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

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#131

Post by bogomipz »

trimbo wrote: post #22
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.

UPS and Fedex pay New York millions in parking fines as a cost of doing business[1]. How come we don't really think of them as scofflaws, but we do with Uber? (I include myself when asking this question) [1] - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130526/ECONOMY/305269...

Wouldn't a "scofflaw" be someone who got a ticket and did not pay it? Also parking citations are civil offenses not criminal ones. Most cities are actually quite dependent on revenue generated from parking tickets. I am sure New York City is quite happy with the relationship.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#132

Post by bsder »

st3v3r wrote: post #117
bsder wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One driver kept a logbook of every passenger's name plus their source address and destination address. He was perfectly pleasant to talk to, but that logbook creeped me out. I don't know what kind of information Uber/Lyft sends back to their drivers, so this could easily be a mileage record for tax purposes.

That's still creepy as fuck.

Then Uber and Lyft are creepy, and you shouldn't use them.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#133

Post by chillacy »

notyourwork wrote: post #127
chillacy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We break many laws every day without consequence and often with necessity (speed limit on freeways in large cities for instance). Law isn't quite so straightforward. The Myth of The Rule of Law: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm I'd wager that most corporations are violating one law or another, without any complaints from the people.

That isn't justification to say because we break law X all the time we can also break law Y. Flawed logic.

I wasn't trying to imply that. I was merely pointing out that the parent's assertion that:

> I don't see why it's suddenly up for debate whether companies need to abide the letter of the law.

Wasn't exactly true. I also have disagreements with other parts of the post, including "Origin of law is irrelevant" (what if the law arose from lobbying by a powerful industry vs for the common good) and "If you disagree you can campaign to have it changed" (and I assume obey it in the meantime) vs something like civil disobedience or jury nullification.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#134

Post by chillacy »

FussyZeus wrote: post #128
chillacy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We break many laws every day without consequence and often with necessity (speed limit on freeways in large cities for instance). Law isn't quite so straightforward. The Myth of The Rule of Law: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm I'd wager that most corporations are violating one law or another, without any complaints from the people.

I'm just going to point out that Uber is sidestepping all those "useless regulations" and in the process has had issues ranging from abused customers to abused drivers or combinations of the two, repeatedly, since it's inception. I'm not saying ALL the regulations were put in place for good reasons, and I'm not going to argue that cab companies don't have a monopoly in most places because they do indeed have that. Bu…

No disagreements, though I am sort of offended that you'd try to straw man me into being some sort of anarchist. There is plenty of subtlety in the interpretation of law, and I'd argue that the origin of law definitely matters, as does intent, which is why we have a process through trials in the judicial system.

I also have very little to say about Uber in particular, I was just responding directly to your comment about how we should follow laws to the letter.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#135

Post by FussyZeus »

Kalium wrote: post #110
FussyZeus wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You can have the best damn idea in the world, if you're an arrogant ass about it, no one is going to listen to you.

I understand why you think that way. Nobody likes an asshole! Nobody wants to work with an asshole! Just play nice, and people with work with you! Night School believed as you do. They figured they would be most successful by playing ball, cooperating with regulators, and not pissing people off. For their pains, they were shut down by the very people they bent over backwards to play nice with. They caught no flies wi…

This is hardly an apt comparison. Uber is one of the most bloated of the fat VC babies, it's received at this point what must be billions of dollars in burn startup cash, where Night School had none (wasn't around long enough to really get anything.) Night School was also entirely beholden to the regulators because it was planning to use school busses, which if you've ever even tried to book one you already know the issues there.

I mean if we're really committed to the Night School idea that would probably be best done as a Government program, since it's so intertwined with assets that are used heavily by the Government. But I'm also willing to bet if we gave them a couple Billion to burn, they could also make it happen. The question of whether that's worth it or not is quite different, though.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#136

Post by FussyZeus »

chillacy wrote: post #134
FussyZeus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just going to point out that Uber is sidestepping all those "useless regulations" and in the process has had issues ranging from abused customers to abused drivers or combinations of the two, repeatedly, since it's inception. I'm not saying ALL the regulations were put in place for good reasons, and I'm not going to argue that cab companies don't have a monopoly in most places because they do indeed have that. Bu…

No disagreements, though I am sort of offended that you'd try to straw man me into being some sort of anarchist. There is plenty of subtlety in the interpretation of law, and I'd argue that the origin of law definitely matters, as does intent, which is why we have a process through trials in the judicial system. I also have very little to say about Uber in particular, I was just responding directly to your comment ab…

I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm pointing out that you're comparing Uber breaking transportation regs to you going a little too fast on your daily commute. If those things are equal in the eyes of the law, might as well burn the regulations, they aren't useful.

Sorry if that came across a little aggressive, not my intent at all. :)

Re: The Uber Conflation

#137

Post by Kalium »

FussyZeus wrote: post #135
Kalium wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand why you think that way. Nobody likes an asshole! Nobody wants to work with an asshole! Just play nice, and people with work with you! Night School believed as you do. They figured they would be most successful by playing ball, cooperating with regulators, and not pissing people off. For their pains, they were shut down by the very people they bent over backwards to play nice with. They caught no flies wi…

This is hardly an apt comparison. Uber is one of the most bloated of the fat VC babies, it's received at this point what must be billions of dollars in burn startup cash, where Night School had none (wasn't around long enough to really get anything.) Night School was also entirely beholden to the regulators because it was planning to use school busses, which if you've ever even tried to book one you already know the…

You're absolutely right! It's not reasonable to compare Uber as it is today to Night School. Instead, I suggest comparing Uber of multiple years ago to Night School. Uber wasn't always huge with lots of money behind it, after all.

Uber got to the position of being the most bloated of fat VC babies by not playing nice. Night School never got that far because they insisted on playing nice. They also ran afoul of the taxi industry, who felt threatened by their business model.

We might want to give serious consideration to the possibility that one behavior pattern is not privileged above all others in all possible scenarios.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#138

Post by piva00 »

xapata wrote: post #129
fragmede wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be hard to believe, but there are urban places, outside the US, where public transportation works (so Uber and taxis are still luxury items, so taxis themselves are nice and clean), where taxis are plentiful (so no problems finding one, even at 3am) and either electronic cash works (ie; not credit cards that drivers accept), or credit card readers are required (and effectively enforced so there are no proble…

Makes sense. However, I travel frequently, but have yet to encounter this situation. In the US the taxi monopoly results in poor customer service and/or difficulty getting a ride. In the various countries I've visited outside, the wealthy countries have had slightly better Ubers than taxis. In the poor countries, I'm incredibly happy to find Uber has arrived as I no longer fear for my life or worry that I'm being che…

Come to Stockholm, the situation is 90% close what your parent comment said.

And taxis are allowed to be Ubers too, we have Teslas S, Mercedes-Benz E and S classes and normal VW Passat taxis, all of them probably working also for Uber.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#139

Post by chillacy »

FussyZeus wrote: post #136
chillacy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disagreements, though I am sort of offended that you'd try to straw man me into being some sort of anarchist. There is plenty of subtlety in the interpretation of law, and I'd argue that the origin of law definitely matters, as does intent, which is why we have a process through trials in the judicial system. I also have very little to say about Uber in particular, I was just responding directly to your comment ab…

I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm pointing out that you're comparing Uber breaking transportation regs to you going a little too fast on your daily commute. If those things are equal in the eyes of the law, might as well burn the regulations, they aren't useful. Sorry if that came across a little aggressive, not my intent at all. :)

I see, okay that's fair. I think that the fact that laws are flexible and fuzzy doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws, but it means that until an actual court decision, who knows if uber was "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of the law. For instance like the article mentioned, Uber initially started by breaking the spirit of the law, not the actual law, since the existing regulations didn't take into account the possibility of cellphones as dispatching tools. I don't know if that was ever taken to court but a sharp judge could have nailed Uber for that despite Uber technically obeying the law.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#140

Post by galdosdi »

xapata wrote: post #120
galdosdi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people say the same thing you do -- their diverse anecdotes agree that regular cabs are obviously (better, worse) than uber/lyft/etc. The trouble is, they don't agree which way it goes. I think the resolution to this conondrum is, it varies based on city/region. Some areas had traditional taxis that are worse than ridesharing, and some better.

Name a region where taxis provide better service than "rideshare".

NYC. Ask anyone who's recently tried both yellow cabs and uber a bunch of times. Yellow cabbies tend to be more experienced, and it shows in their driving.

Xapata, you must really be a heck of a globetrotter to be able to so confidently ask a question like that!

Post reply on HN