6 ms·

I think Uber is a great company and I love the product. However, I can't remember a startup that received billions in funding and having such disregard for loc

I think Uber is a great company and I love the product. However, I can't remember a startup that received billions in funding and having such disregard for local laws around the globe. I just don't get it. They literally don't comply with any law in any country and give zero shits about the consequences.

danieltillett 11y ago
Well as long as you can cash out before the law catches up it is not a bad strategy.
themagician 11y ago
This is not unique to Uber. It's a trend. Step 1: Find a regulated industry (taxi, hotel, liquor, etc.) Step 2: Create an app and label yourself as being part of the "sharing economy" that is disrupting the industry Step 3: Completely ignore all regulation Step 4: Profit — largely because you don't have to pay for licensing, insurance, etc. while everyone else in the industry you are trying to disrupt does
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  That's not true. Uber is paying for insurance for all drivers while in a ride. Furthermore, why is licensing needed? You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam. I see companies like Uber disrupting the industry by removing inefficiency. Licensing, medallions, appeasing public bureaucrats, etc are inefficiencies. That's not to say that regulation is inherently bad, but we need to let new industries grow and see its challenges first -- instead of applying outdated concepts (like medallions, licensing) to new technology. For example: USPS, by law, has a monopoly on mail delivery. Just imagine if USPS banned all e-mail providers and forced you to use your @usps.com inbox. Is this a net benefit? Is the taxi industry banning all ridesharing apps and forcing you to use taxis a net benefit?
  - Anechoic 11y ago
    You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam. Bernie Madoff's investors would disagree.
    - HappyTypist 11y ago
      In Madoff's case, he passed SEC audits, licensing requirements, etc with flying colours. Licensing primarily works by raising the barrier to entry, discouraging 'bad actors' from signing up because society-wise, 'bad actors' are more distributed among poorer demographics and are unable to afford licensing.
      - FireBeyond 11y ago
        Not overly so. He did in some cases. In others, the SEC had plenty of warnings, concerns, but chose not to act on them (which is a different issue entirely - 'why not?').
        s73v3r 11y ago
        Lack of resources.
      - meatysnapper 11y ago
        Nearly everybody thought Madoff had a serious insider trading scam going on, but everybody wanted to get in on it so they ignored the red flags.
  - themagician 11y ago
    They pay for some additional insurance. They don't require drivers to carry commercial insurance. They don't require drivers to get passenger carrier permits. They don't really have to follow or comply with any of the other regulations imposed by the CPUC or things that plague the taxi and limo industry. All of these things have costs. Uber didn't remove the inefficiencies from the system, they just ignored the laws that cause them. I too can remove "inefficiencies" from my bottom line by not paying my taxes, right? I love Uber. I love that's it's on demand. I love that it's cheaper. But if you recall the time before UberX—when their was only black car service and all drivers had to have Passenger Carrier Permits, commercial insurance, and comply with CPUC rules and regulations—it WASN'T cheaper. The minimum was $15 a ride. SF to Sausalito was $80. Uber started with a great premium service that was compliant with the law and fixed a real problem. Uber expanded by saying, "We need to grow. Fast. The law no longer applies to us."
    - HappyTypist 11y ago
      Uber doesn't require drivers to carry commercial insurance, because they already provide commercial insurance. Uber maintains commercial automobile insurance that covers U.S. partner drivers that operate under the “Ridesharing” or “Transportation Network Company” (“TNC”) model through Uber’s TNC subsidiaries, Rasier LLC and its affiliates.(1) http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/01/certificates-of-insurance-u-s-ridesharing/ http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/01/certificates-of-insurance-u... Most of us sees a purpose in paying tax. But, say example, you made an app that files your taxes just like an agent. You could call it TurboTax and sell it, and save $100s of dollars for tax filers. You provide insurance so that if your app does something wrong, you will reimburse people who get penalised.
      - themagician 11y ago
        Yeah, they provide this now, after getting slapped. And even still it has gaps. The point is, the law has always been: if you drive commercially, you need commercial insurance. This is what keeps most people from driving commercially.
      - FireBeyond 11y ago
  - colechristensen 11y ago
    Licensing holds people to standards. Uber might not be a scam, but what if I want to create Cole's Driver Service? With that logic what stops me and a million other scammers from creating shady unregulated taxi services?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      You can create a service, that doesn't mean anyone will use it. And you don't need a license to get arrested and convicted if you do something illegal. Of course, that requires you to commit a crime first, but it's not like the licenses prevent you from doing so. And even then, The overwhelming majority of cabbies who killed and maimed passengers and pedestrians in the past five years are back behind the wheel. Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request. http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc...
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    "You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam." Licensing isn't just 'we are not a scam' any more than a "site seal" on a website means anything. Plenty of companies with valuations in the 8 and 9 digit range have a history of doing dubious things up to and including things that have been known to cost lives. Licensing doesn't prevent that. But does help with some of the things needed to minimize. Uber just "opted" out of "inefficient regulation".
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    User's insurance isn't particularly great. For one, they make no mention of requiring commercial vehicle insurance (https://www.uber.com/driver-jobs https://www.uber.com/driver-jobs) and say that drivers only need personal vehicle insurance. They have contingent liability injury insurance with a total available of $100K. They talk of having commercial insurance during trips, but it is only third party liability and UI/UM. If you're a passenger in an Uber accident and insurers decline to cover when they become aware the vehicle was driven commercially, you're out of luck.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam." How much was Bernie Madoff's fund worth when he was arrested?
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Are we sure uber has achieved step 4? I would think it is more like: Step 4: Find a sucker to dump the whole company on before the law catches up and walk off into the sunset.
- SilasX 11y ago
  I agree that Uber has ignored some regulation that has a legitimate public-interest justification [1]. But what complicates the issue is regulation has also failed to keep up with technology: for example, it doesn't make much sense to mandate taxi meters when GPS do it better, or to have a phone system for complaints when an app has much more data and a better complaint response time and satisfaction. So Uber has provided significant positive sum gains on top of whatever negative externalities they've thrown off, which makes it much harder to claim that this is a case of merely avoiding regulations others have to follow. Taxi companies could have done all of positive-sum things Uber did [2], but didn't. So I don't think that narrative fits the situation, or at least, can't account for than 1/3 of Uber's appeal. [1] specifically, some insurable events that are generally accepted to be the company's responsibility to cover and not the driver's. [2] easy-to-use app, removing the tipping dance, clean cars, mutual rating, quick action on complaints, reliable follow-up when a ride is requested, pooling rides, cashless transactions, etc
the_ancient 11y ago
Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  There is definitely a need for a lot of them, like mandatory safety inspections, vetting of drivers, etc. However, certain aspects of how they're implemented, like the medallion system, are obsolete and need to go away.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous. Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety
    - Sanddancer 11y ago
      Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public. The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.
      - the_ancient 11y ago
HappyTypist 11y ago
I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control? For me personally, Uber's expansion has convinced me the regulation around ridesharing does not need to go beyond wha t Uber already does. I can give zero shits that some public bureaucratic can't flex its authority.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control? If a country is a free, sovereign country, and not a dictatorship, then companies should respects its laws. Period.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    Why?
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      Why should a company respect the laws? Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both. Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying. Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society. Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say. Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)
      - coldtea 11y ago
aaronbrethorst 11y ago
I think Uber is a great company and I love the product. I love the product too, but I also think they're the exact opposite of a great company. Or perhaps we have different definitions of the word "great." How are you using it?
- gkoberger 11y ago
  "Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average" They're not saying they're a good company, they're saying they're a great company.
  - smeyer 11y ago
    Do you happen to know that that is the particular definition mrkmcknz means? It's not clear to me, and it looks like you've just chosen a common dictionary definition and used that to indicate they aren't calling it a good company, while other dictionary definitions for great explicitly mean things equivalent to "very good".
    - derefr 11y ago
      It's the second-most-common interpretation where "very good" doesn't seem to be the intended meaning. Commonly used in phrases like "Napoleon was a great man." Basically means "historically important."
toephu2 11y ago
You don't get it? The answer is simple: money. Money makes the world go 'round.
colechristensen 11y ago
Uber is legal in some places. Minneapolis http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-joins-other-cities-regulating-lyft-uberx/267685111/ http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-joins-other-cities-re...
awwstn 11y ago
> They literally don't comply with any law in any country they literally break every law in every country?
- dikaiosune 11y ago
  Sure, why not. More seriously, responding to hyperbole with pedantry isn't productive. I'm pretty sure that quote is intended to convey their general disregard for the law, rather than a concerted attempt to break every law they can.
  - perfTerm 11y ago
    Well that's obvious but literally breaking every law in every country would be literally impossible. It's like this guy at work who always says "verbage". It just grinds certain peoples gears when people use words incorectly and shamelessly or ignorantly. I could care less, irregardless... Oy vey!
psaintla 11y ago
Because they know it will take time for the law to catch up with them. In the meantime they profit and get the public to demand their services. There are two ways to get what you want, Ask for permission or ask for forgiveness.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Why are they entitled to profit?
  - psaintla 11y ago
    I'm not saying they are, I'm just telling you that's what they are doing.
orthoganol 11y ago
How can people love the product? I mean it's nice, but it's just temporary relief from crappy taxi service, which will change to be better if they don't plan to just roll over and die. If not the drivers' crutch of GPS maps, I also have to hear stories from my GF about Uber bros in wayferers trying to flirt with her. So yeah, can't say I "love" the product.

danieltillett 11y ago

Well as long as you can cash out before the law catches up it is not a bad strategy.

themagician 11y ago

This is not unique to Uber. It's a trend. Step 1: Find a regulated industry (taxi, hotel, liquor, etc.) Step 2: Create an app and label yourself as being part of the "sharing economy" that is disrupting the industry Step 3: Completely ignore all regulation Step 4: Profit — largely because you don't have to pay for licensing, insurance, etc. while everyone else in the industry you are trying to disrupt does

HappyTypist 11y ago
That's not true. Uber is paying for insurance for all drivers while in a ride. Furthermore, why is licensing needed? You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam. I see companies like Uber disrupting the industry by removing inefficiency. Licensing, medallions, appeasing public bureaucrats, etc are inefficiencies. That's not to say that regulation is inherently bad, but we need to let new industries grow and see its challenges first -- instead of applying outdated concepts (like medallions, licensing) to new technology. For example: USPS, by law, has a monopoly on mail delivery. Just imagine if USPS banned all e-mail providers and forced you to use your @usps.com inbox. Is this a net benefit? Is the taxi industry banning all ridesharing apps and forcing you to use taxis a net benefit?
- Anechoic 11y ago
  You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam. Bernie Madoff's investors would disagree.
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    In Madoff's case, he passed SEC audits, licensing requirements, etc with flying colours. Licensing primarily works by raising the barrier to entry, discouraging 'bad actors' from signing up because society-wise, 'bad actors' are more distributed among poorer demographics and are unable to afford licensing.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      Not overly so. He did in some cases. In others, the SEC had plenty of warnings, concerns, but chose not to act on them (which is a different issue entirely - 'why not?').
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Lack of resources.
    - meatysnapper 11y ago
      Nearly everybody thought Madoff had a serious insider trading scam going on, but everybody wanted to get in on it so they ignored the red flags.
- themagician 11y ago
  They pay for some additional insurance. They don't require drivers to carry commercial insurance. They don't require drivers to get passenger carrier permits. They don't really have to follow or comply with any of the other regulations imposed by the CPUC or things that plague the taxi and limo industry. All of these things have costs. Uber didn't remove the inefficiencies from the system, they just ignored the laws that cause them. I too can remove "inefficiencies" from my bottom line by not paying my taxes, right? I love Uber. I love that's it's on demand. I love that it's cheaper. But if you recall the time before UberX—when their was only black car service and all drivers had to have Passenger Carrier Permits, commercial insurance, and comply with CPUC rules and regulations—it WASN'T cheaper. The minimum was $15 a ride. SF to Sausalito was $80. Uber started with a great premium service that was compliant with the law and fixed a real problem. Uber expanded by saying, "We need to grow. Fast. The law no longer applies to us."
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    Uber doesn't require drivers to carry commercial insurance, because they already provide commercial insurance. Uber maintains commercial automobile insurance that covers U.S. partner drivers that operate under the “Ridesharing” or “Transportation Network Company” (“TNC”) model through Uber’s TNC subsidiaries, Rasier LLC and its affiliates.(1) http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/01/certificates-of-insurance-u-s-ridesharing/ http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/01/certificates-of-insurance-u... Most of us sees a purpose in paying tax. But, say example, you made an app that files your taxes just like an agent. You could call it TurboTax and sell it, and save $100s of dollars for tax filers. You provide insurance so that if your app does something wrong, you will reimburse people who get penalised.
    - themagician 11y ago
      Yeah, they provide this now, after getting slapped. And even still it has gaps. The point is, the law has always been: if you drive commercially, you need commercial insurance. This is what keeps most people from driving commercially.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
- colechristensen 11y ago
  Licensing holds people to standards. Uber might not be a scam, but what if I want to create Cole's Driver Service? With that logic what stops me and a million other scammers from creating shady unregulated taxi services?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    You can create a service, that doesn't mean anyone will use it. And you don't need a license to get arrested and convicted if you do something illegal. Of course, that requires you to commit a crime first, but it's not like the licenses prevent you from doing so. And even then, The overwhelming majority of cabbies who killed and maimed passengers and pedestrians in the past five years are back behind the wheel. Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a Freedom of Information Act request. http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc...
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  "You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam." Licensing isn't just 'we are not a scam' any more than a "site seal" on a website means anything. Plenty of companies with valuations in the 8 and 9 digit range have a history of doing dubious things up to and including things that have been known to cost lives. Licensing doesn't prevent that. But does help with some of the things needed to minimize. Uber just "opted" out of "inefficient regulation".
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  User's insurance isn't particularly great. For one, they make no mention of requiring commercial vehicle insurance (https://www.uber.com/driver-jobs https://www.uber.com/driver-jobs) and say that drivers only need personal vehicle insurance. They have contingent liability injury insurance with a total available of $100K. They talk of having commercial insurance during trips, but it is only third party liability and UI/UM. If you're a passenger in an Uber accident and insurers decline to cover when they become aware the vehicle was driven commercially, you're out of luck.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "You know a $40 billion company wouldn't be a scam." How much was Bernie Madoff's fund worth when he was arrested?
danieltillett 11y ago
Are we sure uber has achieved step 4? I would think it is more like: Step 4: Find a sucker to dump the whole company on before the law catches up and walk off into the sunset.
SilasX 11y ago
I agree that Uber has ignored some regulation that has a legitimate public-interest justification [1]. But what complicates the issue is regulation has also failed to keep up with technology: for example, it doesn't make much sense to mandate taxi meters when GPS do it better, or to have a phone system for complaints when an app has much more data and a better complaint response time and satisfaction. So Uber has provided significant positive sum gains on top of whatever negative externalities they've thrown off, which makes it much harder to claim that this is a case of merely avoiding regulations others have to follow. Taxi companies could have done all of positive-sum things Uber did [2], but didn't. So I don't think that narrative fits the situation, or at least, can't account for than 1/3 of Uber's appeal. [1] specifically, some insurable events that are generally accepted to be the company's responsibility to cover and not the driver's. [2] easy-to-use app, removing the tipping dance, clean cars, mutual rating, quick action on complaints, reliable follow-up when a ride is requested, pooling rides, cashless transactions, etc

the_ancient 11y ago

Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber.

Sanddancer 11y ago
There is definitely a need for a lot of them, like mandatory safety inspections, vetting of drivers, etc. However, certain aspects of how they're implemented, like the medallion system, are obsolete and need to go away.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous. Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public. The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.
    - the_ancient 11y ago

HappyTypist 11y ago

I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control? For me personally, Uber's expansion has convinced me the regulation around ridesharing does not need to go beyond wha t Uber already does. I can give zero shits that some public bureaucratic can't flex its authority.

coldtea 11y ago
>I think it's important to ask if the laws are necessary or helpful. To use an analogy, would you support a South Korean company who lets consumers use Firefox for online shopping, instead of the state-mandated IE ActiveX control? If a country is a free, sovereign country, and not a dictatorship, then companies should respects its laws. Period.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Why?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Why should a company respect the laws? Because there are negative consequences to not obeying - financial, jail, or both. Because, in the case of a non-dictatorship, there is no good moral basis for not obeying. Because, fuzzy-headed theorists aside, anarchy doesn't really work that well for a country-sized society. Because respect for the law in society is really to your benefit. And because you're not going to like it if others ignore/disobey the laws that you like - laws against theft of your stuff, say. Because, in a country with a functioning, responsive government, you've got lawful means to fight bad laws. Use them. (Those means may include civil disobedience as a last resort. But even then, you still have to respect the law to the extent that you recognize the law's right to put you in jail for disobeying a law that you believe to be wrong.)
    - coldtea 11y ago

aaronbrethorst 11y ago

I think Uber is a great company and I love the product. I love the product too, but I also think they're the exact opposite of a great company. Or perhaps we have different definitions of the word "great." How are you using it?

gkoberger 11y ago
"Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average" They're not saying they're a good company, they're saying they're a great company.
- smeyer 11y ago
  Do you happen to know that that is the particular definition mrkmcknz means? It's not clear to me, and it looks like you've just chosen a common dictionary definition and used that to indicate they aren't calling it a good company, while other dictionary definitions for great explicitly mean things equivalent to "very good".
  - derefr 11y ago
    It's the second-most-common interpretation where "very good" doesn't seem to be the intended meaning. Commonly used in phrases like "Napoleon was a great man." Basically means "historically important."

toephu2 11y ago

You don't get it? The answer is simple: money. Money makes the world go 'round.

colechristensen 11y ago

Uber is legal in some places. Minneapolis http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-joins-other-cities-regulating-lyft-uberx/267685111/ http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-joins-other-cities-re...

awwstn 11y ago

> They literally don't comply with any law in any country they literally break every law in every country?

dikaiosune 11y ago
Sure, why not. More seriously, responding to hyperbole with pedantry isn't productive. I'm pretty sure that quote is intended to convey their general disregard for the law, rather than a concerted attempt to break every law they can.
- perfTerm 11y ago
  Well that's obvious but literally breaking every law in every country would be literally impossible. It's like this guy at work who always says "verbage". It just grinds certain peoples gears when people use words incorectly and shamelessly or ignorantly. I could care less, irregardless... Oy vey!

psaintla 11y ago

Because they know it will take time for the law to catch up with them. In the meantime they profit and get the public to demand their services. There are two ways to get what you want, Ask for permission or ask for forgiveness.

s73v3r 11y ago
Why are they entitled to profit?
- psaintla 11y ago
  I'm not saying they are, I'm just telling you that's what they are doing.

orthoganol 11y ago

How can people love the product? I mean it's nice, but it's just temporary relief from crappy taxi service, which will change to be better if they don't plan to just roll over and die. If not the drivers' crutch of GPS maps, I also have to hear stories from my GF about Uber bros in wayferers trying to flirt with her. So yeah, can't say I "love" the product.