3 ms·
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the
by gooserock 12y ago
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the case. Uber does not have to act the way it acts. Sure, the first company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs."
Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them?
No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.
- Dylan16807 12y ago>Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a bit more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just that they would have to do more negotiation themselves. Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without being the bad guy.