6 ms·

"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 compar

by 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.
    - eglover 12y ago
      This is exactly why many people CHOOSE to use Uber. Because they don't put up with unnecessary and economically damaging laws. This allows them to draw in either better drivers or better prices. If you're going to hang on to this point, you're going to have to provide some real reasons as to how people choosing to use Uber or Lyft over other "official" companies because they like them better is somehow harming them.
- eglover 12y ago
  How are they doing harm? Unless you're going to tell me people are too dumb to make decisions about who gives them rides I can't possibly see where there can be any harm.
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.

by eglover 12y ago

_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.
  - eglover 12y ago
    This is exactly why many people CHOOSE to use Uber. Because they don't put up with unnecessary and economically damaging laws. This allows them to draw in either better drivers or better prices. If you're going to hang on to this point, you're going to have to provide some real reasons as to how people choosing to use Uber or Lyft over other "official" companies because they like them better is somehow harming them.
eglover 12y ago
How are they doing harm? Unless you're going to tell me people are too dumb to make decisions about who gives them rides I can't possibly see where there can be any harm.

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.