Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Uber Conflation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#11

Post by yazaddaruvala »

tedunangst wrote: post #6
mikeash wrote: post #2

A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able…

In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

That is a loophole!

If the fines incurred are less than margins, then you have a profitable strategy.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#12

Post by jaclaz »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #11
tedunangst wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

That is a loophole! If the fines incurred are less than margins, then you have a profitable strategy.

Margins? Profit? Both seem like not a priority for Uber. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-lo...

>The company is said to have lost at least $2 billion last year and is on track to pile up a loss of at least $3 billion this year. Those are rough figures that may underestimate how much money Uber is losing and don't include interest, taxes or stock-based compensation.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#13

Post by xenadu02 »

The article makes a good point: Uber seems to have conflated pushing regulatory boundaries with pushing the boundaries of decent behavior. For a company trying so hard to overturn regulatory capture they sure did let their own house become a shambles.

It's like if Edward Murrow went after McCarthy without bothering to double-check his own staff for anything that could be used against him.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#15

Post by pryelluw »

GCA10 wrote: post #9
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is careful to violate local (civil) laws where it has popular backing, as opposed to state or federal laws that can carry criminal penalties. Think: Zenefits or Theranos versus Airbnb.

Richard Petty, the legendary Nascar driver, once said that the secret to winning at Nascar is knowing how to "cheat neat." There's great art in knowing how to rejigger a car that must look like a Toyota Camry, but obviously is not the same Camry that you or I could buy from the local dealer for $30,000. There's a blog post for someone to write about Silicon Valley's efforts to put the Petty Principle in action. Lots…

Smokey Yunick's 7/8 '66 Chevelle is the classic NASCAR cheat story. It's on the Wikipedia page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick

He basically scaled down a car's dimensions to make it lighter while still looking similarly to the full size version. This made NASCAR introduce jigs to measure the cars. A rule that is still very much in use.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#16

Post by Eridrus »

mikeash wrote: post #2

A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able…

I think you misinterpreted this article, the author claims that Uber is not violating the spirit of the law, since the spirit of the law is to promote safety, not a government run monopoly.

Given how popular Uber is, and how much people dislike the Taxi industry, it is enlightening to think about why taxi reform was never on anyone's agenda.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#17

Post by mikeash »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #11
tedunangst wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

That is a loophole! If the fines incurred are less than margins, then you have a profitable strategy.

Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement.

For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery vehicles in places where they're not allowed. These companies do this deliberately, because it's cheaper to pay the tickets than to have drivers take the extra time and effort of locating a legal place to stop. Some big cities have gone so far as to set up special accommodations for these companies to pay their tickets in bulk rather than dealing with each one individually. In effect, these parking tickets work as a tax on delivery companies. Doesn't seem particularly evil.

Interesting side note: USPS, as a federal agency, apparently has immunity from local laws like this, so they don't get ticketed. This gives them a substantial advantage over their non-governmental competitors in big cities.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#18

Post by orcdork »

mikeash wrote: post #17
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a loophole! If the fines incurred are less than margins, then you have a profitable strategy.

Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement. For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery…

You're advocating for wealth being over the law. I don't see how you can feel that this is not a big problem.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#19

Post by Karunamon »

orcdork wrote: post #18
mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement. For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery…

You're advocating for wealth being over the law. I don't see how you can feel that this is not a big problem.

Some laws are dumb.

There's a distressing trend on HN recently of people citing "the law" as if it were the end of any kind of practical or moral discussion.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#20

Post by crabasa »

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of transportation options, particularly late at night — then it is the taxi companies and captured regulators violating said spirit.

I agree with this. Taxi regulations might have started with noble intentions, but quickly evolved into protecting a monopoly at the expense of consumers.

Post reply on HN