6 ms·

We can answer this question by simply looking at what Uber is without the smokescreen of "tech" and "disruption". Uber is simply a very old and familiar way to

We can answer this question by simply looking at what Uber is without the smokescreen of "tech" and "disruption". Uber is simply a very old and familiar way to circumvent labor, safety and consumer protection laws. It just happens to have two new elements enabled by tech: an app and dynamic pricing. There is nothing "cool" or innovative about Uber. Many of the laws and regulations Uber runs afoul of aren't outdated, they exist very specifically because of operations like Uber, which existed in the days before smartphones and the internet. And Uber brings absolutely nothing new to the table that changes the rationale behind those regulations. What the fuck is innovative about facilitating unlicensed taxi drivers in private cars? Hell, in Dutch we even have a word, "snorders", for such people, a word that has been barely used in decades until Uber popped up and revived it. Uber is basically the kind of "business" that you would expect from an organized crime outfit, and their other dubious practices should come as no surprise.

ry0ohki 12y ago
We call them Jitneys or Hacks here in the US. Very common means of transportation in poor areas, but an app makes the same concept hip I guess.
- fubu 12y ago
  In New York City "gipsy cab" is a common term for it.
- Evolved 12y ago
  "Hack" is a slang name for a taxi driver in general not necessarily a gypsy cab. Livery cab might be the term you're looking for.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Hack specifically refers to gypsy cabs in many places esp. Baltimore: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-15/news/0909150013_1_hack-cabs-guglielmi http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-15/news/0909150013_...
    - Evolved 12y ago
      It seems to be prevalent in Baltimore. I couldn't find the "many" places that hacks are common names for illegal cabs. Chicago, Philadelphia and NYC all use hack to refer to legally licensed cabs and they're all much larger cities/metropolitan areas than Baltimore. I think this is why it is much more common to use "hack" to describe a legitimate taxi driver. Thank you for your input.
      - ry0ohki 12y ago
        I am indeed from Baltimore, didn't know it was not widespread.
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        In the 1940s, absolutely. I haven't heard it said out loud except to describe a gypsy cab in my life (not including movies.) I have heard it used to describe the license. I understand that cab drivers have been called hacks, and that of course the term's origin is more general than its current usage. I hear "hack license" but I never hear "hack" as a verb except to refer to doing it illegally. edit: or as an anything but something before the word "license." You've heard a legitimate taxi driver called a hack lately?
bvanslyke 12y ago
Uber literally is an "organized crime outfit" though, right? People just don't say that because they commit the "ok" kind of crimes.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  As unsavory as their business practice is, I wouldn't go that far, yet. Organized crime is much more than an organization which commits crimes. Money laundering, racketeering, extortion, murder and/or assault, trafficking in contraband, prostitution rings, corruption in public office, and many more factors are part of being organized crime. It's a complex system that goes far beyond Uber's anti-competitive practices, deplorable though they are.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    >Uber's anti-competitive practices Those aren't the criminal parts, the violations of state and local laws are.
  - Evolved 12y ago
    It might appear that bvanslyke is correct because if Uber is understood to be breaking the law and that revolves around the core of their business then they could be considered in the business of organized crime. I can't help but question whether the difference is doing something illegal to obtain the money and THAT being the organized crime part or the fact that their means of generating revenue could be viewed as legal but that it isn't legal because of consumer protection and liability laws. In other words, shaking someone down for protection money is illegal. Driving someone from point A to point B is legal. Doing it as an unlicensed cab is illegal but the actual practice isn't. I liken what they do to be more closer to how Tesla chooses to sell their cars. Legal in theory and and ethically positive but not legal in some areas due to skirting the line between where the laws come into place. I don't think RICO statutes would be a very strong case against Uber. Are you technically an unlicensed cab if you won't drive your friend to the airport unless he gives you gas money?
    - 12y ago
Loughla 12y ago
First off, let me say that I want someone to please counter my argument. I have been unable to see a valid counterargument so far. I've thought about this quite a bit, anytime I see someone use the phrase 'disrupt an established company,' I assume they're talking about barely skirting the law through the use of hazy, gray areas. And an app. The only 'innovation' in (most of) these companies is the same 'innovation' that this site screams about when it's on the part of patent trolls; I will do X, but now I will do X with a smart phone or computer. That's not innovative, it's lazy. It would be super easy for giant companies to meet the same prices if they were able to ignore laws. That's not competition, it's cheating.
- noodle 12y ago
  Its hard to counter an argument that includes vague terms like "most". Some companies do what you're describing. Some companies who are trying to "disrupt an established company" are doing so because they're leveraging new technology, changes in the marketplace, and/or the fact that they're unencumbered with politics/contracts/bureaucracy that exist in large companies.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    Okay, take out the 'most' out and I still stand by the very declarative, very encompassing statement. But, for sake of example, take companies like Airbnb and Uber specifically, as they seem to be the hottest touch-points. How is what they're doing not simply breaking the law for sake of price?
    - noodle 12y ago
      They're certainly skirting the law. What about Dropbox, Snapchat, Square, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Palantir, etc?
- baddox 12y ago
  You seem unduly concerned with the terms "innovative" and "disruptive." Perhaps you should try to define the terms more clearly before arguing about which companies qualify.
fastball 12y ago
What about the fact that because of the internet we can have things like easily accessible reviews? Other users rate the drivers, so you can be more sure of their safety than a completely anonymous and unknown driver.
- elchief 12y ago
  Yes, just like Yelp
  - Evolved 12y ago
    I would liken Yelp to be closer to organized crime than Uber. Yelp subtly shakes down businesses as part of their revenue through the "People love us on Yelp" program to earn the sticker on their business and because of the perception Yelp creates that paying customers will show up higher on the search results page and with a higher Yelp rating. It has been documented that Yelp actively solicits sponsorship fees that not only help earn these stickers but also subsequently serve to boost business rankings and ratings. [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-lazarus11 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-lazarus1... [2] http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/appeals-court-yelps-ad-team-isnt-extorting-small-businesses/ http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/appeals-court-yelps-ad-tea... <-read the details on what the court defined as "hard bargaining" vs "extortion" [3] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clients-better-ratings-5731200.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clie...
baddox 12y ago
I'm not big on buzzwords or vague subjective terms like "disruption," "innovative," or "cool." I also won't deny that Uber and other ridesharing services clearly violate laws (at least in some jurisdictions). But I don't believe that the fact that they violate laws means that they're not providing a valuable product. That's mostly because I don't believe that all laws which ostensibly protect consumers actually do. > What the fuck is innovative about facilitating unlicensed taxi drivers in private cars? Again, I'm not really concerned about the term "innovative." But what is good for me, the consumer of these services is that I can get a ride more conveniently, reliably, and inexpensively than I could from a traditional taxi or other commercial car service. And of course ridesharing apps are newer than taxis. If you define "innovative" as "newer and better," then I guess ridesharing services are "innovative." Other consumers surely have different preferences, which is fine, but I do not care about licenses or who owns the cars. I care about the actual product I get, and I invariably (so far) get a better experience with ridesharing services than with traditional taxis. Now granted, I use Lyft and Sidecar over Uber, mostly just because of UI preferences with their iPhone apps. I'm speaking about the ridesharing industry as a whole rather than Uber specifically. The gist of your argument seems to be one of two things. Either you dislike companies which violate any regulations, or you dislike companies which violate regulations that you approve of (with taxi regulations being one example). I disagree with both premises.

ry0ohki 12y ago

We call them Jitneys or Hacks here in the US. Very common means of transportation in poor areas, but an app makes the same concept hip I guess.

fubu 12y ago
In New York City "gipsy cab" is a common term for it.
Evolved 12y ago
"Hack" is a slang name for a taxi driver in general not necessarily a gypsy cab. Livery cab might be the term you're looking for.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Hack specifically refers to gypsy cabs in many places esp. Baltimore: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-15/news/0909150013_1_hack-cabs-guglielmi http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-15/news/0909150013_...
  - Evolved 12y ago
    It seems to be prevalent in Baltimore. I couldn't find the "many" places that hacks are common names for illegal cabs. Chicago, Philadelphia and NYC all use hack to refer to legally licensed cabs and they're all much larger cities/metropolitan areas than Baltimore. I think this is why it is much more common to use "hack" to describe a legitimate taxi driver. Thank you for your input.
    - ry0ohki 12y ago
      I am indeed from Baltimore, didn't know it was not widespread.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      In the 1940s, absolutely. I haven't heard it said out loud except to describe a gypsy cab in my life (not including movies.) I have heard it used to describe the license. I understand that cab drivers have been called hacks, and that of course the term's origin is more general than its current usage. I hear "hack license" but I never hear "hack" as a verb except to refer to doing it illegally. edit: or as an anything but something before the word "license." You've heard a legitimate taxi driver called a hack lately?

bvanslyke 12y ago

Uber literally is an "organized crime outfit" though, right? People just don't say that because they commit the "ok" kind of crimes.

morganvachon 12y ago
As unsavory as their business practice is, I wouldn't go that far, yet. Organized crime is much more than an organization which commits crimes. Money laundering, racketeering, extortion, murder and/or assault, trafficking in contraband, prostitution rings, corruption in public office, and many more factors are part of being organized crime. It's a complex system that goes far beyond Uber's anti-competitive practices, deplorable though they are.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >Uber's anti-competitive practices Those aren't the criminal parts, the violations of state and local laws are.
- Evolved 12y ago
  It might appear that bvanslyke is correct because if Uber is understood to be breaking the law and that revolves around the core of their business then they could be considered in the business of organized crime. I can't help but question whether the difference is doing something illegal to obtain the money and THAT being the organized crime part or the fact that their means of generating revenue could be viewed as legal but that it isn't legal because of consumer protection and liability laws. In other words, shaking someone down for protection money is illegal. Driving someone from point A to point B is legal. Doing it as an unlicensed cab is illegal but the actual practice isn't. I liken what they do to be more closer to how Tesla chooses to sell their cars. Legal in theory and and ethically positive but not legal in some areas due to skirting the line between where the laws come into place. I don't think RICO statutes would be a very strong case against Uber. Are you technically an unlicensed cab if you won't drive your friend to the airport unless he gives you gas money?
  - 12y ago

Loughla 12y ago

First off, let me say that I want someone to please counter my argument. I have been unable to see a valid counterargument so far. I've thought about this quite a bit, anytime I see someone use the phrase 'disrupt an established company,' I assume they're talking about barely skirting the law through the use of hazy, gray areas. And an app. The only 'innovation' in (most of) these companies is the same 'innovation' that this site screams about when it's on the part of patent trolls; I will do X, but now I will do X with a smart phone or computer. That's not innovative, it's lazy. It would be super easy for giant companies to meet the same prices if they were able to ignore laws. That's not competition, it's cheating.

noodle 12y ago
Its hard to counter an argument that includes vague terms like "most". Some companies do what you're describing. Some companies who are trying to "disrupt an established company" are doing so because they're leveraging new technology, changes in the marketplace, and/or the fact that they're unencumbered with politics/contracts/bureaucracy that exist in large companies.
- Loughla 12y ago
  Okay, take out the 'most' out and I still stand by the very declarative, very encompassing statement. But, for sake of example, take companies like Airbnb and Uber specifically, as they seem to be the hottest touch-points. How is what they're doing not simply breaking the law for sake of price?
  - noodle 12y ago
    They're certainly skirting the law. What about Dropbox, Snapchat, Square, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Palantir, etc?
baddox 12y ago
You seem unduly concerned with the terms "innovative" and "disruptive." Perhaps you should try to define the terms more clearly before arguing about which companies qualify.

fastball 12y ago

What about the fact that because of the internet we can have things like easily accessible reviews? Other users rate the drivers, so you can be more sure of their safety than a completely anonymous and unknown driver.

elchief 12y ago
Yes, just like Yelp
- Evolved 12y ago
  I would liken Yelp to be closer to organized crime than Uber. Yelp subtly shakes down businesses as part of their revenue through the "People love us on Yelp" program to earn the sticker on their business and because of the perception Yelp creates that paying customers will show up higher on the search results page and with a higher Yelp rating. It has been documented that Yelp actively solicits sponsorship fees that not only help earn these stickers but also subsequently serve to boost business rankings and ratings. [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-lazarus11 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-lazarus1... [2] http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/appeals-court-yelps-ad-team-isnt-extorting-small-businesses/ http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/appeals-court-yelps-ad-tea... <-read the details on what the court defined as "hard bargaining" vs "extortion" [3] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clients-better-ratings-5731200.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clie...

baddox 12y ago

I'm not big on buzzwords or vague subjective terms like "disruption," "innovative," or "cool." I also won't deny that Uber and other ridesharing services clearly violate laws (at least in some jurisdictions). But I don't believe that the fact that they violate laws means that they're not providing a valuable product. That's mostly because I don't believe that all laws which ostensibly protect consumers actually do. > What the fuck is innovative about facilitating unlicensed taxi drivers in private cars? Again, I'm not really concerned about the term "innovative." But what is good for me, the consumer of these services is that I can get a ride more conveniently, reliably, and inexpensively than I could from a traditional taxi or other commercial car service. And of course ridesharing apps are newer than taxis. If you define "innovative" as "newer and better," then I guess ridesharing services are "innovative." Other consumers surely have different preferences, which is fine, but I do not care about licenses or who owns the cars. I care about the actual product I get, and I invariably (so far) get a better experience with ridesharing services than with traditional taxis. Now granted, I use Lyft and Sidecar over Uber, mostly just because of UI preferences with their iPhone apps. I'm speaking about the ridesharing industry as a whole rather than Uber specifically. The gist of your argument seems to be one of two things. Either you dislike companies which violate any regulations, or you dislike companies which violate regulations that you approve of (with taxi regulations being one example). I disagree with both premises.