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

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#81

Post by ergothus »

st3v3r wrote: post #49
crabasa wrote: post #20

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 tra…

While true, that still doesn't justify Uber's actions. Uber doesn't give a crap about those regulations, or reforming them. In fact, they want them to stay in place so they can have an unfair advantage.

Absolutely true. But just like we shouldn't forgive Uber their sins because they improved the market, nor should we condemn their market changes because of their wrongdoing.

And "caring" is something almost no companies do. Even in pure capitalism, companies don't WANT competition. They don't CARE about their consumers - they just want to make as much money as they can.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#84

Post by zeveb »

FussyZeus wrote: post #62
crabasa wrote: post #20

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 tra…

Uber's biggest problem is the confrontational way they've expanded their business, often thumbing their nose at regulators the entire time and pissing off a lot of the local communities. Lyft is in the exact same business but you don't see headlines every other day about Lyft going to war with some city or another. I think Uber's about to be a very expensive lesson about Karma and will hopefully show some of these VC…

> Uber's biggest problem is the confrontational way they've expanded their business, often thumbing their nose at regulators the entire time and pissing off a lot of the local communities.

I think regulators' attitude is just as controversial: 'you must do this because we say so,' not 'you must do this because it's a good idea.'

Re: The Uber Conflation

#85

Post by [deleted] »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #61
_jal wrote: post #31

"Otto having stolen intellectual property are very serious, it’s worth remembering that the entire industry is basically built on theft" There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit. Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to…

>A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit. Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article: "The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that ar…

[deleted]

Re: The Uber Conflation

#86

Post by Dylan16807 »

st3v3r wrote: post #54
padobson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's now what this is. They're breaking the law and willingly serving the penalty. You can argue that the penalty isn't strong enough, but then your issue is with the legislature, not the criminal. What you're saying is tantamount to saying a thief who likes prison food is also above the law, because he actually enjoys the penalty for the laws he breaks.

That's exactly what that is. Basically, if you're rich enough to where the fine doesn't matter, you don't have to follow the law.

It's not about being rich at all. Someone barely making ends meet running their own courier service could do the same thing. It's up to them to figure out if the increase in deliveries per day is worth the cost of the tickets.

There are fines that impact big companies and rich people less because of deep pocketbooks. But parking tickets on delivery trucks are not such a fine. They scale linearly with bad-parking activity. As mikeash said, this case is effectively a tax.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#87

Post by Kalium »

FussyZeus wrote: post #62
crabasa wrote: post #20

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 tra…

Uber's biggest problem is the confrontational way they've expanded their business, often thumbing their nose at regulators the entire time and pissing off a lot of the local communities. Lyft is in the exact same business but you don't see headlines every other day about Lyft going to war with some city or another. I think Uber's about to be a very expensive lesson about Karma and will hopefully show some of these VC…

After the conciliatory approach of Night School in San Francisco got them attacked and shut down by the taxi industry, Uber's approach became inevitable. Lyft consistently operates in cities that Uber has already opened up.

It's one thing to suggest that maybe a nicer, kinder, friendlier approach could have been used. It's another to have an environment where such an approach can succeed in isolation.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#88

Post by Dylan16807 »

orcdork wrote: post #46
jamornh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but then that's an issue with the way fines and punishments for said crimes are structured, not the fault of those who takes advantage of the loophole. There are 2 types of fines: fines that are meant to stop things from happening and fines that are there to basically make the city money. Most traffic fines seem to be structured for the latter.

Good to know it's up to you to pick and choose which laws inconvenience you, I mean which laws are there to make those fat cats at the city office the big bucks.

What in the world are you talking about?

They stated that different laws exist for different reasons. That's not picking and choosing laws. And they didn't say that laws to make money are inherently bad either.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#89

Post by Tycho »

st3v3r wrote: post #58
Tycho wrote: post #52

I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber. The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't. The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and…

"I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber." If there is, it's from Uber itself. Everything that has come out are things that Uber has done by itself. No one else's fault but Uber and it's leadership. "The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredi…

>He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company.

The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis.

> No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously.

Why?

> Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before.

Not an actor, but possibly someone was trawling for embarrassing footage that otherwise would probably never see the light of day. The blog post was clearly fake and I'm just wondering if it was part of a viral marketing campaign for New Balance sneakers, or a party with a grudge, or possibly just a regular troll.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#90

Post by davidgerard »

> There is no disputing that Uber has operated in the gray zone, perhaps adhering to the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.

Well, except the bit where they didn't do that either.

Post reply on HN