4 ms·

In this seemingly sad story when a big international company comes over and bullies local businesses out of the market people very often forget the other part o

by snitko 12y ago

In this seemingly sad story when a big international company comes over and bullies local businesses out of the market people very often forget the other part of the equation. Yes, local businesses may suffer. But at the same time, the big bully actually makes it cheaper and more affordable for the consumers of that country to have that service. "Everyone's" got kids and families to feed, so to speak - including taxi passengers. Why is it that I should be more sympathetic to the local taxi drivers and not to the local passengers, who'd be saving money?

pgeorgi 12y ago
Big international companies are free to work within the law of the land. They can work on changing it. They can look for loop holes. Uber does none of that, and the only reason why they can afford that is because they're incorporated elsewhere and have deep pockets. If they cared for the markets they enter, they would have realized that in Germany the 'monopoly' story is factually false. They might even have realized that the regulations provide a loop hole that they could use to start operating in some counties/cities to prove that their service is useful. They did none of that. Just grandstanding, posturing, and then crying like babies about how everybody is unfair to them when they're held to the same standards as everyone else. This isn't even about prices (the ones our elected officials set for taxis are quite reasonable, and they don't feature 'surge pricing'). It's about Uber's conduct.
- snitko 12y ago
  I'm sorry, you're not addressing my point. If passengers in Germany didn't think Uber was useful to them, they simply wouldn't use it and Uber wouldn't have any market. But it does have a market because there's a demand. What you're suggesting is to ignore the demand and ban Uber nevertheless, hurting your own citizen's interests and emptying their pockets with prices you yourself think are reasonable for everyone.
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    Uber has 'demand' because they're advertising. Because they're handing out credits. Because they're claiming they're cheaper (but are they?). Because they may actually be cheaper on selected routes (but not when it matters). Because they may even be operating at a loss until they cornered the market (or go bust). That's not sustainable. I knew self-employed taxi drivers and they weren't exactly rich, far from it. Having to give some leech 20% of their income would have ruined them, so Uber's presence in their business model must be to the detriment of someone. So if they survive and corner the market, they'll raise prices (all those VCs want a return, after all). If they don't, they may leave behind ruins where there was infrastructure - no interest in that. There is no option 3, since their business model is fundamentally 'us vs them': Serving all the good inner city and airport routes, while leaving the non-profitable stuff to someone else doesn't work for long. I can understand that Uber doesn't want to plan for the long term: They might not be around in 3 years, and even if they are, any mess they create here doesn't affect them. I'd prefer infrastructure to still work in 15 years, and Uber doesn't look like an ally for that cause. In fact their conduct indicates to me that they wouldn't hesitate to burn down society as long as they can instate themselves as rent keeper and make a buck on the remains. Why should I support that? Nobody forces Uber to enter the German market. If they can't rethink taxis legally, they should leave the field to those who are capable of that (to those who want to: PBefG §2(7) might be of interest). tl;dr: don't buy taxi services on society's credit card - since I believe Uber customers are doing that when they get 'cheaper' service, any restriction on Uber is a good thing in my book.

by snitko 12y ago

pgeorgi 12y ago

Big international companies are free to work within the law of the land. They can work on changing it. They can look for loop holes. Uber does none of that, and the only reason why they can afford that is because they're incorporated elsewhere and have deep pockets. If they cared for the markets they enter, they would have realized that in Germany the 'monopoly' story is factually false. They might even have realized that the regulations provide a loop hole that they could use to start operating in some counties/cities to prove that their service is useful. They did none of that. Just grandstanding, posturing, and then crying like babies about how everybody is unfair to them when they're held to the same standards as everyone else. This isn't even about prices (the ones our elected officials set for taxis are quite reasonable, and they don't feature 'surge pricing'). It's about Uber's conduct.

snitko 12y ago
I'm sorry, you're not addressing my point. If passengers in Germany didn't think Uber was useful to them, they simply wouldn't use it and Uber wouldn't have any market. But it does have a market because there's a demand. What you're suggesting is to ignore the demand and ban Uber nevertheless, hurting your own citizen's interests and emptying their pockets with prices you yourself think are reasonable for everyone.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  Uber has 'demand' because they're advertising. Because they're handing out credits. Because they're claiming they're cheaper (but are they?). Because they may actually be cheaper on selected routes (but not when it matters). Because they may even be operating at a loss until they cornered the market (or go bust). That's not sustainable. I knew self-employed taxi drivers and they weren't exactly rich, far from it. Having to give some leech 20% of their income would have ruined them, so Uber's presence in their business model must be to the detriment of someone. So if they survive and corner the market, they'll raise prices (all those VCs want a return, after all). If they don't, they may leave behind ruins where there was infrastructure - no interest in that. There is no option 3, since their business model is fundamentally 'us vs them': Serving all the good inner city and airport routes, while leaving the non-profitable stuff to someone else doesn't work for long. I can understand that Uber doesn't want to plan for the long term: They might not be around in 3 years, and even if they are, any mess they create here doesn't affect them. I'd prefer infrastructure to still work in 15 years, and Uber doesn't look like an ally for that cause. In fact their conduct indicates to me that they wouldn't hesitate to burn down society as long as they can instate themselves as rent keeper and make a buck on the remains. Why should I support that? Nobody forces Uber to enter the German market. If they can't rethink taxis legally, they should leave the field to those who are capable of that (to those who want to: PBefG §2(7) might be of interest). tl;dr: don't buy taxi services on society's credit card - since I believe Uber customers are doing that when they get 'cheaper' service, any restriction on Uber is a good thing in my book.