason is that it would be damaging to their image to be "just another taxi company". But it could also be that they legitimately find it difficult to adapt their business to the rules. Now you could argue even the relatively few regulations Sweden has left should be scrapped. But that's what the democratic system is for. I don't support just ignoring them when you think they should be different. I mean, maybe in extreme cases, where people are actually being oppressed, direct action and civil-disobedience are justified. But Uber's dispute with Stockholm over how to give fair notice of prices, and what constitutes a "meter", seem like a pretty small hook to hang a civil-rights crusade on.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Restating your conclusion doesn't address Delerium's point about Uber picking fights where none exists.
  - eglover 12y ago
    It DOES exist, pay attention or don't comment.

eglover 12y ago

"BlaBlaCar is restricted by unnecessary and economically damaging laws, but puts up with them. Uber and Lyft fight them" That's the take away. You can't compare the two and say one is simply being "polite". They take different approaches. Uber and Lyft are doing a whole lot of good and making big and beneficial waves. BlaBlaCar simply offers a competitive service where it's allowed to do so. The article smells of a "holier-than-thou" attitude which is completely unfounded.

_delirium 12y ago
I guess that's the part I disagree with. I think Uber and Lyft are mostly doing harm, and not even an interesting new kind of harm: shady taxi companies skirting laws to up their profits is as old as the taxi business. (And doing it "with an app" doesn't make it tech, either, any more than Domino's Pizza is a tech company.) And in some cases (like Sweden) I suspect the conflict is even manufactured for PR purposes: Uber relies on "disruption" PR for its marketing, so has to manufacture disruption even where there isn't anything actually standing in the way of just running a legit taxi company.
- wuliwong 12y ago
  So your stance is that Uber is doing "harm" as a "shady" NON TECH company manufacturing "conflict PR"? 1. How do you define harm? My experience is that every one of my friends who use Uber really like it and the drivers I've spoken to along my rides have all said they like working with Uber too. Is the "harm" done to the other taxi companies? Would you say that Apple did "harm" when they released the iPhone because people who would have bought other company's products bought an iPhone instead? Because that's essentially what is happening here. Uber's product is perceived by my friends as vastly superior to the taxis in Atlanta. In fact, before Uber, they mostly didn't even use taxis. But now that Uber exists, they will often take Uber to and from their destinations so they don't have to worry about a designated driver. 2. I guess you define "shady" as a company that doesn't want agree to current regulations from the government. So whoever the govt. deems "not shady" is basically your definition of not shady. 3. The core differentiator of Uber and a regular taxi is the app. Obviously they are a blend of tech and transportation but just because they have some "non tech" elements, I don't believe that precludes them being considered a tech company. But, this is all subjective, there's no actual meaning to the word "tech" in tech company. 4. Do you have anything to back up these claims of Uber manufacturing fake PR? They have been outlawed a bunch of times in a bunch of cities of which none of those cases were made up by Uber. It is very very hard for me to believe that they would go to the trouble of making up fake stories in the cities where things were going well.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    On #4, I don't see any evidence they attempted to follow the laws. The Swedish taxi market is deregulated and not a cartel. You can enter it, as long as you follow some fairly simple consumer-protection regulations! Uber is just not interested. I suspect that part of the reason is that it would be damaging to their image to be "just another taxi company". But it could also be that they legitimately find it difficult to adapt their business to the rules. Now you could argue even the relatively few regulations Sweden has left should be scrapped. But that's what the democratic system is for. I don't support just ignoring them when you think they should be different. I mean, maybe in extreme cases, where people are actually being oppressed, direct action and civil-disobedience are justified. But Uber's dispute with Stockholm over how to give fair notice of prices, and what constitutes a "meter", seem like a pretty small hook to hang a civil-rights crusade on.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Restating your conclusion doesn't address Delerium's point about Uber picking fights where none exists.
- eglover 12y ago
  It DOES exist, pay attention or don't comment.