4 ms·

Anytime a disruptive company appears which successfully provides the same or superior service to customers than the established players at a lower cost, the kne

by pvnick 12y ago

Anytime a disruptive company appears which successfully provides the same or superior service to customers than the established players at a lower cost, the knee-jerk reaction is to squash it using the powers of government. We see the same reaction to Tesla across the United States (although their cars can hardly be described as "lower cost"). What upsets me is the commentary I read on Hacker News: "I don't like Uber, I personally had bad experiences with their drivers, and their cut-throat business practices rub me the wrong way. They deserve to be banned." Wtf? That's not the disruptive spirit of Silicon Valley, it's the reactionary cowardice of close-minded politicians.

aikah 12y ago
> That's not the disruptive spirit of Silicon Valley Well,disruption shouldnt mean,"the hell with the law".San Fransisco might tolerate that,but all the world isnt San Fransisco. Nobody denies the taxi industry has issues.But in some countries this "disruptive" behavior doesnt last very long. Other Uber services are still legal in France.They didnt outlaw Uber,just Uber services that violate french laws. Sorry,but this whole "disrupt" thing is bullshit,especially when on the short run it's just new middlemen trying to replace the old ones. We've seen it today in Australia,with Uber raising price x4,the challengers are no better than the old guard,it's just a power struggle.
mwfunk 12y ago
Uber doesn't deserve any automatic sympathy or boosterism just because they're a "disruptive" company with ties to investors who happen to be associated with the Silicon Valley startup scene. Heck, for a lot of people (not me, but much of the population), that alone is a reason to be suspicious of them or dislike them. Presenting that as a reason to be uncritical of them just fuels that distrust, and risks extending that distrust to other, similar companies who don't deserve it. One bad actor can make everyone look bad.

by pvnick 12y ago

aikah 12y ago

> That's not the disruptive spirit of Silicon Valley Well,disruption shouldnt mean,"the hell with the law".San Fransisco might tolerate that,but all the world isnt San Fransisco. Nobody denies the taxi industry has issues.But in some countries this "disruptive" behavior doesnt last very long. Other Uber services are still legal in France.They didnt outlaw Uber,just Uber services that violate french laws. Sorry,but this whole "disrupt" thing is bullshit,especially when on the short run it's just new middlemen trying to replace the old ones. We've seen it today in Australia,with Uber raising price x4,the challengers are no better than the old guard,it's just a power struggle.

mwfunk 12y ago

Uber doesn't deserve any automatic sympathy or boosterism just because they're a "disruptive" company with ties to investors who happen to be associated with the Silicon Valley startup scene. Heck, for a lot of people (not me, but much of the population), that alone is a reason to be suspicious of them or dislike them. Presenting that as a reason to be uncritical of them just fuels that distrust, and risks extending that distrust to other, similar companies who don't deserve it. One bad actor can make everyone look bad.