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

Uber London loses licence to operate

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#561

Post by microcolonel »

laumars wrote: post #341
microcolonel wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean no disrespect, but I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the concept of a monopoly.

Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, " the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. " would align with the point the other commenter is raising. Some independent stores simply aren't interested in being the monopoly in their local area for their particular product. Sometimes they just run the business because its a product the…

> Could you expand on that point please because my understanding of the term monopoly, "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." would align with the point the other commenter is raising.

pbhjpbhj's comment implies that by addressing a niche market, you would avoid the drive to monopolize. I'm arguing that if you are addressing a niche market, you are working to monopolize that market, and you don't have to monopolize the whole market of similar services to be a monopoly. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly (in this case a government one) on producing Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft Windows is not the only PC operating system.

Similarly, you could monopolize a certain demographic. For example, Microsoft has an effective monopoly in PC operating systems when it comes to government administration workstations in most countries.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#562

Post by microcolonel »

vertex-four wrote: post #322
microcolonel wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO. Every rational company should behave as if they're attempting to become a monopoly, this is a completely meaningless point to argue either way.

I know plenty of small - and, actually, big - companies which have reasonably good relationships with their competition, actually. Craft breweries regularly collaborate with each other, as an example - even those which have taken significant capital investment.

Craft brewers are not in strict competition with all other craft brewers for the whole market. They would have to expand their operations immensely to do so (and likely no longer be considered "craft"). If I want a pilsner with more or less hop, a smooth saison, or a high-alcohol belgian-style wheat beer, no craft brewer I know of can afford to serve all of these whims. That said, a craft brewer could seek a local monopoly on the citrusy saison, and collaborate to serve different niches.

Craft brewing is almost defined by a premium on variety, and that marketable variety creates an highly recursive system of market segmentation. Since flavour/atmosphere/taste has so many facets, and there is so much variance in terms of "customer success", all product categories which are differentiated by flavour and/or atmosphere and/or taste tend to multiply markets rather than consolidating them. Coca-Cola, for example, could be seen to have no competition at one level (the market for Coca-Cola specifically), and enormous competition (the market for all beverages). Legal restrictions on transportation and processing of raw coca leaf, and on marketing products as "Coca-Cola", help the Coca-Cola company retain a monopoly on Coca-Cola specifically.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#563

Post by kofejnik »

kbart wrote: post #253
kofejnik wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most taxi services in Europe are quite bad and hugely overpriced due to artificial monopoly, to the point that I try to stay away from the countries without Uber

From your description and my personal experience, only London falls under this category. What other cities do you have in mind?

Athens, Greece is one obvious example; also Brussels. And Amsterdam. And a lot more. And I _love_ Vienna.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#564

Post by microcolonel »

foldr wrote: post #299
microcolonel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the anecdote and the law are both accurate, then that certainly goes to show exactly how effective all those stringent regulations are. It seems like this one would be simple to check.

You can just refuse to pay any other way except by card. There is not much a black cab driver can do in response to that, since they are now not even allowed to be on the road accepting customers if they don't have a working card machine.

Can you? I would think common law would take precedence over taxi regulations.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#566

Post by billphipps »

Black taxis in London are a 150+ year old institution also. As a Londoner I found it sad seeing the drivers looking unhappy waiting for passengers at Paddington....not getting so many. Black taxis just seem to me to be as much of a part of London as Big Ben, Red Telephone Boxes and Red Double Decker busses.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#567

Post by Nursie »

conanbatt wrote: post #505
Nursie wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Taxis have an ACTUAL monopoly Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London. >> Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly. Nope. That's a wilful misreading of what I've been posting and I'm not sure it warrants much response. I'm siding with protecting a diverse market from an unethical company who appear to be bending the rules and sink…

> Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London. If thats your definition of monopoly, then UBER is also not a monopoly. Those still exist and can continue to exist. > I'm siding with protecting a diverse market You are not siding with protecting a diverse market because you are eliminating an option. Its the exact opposite direction. The rules are written by the same people that invented taxicabs. If th…

Uber are not a monopoly, never claimed they were. They act like they want to be though, and are using VC money to undercut AFAICT

The rules are much more than there to protect just black cabs, they are there to protect consumers and workers too.

Uber are a set of problems all to themselves, and have only their own attitudes and practices to blame.

I am not advocating helping any one 'side', and to paint my arguments that way is disingenuous.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#568

Post by Nursie »

alexasmyths wrote: post #558
Nursie wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I highly doubt... Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff. --edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard: >> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved? I don't think this argument has much…

Uber are not the best behaved lot - I understand. But they are not stupid. If they were given only a '4 month extension' in London - and told to 'comply' with certain things - this is a very direct 'shot across the bow'. Uber creeped into markets 'under the radar' - but when the regulators are directly holding your business hostage - and are saying point-blank: 'do these things or no permit' - it's time to believe th…

They were given a four month extension, they didn't fix the problems. Now they are down to an appeal process. I have no doubt they will drag it out as long as possible.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#569

Post by toomuchtodo »

Anderkent wrote: post #523
toomuchtodo wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valuing ethics over consumerism requires time and life experience.

What's ethical about state-supported oligopolies?

If I have to pick between Silicon Valley oligopolies and state sponsored ones, I'll take the state; at least they're trying to protect their citizens.

What's ethical about letting Silicon Valley unicorns plunder world markets?

While not a popular topic here, Silicon Valley is starting to become the enemy.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#570

Post by ghostwriter »

shkkmo wrote: post #560
ghostwriter wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. Must I list human abuse that takes place because of "demand" and "production"? Child labor? Child prostitution? Slavery? Unregulated economics is anarchy. You are mixing together ethics of "producing a value as such" with immoral acts. One person's needs is not a claim on other people's life/time. Slavery and child abuse is immoral based on exactly the same fundamental principle that makes regulations of volun…

> And an unregulated market multiplies opportunities for those who are willing to earn their own living by their work I don't think that's true. Unregulated markets can result in a number of situations that limit people's opportunities significantly. Monopolies are a clear example and various externalities can also have significant impacts on commerce. To maximize the opportunities we need carefully tuned regulation.…

> Unregulated markets can result in a number of situations that limit people's opportunities significantly. Monopolies are a clear example and various externalities can also have significant impacts on commerce.

Could you name an existing stable monopoly that is not a state-granted monopoly (i.e. a monopoly, that is not associated with government regulations, subsidies, grants, medallions, quotas and other things that have to do with regulating the market by the government), yet is capable of preventing other players from entering the same market?

Post reply on HN