5 ms·

I live in Berlin and this is extremely disappointing. I'm beginning to doubt European cities in general have any clue what makes startups in US work. Here's wha

• Tomte 12y ago
  I guess that's one part of "the Silicon Valley" that I don't want to catch up with.
• nodata 12y ago
  What do you find disappointing about it?
• Xylakant 12y ago
  I live in Berlin and this is extremely satisfying. I'm beginning to doubt that Silicon Valley startups have any clue how European cities work. We germans in general are weary of evil, predatory enterprises that start a spiral to the bottom. Jest aside: This is just not how things work here, for good or bad. I think there's also not that much room for disruption in the Uber case, at least in Germany. The market for cabs is very much unlike the market in the US - there's not a single huge company owning all the cabs in Berlin and a medallion does not cost a million EUR. Service has been pretty ok for me so far and I use a lot of cabs, so I actually don't see much of an upside but I do see a lot of potential downsides, not that much for me who could easily afford a surge pricing but for people that maybe can't and have to rely on regular cabs.
  • smsm42 12y ago
    >>> I think there's also not that much room for disruption in the Uber case, at least in Germany I suspect there is, otherwise there would be no need to ban it.
    • Xylakant 12y ago
      By that argument I could say that the drug market in the US is in dire need of disruption, since otherwise there'd be no need to ban the sale of cocaine at Walmart.
      • smsm42 12y ago
        War on Drugs is the worst thing that happened in US politics in 20th century, but discussing this topic would take us too far aside. In this case, the ban was clearly initiated by competitors (while in Walmart's case it has nothing to do with banning drugs) - the article itself says "The preliminary injunction comes in response to a lawsuit by the national association of taxi drivers." Nobody claims driving is bad - they just claim the other guy can't be allowed to do it.
        • Xylakant 12y ago
          No, the claim is that by skirting the Personenbeförderungsgesetz (Law on transporting people), Uber is violating the the law about unfair competition. Any competitor in germany can sue any competitor on those grounds: If you engage in unfair business practices you'll be fined. Nobody claimed (at least in this case) that Uber itself should be banned - UberBlack is unaffected by this injunction. Ubers unfair business practices have been banned.
    • ookware 12y ago
      It is not banned, they are being told to ensure they meet the minimum legal requirements such as car safety and driver safety checks.
      • smsm42 12y ago
        These requirements are not "minimum" - as there are thousands of drivers in Germany that are not required to meet those requirements. I myself was driving in Germany, more than once, without meeting any such requirements. However, somehow the same drivers which were completely safe a minute ago flooding all German roads without any "minimum requirements" become critically unsafe - so unsafe that they must be banned - as soon as they try to earn money. Though the same unsafe drivers are allowed to continue driving freely - as long as they do not take money. The only thing that changes is if the same drivers take money or not - and you're saying it is about safety?
  • bergie 12y ago
    The taxis here in Berlin even have an app that is quite similar to how you order an Uber. Though of course you still have to pay at the end of the ride with cash or card.
    • addandsubtract 12y ago
      You can pay your taxi ride in app as well. [1] [1] https://de.mytaxi.com/en/fahrgast.html https://de.mytaxi.com/en/fahrgast.html
• units 12y ago
  What's traffic safety got to do with being the Silicon Valley of Europe? Uber is outlawed not because of their technology, disruption or innovations, but because of hiring untrained drivers and potentially unsafe cars. Germany's culture = safety first. So get TÜV certified cars and licensed drivers.
  • smsm42 12y ago
    I wonder how Germans tolerate thousands of regular "unlicensed" (I mean beyond regular driving license - I don't think Uber is hiring drivers that don't have regular driving license?) drivers flooding the German streets every day. It is so unsafe. When finally German citizenry understands that and bans private driving by unsafe drivers in potentially unsafe cars? Safety first! So I'm not getting how it is still allowed. If you want to get somewhere - just take a bus or call a taxi or even better, just bike - it's more ecologically friendly. I think private car ownership in Germany should be banned immediately - for the safety, of course.
    • Drakim 12y ago
      I take it that you don't think it should be legal for businesses to lie about their products, but you think it should be legal for normal people to tell lies. There is quite a bit of difference in regulating what businesses are and are not allowed to do, and regulating what people are and are not allowed to do.
      • smsm42 12y ago
        It is completely legal for businesses to lie, and they do it every day, just as every other people do, at least in countries where freedom of speech is respected. What is not legal is to enter a contract under false pretenses - i.e. lie to me about the contract I am about to enter, defraud me, misrepresent your offering or details of the goods, etc. Same holds for a person too - if I defraud you, I would break the law, even though I am not a business. "Business" is just a common name for people (or just one person) doings things in exchange for money, it doesn't change who the people are. So why exactly the difference? Where does it come from?
• toyg 12y ago
  I think there is a misconception in what "startup disruption" means. One thing is to remove entrenched interests and "trimming the fat" of inefficient or predatory practices; another is to race to the bottom. I could create a "supermarket startup" tomorrow, by using 0-hour contracts for the whole workforce, forcing farmers to earn less, stocking food of dubious safety coming from China etc etc, all thanks to some wonderful app that will calculate and manage all this for me. That's not disruption, that's robber-baron race to the bottom. On the opposite, if I create a fully-automated supermarket that does not require any workforce but still provides exactly the same level of quality to consumers and producers, that's real disruption. The startup ecosystem should not take their clues from Walmart and Ryanair. Before Uber can righteously challenge European legislation, they should prove that they have ways to address the issues that generated that legislation in the first place: are all drivers insured? Are their vehicles safe? Etc etc.
  • jasonisalive 12y ago
    0-hour contracts for the whole workforce, forcing farmers to earn less, stocking food of dubious safety If you can find people freely willing to provide labour services at the price you offer, I see no problem. As far as "forcing" farmers to earn less, how are you going to achieve that? Coercive appropriation of goods is a practise strongly restricted in modern capitalist societies. Finally I highly doubt there is a good market for unsafe food products, though I am sure for some people it would be an acceptable risk - if you are discovered faking the quality of your food products though I imagine you would go out of business pretty quickly through the standard feedback mechanisms of capitalist society (the media, consumer outrage). Doesn't sound like a very strong business model to me unfortunately. Before Uber can righteously challenge European legislation, they should prove that they have ways to address the issues that generated that legislation in the first place: are all drivers insured? Are their vehicles safe? Etc etc. Why can't we simply let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride in insured vehicles or not? Are people too stupid to calculate probable risks and rewards and make their own economic decisions?
    • jacquesm 12y ago
      > Why can't we simply let people decide for themselves whether they want to ride in insured vehicles or not? People don't get to decide for themselves whether vehicles are insured or not anywhere in the world that you'd care to want to live. Liability insurance is mandatory, typically taxis carry passengers so they have mandatory insurance for their passengers as well. Since you don't exactly get to check the state of the vehicle and/or the insurance situation of the driver before you get in this is something that is - rightly, in my opinion - regulated. It makes sure that as a consumer your rights are somewhat safe, rather than a gamble.
• PinguTS 12y ago
  Compared to the US, Europe has a lot of consumer protection laws. Just, the other day it was highlighted here on HN, how good European laws are, that in Online Retails a company is not allowed to sneak in additional stuff without your consent. Those consumer protection laws we have also in Germany for transporting passengers. Some details may have to be revised, but in general I consider them as good. The consumer protection law for German requires, that a people who provide transportation as a service are required to have an according permit (Personenbeförderungsschein). This permit includes, basic checks, that you can drive and that you obey the law in terms of driving, which means you have clean driving record. This permit also includes additional requirements in terms of emergency first respond, before the First Responder arrive. In addition the company (or you, if you self are employed) has to take care, that the car is in proper condition in terms of car safety (brakes and such). Proper condition for cars used for transportation business has be checked regular, meaning every year. Normal cars have to be checked only every other year. Also, the company has to have an according insurance for this use case. Regular insurance does not cover it. Finally, the company has to have also an registered business with the tax office, which is also understandable. All these requirements are easy to obtain, but of course, have costs associated with. According to this preliminary judgment, Uber is either required to validate, that all those requirements are fulfilled or they are punished with a 250.000 EUR fine, for every ride that does not follow the rule. From that sense, Uber is not denied market access. It is only, that they have to follow the rule. The problem is, that Uber says itself, they don't want to check those details. They just don't care. They explicitly say, they don't care. Because Uber argues, that they provide only "Ride sharing". But that is wrong. If they would provide only Ride Sharing, than they would only offer UberPool. Uber is contradicting its own arguments, by explicitly having and marketing one service a Ride Sharing, while not offering this one service. BTW: this ruling is only for UberPop. Because with UberBlack Uber shows, that it is able to follow the rules. EDIT: Uber is not required to have a Taxi license. A Taxi license would of course give them additional benefits, like they are allowed to park in Taxi zones, drive in bus driveways and such. But there are also other obligations, like the price for the ride is set by the city and alike (no surge pricing). They have to take every ride, it cannot be denied for whatsoever reason, beside personal safety of the driver. The price is calculated by a certified taxameter. And may be other rules, I am not aware of.
• bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  What Uber does has nothing to do with Silicon Valley and startups. It's the same exploitation through evading labor and safety laws dozens of shady companies have done for decades. If a transportation company exploits East-European truck drivers, or a building company exploits construction workers it's disgraceful, but because an American company does it by using a phone app it's suddenly cool and "disruptive"? I'm glad that we have a level of protection in terms of privacy, consumer and worker rights. Uber is not innovative. Uber is the same old scam all over again. But with an app.
• k__ 12y ago
  I think in Berlin the problem are the people, not the regulations. The german start-up scene is all about copying US ideas. And this is also what gets funded. Stuff that already has proven itself somewhere else. There won't come much disruption from Berlin, soon.
• justincormack 12y ago
  The protests in London were just an amusing summer diversion from vested interests. The thing is we already have a much greater degree of taxi deregulation in most of Europe than the US. Eg in London minicabs just need safety and non criminality checks. While the US has far more restrictive practices. But we do like safety checks. Uber is in a different environment and is not really such a disruption here.
• einrealist 12y ago
  I could argue the same, if I want to found a cocaine business in Berlin. (I live in Berlin, too. And I prefer a Taxi.)