3 ms·

A counter argument: Uber breaks rules, a large number of people have no issue with it and consider it fighting an unfair regulatory system. These guys break the

A counter argument: Uber breaks rules, a large number of people have no issue with it and consider it fighting an unfair regulatory system. These guys break the rules on Twitter and everyone sides with Twitter. Now, I'm on the side of Twitter in this one, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment. To me the difference is that they ended up bothering Twitter's users (as seen by the comments on this thread), whereas Uber just bothered cab drivers, cab company owners and medallion holders - a relatively small audience that has pissed off a lot people. There's also the issue of whether Twitter has a monopoly in the same sense that the cab companies do.

pbreit 12y ago
Because Meerkat made Twitter noticeably worse. All its notifications are useless in a matter of seconds or minutes (vs revolutionizing transportation to tremendous citizen delight).
- inthewoods 12y ago
  Yes, but imagine if you owned a cab company in NYC or SF - how would you be feeling?
  - marincounty 12y ago
    Or, you buy the Uber Driver pitch and buy a Uber approved 4 door car, and find you are working for less than minimum wage, or worse yet; you end up in Bankruptcy court? I don't care that Uber is providing competition--I just don't like their business plan of hiring Drivers without any risk on their part. "Oh, but you're an Independent Contractor, but you need to drive a certain year four door car from our List.(A list that doesn't make a lot of sense? Oh yea, I have found selling a four door car on the secondary market is harder than selling a two door car; if your Uber job is not what they claimed?" My point is I guess Uber provides great service for their customers, but I question the great experience for the "Independent Contractors"? Sorry, but I saw Uber and had to chime in. Back on track--Twitter--that verification email I keep forgetting to fill out.
    - inthewoods 12y ago
      Interesting points - isn't that similar to how Twitter developers often feel? I often see comments here about "Don't build a business around Twitter" - seems actually somewhat similar.
- inthewoods 12y ago
  Continuing the thought experiment: What about the case of AirBnB which definitely had some questionable behavior relative to Craigslist? Does that change the dynamic for you? AirBnB didn't degrade the experience of Craigslist, but it did leverage their network to build their own business. I hear this story all the time as one of the best examples of "growth hacking" (along with Dropbox).
vonklaus 12y ago
One of the key differences is public vs. private. These are requirements from the government (town, city, municipality, county) and should reflect the will of the people. People have more rights on a public level and fairly assume that people should be able to transact without much scrutiny. Drivers want to make extra money, riders what transparent, available cheap transportation. A small number of rent-collectors are worse off in this arrangement, but broadly both sides of the market reap reward. In the above case, Twitter is a private company, and has a right to do whatever it wants with it's service. It can get away with as much as it's users will tolerate. As a public company it has shareholder requirements, sure, but in this case it was a technology/UX problem. Meerkat was doing something that most seem to think devalued peoples user experience, and abused the purposes of implemented features. Meerkat gained a lot of exposure, and I am sure some people did benefit by it, but by and large the beneficiary was Meerkat gaining exposure by broadcasting pre-made content (spamming).
makeitsuckless 12y ago
Twitter = our kind of people. Cab drivers = other people. Also, the fact that Twitter can protect itself and cab drivers need the government to protect their rights goes against the libertarian ideology of HN's majority. And don't forget that outside our bubble, Uber pissed off a lot of people that favor labor and and consumer protection and aren't big fans of American corporations hailing the return to early 20th century exploitation as "innovation".

pbreit 12y ago

Because Meerkat made Twitter noticeably worse. All its notifications are useless in a matter of seconds or minutes (vs revolutionizing transportation to tremendous citizen delight).

inthewoods 12y ago
Yes, but imagine if you owned a cab company in NYC or SF - how would you be feeling?
- marincounty 12y ago
  Or, you buy the Uber Driver pitch and buy a Uber approved 4 door car, and find you are working for less than minimum wage, or worse yet; you end up in Bankruptcy court? I don't care that Uber is providing competition--I just don't like their business plan of hiring Drivers without any risk on their part. "Oh, but you're an Independent Contractor, but you need to drive a certain year four door car from our List.(A list that doesn't make a lot of sense? Oh yea, I have found selling a four door car on the secondary market is harder than selling a two door car; if your Uber job is not what they claimed?" My point is I guess Uber provides great service for their customers, but I question the great experience for the "Independent Contractors"? Sorry, but I saw Uber and had to chime in. Back on track--Twitter--that verification email I keep forgetting to fill out.
  - inthewoods 12y ago
    Interesting points - isn't that similar to how Twitter developers often feel? I often see comments here about "Don't build a business around Twitter" - seems actually somewhat similar.
inthewoods 12y ago
Continuing the thought experiment: What about the case of AirBnB which definitely had some questionable behavior relative to Craigslist? Does that change the dynamic for you? AirBnB didn't degrade the experience of Craigslist, but it did leverage their network to build their own business. I hear this story all the time as one of the best examples of "growth hacking" (along with Dropbox).

vonklaus 12y ago

One of the key differences is public vs. private. These are requirements from the government (town, city, municipality, county) and should reflect the will of the people. People have more rights on a public level and fairly assume that people should be able to transact without much scrutiny. Drivers want to make extra money, riders what transparent, available cheap transportation. A small number of rent-collectors are worse off in this arrangement, but broadly both sides of the market reap reward. In the above case, Twitter is a private company, and has a right to do whatever it wants with it's service. It can get away with as much as it's users will tolerate. As a public company it has shareholder requirements, sure, but in this case it was a technology/UX problem. Meerkat was doing something that most seem to think devalued peoples user experience, and abused the purposes of implemented features. Meerkat gained a lot of exposure, and I am sure some people did benefit by it, but by and large the beneficiary was Meerkat gaining exposure by broadcasting pre-made content (spamming).

makeitsuckless 12y ago

Twitter = our kind of people. Cab drivers = other people. Also, the fact that Twitter can protect itself and cab drivers need the government to protect their rights goes against the libertarian ideology of HN's majority. And don't forget that outside our bubble, Uber pissed off a lot of people that favor labor and and consumer protection and aren't big fans of American corporations hailing the return to early 20th century exploitation as "innovation".