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

SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#141

Post by the_watcher »

mstade wrote: post #18
argonaut wrote: post #15

Yes, this is just standard bureaucracy and it's Skip's fault, as people are saying. But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. That's why this is so comical. It only feeds fuel to the truth that rules should be bent and there really is no point in "moving slow" for startups. You won't be rewarded for it. Most tech…

> But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. E.g. when I incorporated my company, I had to send in the same application four times, each time paying an additional fee. Reason was I had minor, pointless really, mistakes in the applic…

> This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale.

I'm reminded of the opening of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which satirized this 40 years ago.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#142

Post by reaperducer »

newnewpdro wrote: post #124
reaperducer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. It doesn't have to be this way. I incorporated my first company in Chicago, and was stunned with how helpful the bureaucrats were. Yes, it was a little complex, especially in the years before "startups" were a thing, and you could do stuff online. But each department I had to work with had people who would sit me down at their desk an…

Incorporating a company is a trivial matter as far as bureaucratic exercises go. It's like the cover charge at the bar of bureaucratic suffering. Generally it's what follows that becomes painful, depending on the business you're in and how large/active/complicated it grows to be if at all. I incorporated my first company as a teen, following instructions from a book in the local public library. I don't remember it re…

It was more than a simple incorporation. There was also all of the associated tax filings and entities.

For example, I doubt as a teen you set up any kind of worker's compensation payment system for your employees.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#143

Post by dannykwells »

eddyionescu wrote: post #121

To add more context, Skip wouldn't have been chosen even if its application were formatted perfectly, you can see the scores here: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume... And the completed rubrics of each of the applications here: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume... With other related documents here: https://www.sfmta.com/reports/2019-scooter-application-evalu... Wh…

Not sure why this isn't the top comment. Clearly the case. Skip is very clearly an also ran in every category, and are now trying to make it about less than it really was.

Notably, Lyfy was rejected with much higher scores and no failing categories. So Skip didnt even barely miss. It was a true whiff.

Ultimately sad, because yes, SF does have issues with companies not following the rules and profiting, but this does not appear to be such a case.

Thanks for providing the actual data.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#144

Post by bpodgursky »

tempsy wrote: post #123
wutbrodo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it still comes out cheaper it’s for a reason e.g. no security, no housekeeping, no amenities, no one to help you. Why is this a bad thing? It's just unbundling security and housekeeping and lowering the price correspondingly. If you want the full-service option hotels still exist

It’s like getting sick without health insurance. You don’t think about it until it happens. Most people underestimate the risk. And like I said in a lot of places an Airbnb is not actually cheaper than a hotel, so in that case you’re getting ripped off because you pay the same price as a hotel without any of the benefits a hotel provides.

This might shock and horrify you, but a lot of people live in _their own houses_ without 24-hour front-desk staff, room cleaning service, valet parking, or magnetic key cards.

Somehow -- honestly, I'm unclear on how -- they survive.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#145

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #91
jakobegger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that investors buy up cheap apartments and put them on AirBnB to make insane profits. This drives up prices for locals. The other tenants are mad because landlords prefer renting apartments to tourists for 5k a month instead of renting to locals for 1k a month.

> The other tenants are mad because landlords prefer renting apartments to tourists for 5k a month instead of renting to locals for 1k a month. If this is happening it's because your city has a massive shortage of short-term rental properties. If you can make $5k a month then people should be building those properties left and right since it's so profitable -- but what most likely happened is that your city passed ru…

[deleted]

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#146

Post by tempsy »

bpodgursky wrote: post #144
tempsy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like getting sick without health insurance. You don’t think about it until it happens. Most people underestimate the risk. And like I said in a lot of places an Airbnb is not actually cheaper than a hotel, so in that case you’re getting ripped off because you pay the same price as a hotel without any of the benefits a hotel provides.

This might shock and horrify you, but a lot of people live in _their own houses_ without 24-hour front-desk staff, room cleaning service, valet parking, or magnetic key cards. Somehow -- honestly, I'm unclear on how -- they survive.

Yes because renting an Airbnb is the same thing as living in your own house.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#147

Post by stordoff »

xvector wrote: post #77
souterrain wrote: post #69

Forget for a moment that a bureaucracy is involved. If your company was bidding on a request for proposal (RFP) for a potential client, wouldn't you want to follow the customer's requirements? Often RFP teams use failure to follow directions or specifics in a proposal submission as an informal measure of the likelihood the respondent will fail to deliver on other requirements. I have worked for a company where I had…

I think this is ridiculous. Formality to the absurdist extreme. Any mildly competent human being would overlook the letters “A3” not being above a certain safety paragraph. If a robot were processing these applications then the error might be forgivable. But if you’re a human on the job, society expects you to use the reasoning skills of a human. I think the sort of person that would reject Skip’s application is some…

I disagree with this. If they can't follow the formatting requirements of the application, then "what else are they overlooking, or likely to overlook once operating?" is a valid concern. They don't seem to indicate that it was an unknown requirement ("If the information does not have the letter A and the number 3 and then the paragraph below it, then it’s not there and you’re disqualified", [the CEO] said).

I see something of an analogy to the brown M&M's rider[1]. They don't particularly care that there are no brown M&M's, but the presence of them is a massive red flag that you have cut corners or not done your due diligence.

[1] https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#148

Post by imp800388 »

Start ups and tech companies that want to innvoate definately need a new city to go to. SF is not a good place to start something new and innovative.

Why not start a new city say, in an open spot somewhere with minimal regulations and let tech companies build and innvoate as much as they want? Sure, in the beginning you need to provide incentives for some companies to go there. but once the jobs are there, people will definately follow.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#149

Post by themagician »

imp800388 wrote: post #148

Start ups and tech companies that want to innvoate definately need a new city to go to. SF is not a good place to start something new and innovative. Why not start a new city say, in an open spot somewhere with minimal regulations and let tech companies build and innvoate as much as they want? Sure, in the beginning you need to provide incentives for some companies to go there. but once the jobs are there, people wil…

Like California City?

SF and NYC are hotspots because that’s where the money is. That’s where the rich people are. They like to invest locally when possible. They like to see the billboards of “their” companies on the way to the airport. It’s an ego thing.

Obviously this is a generalization and not true in all cases. But it’s true enough and that’s why it’s the way that it is.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#150

Post by wutbrodo »

zozbot234 wrote: post #125
wutbrodo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are massive positive externalities to people stably investing their communities (often called "social capital"). Your attitude of putting your head in the sand about things you can't measure precisely is the consistent folly of the High Modernist, "systems are simple so we can tear them down and remake them" line of thought that destroyed the American city. I actually think cities tend to overregulate A…

The thing is that a NIMBY attitude does absolutely nothing to create more social capital. Places where social capital is highest are often precisely those with the strongest traditions of welcoming hospitality towards short-term-visiting ("touristy") outsiders.

I agree, and I'm probably closer to you in my opinion of nimbys than you think. But I don't think there's a problem with being aware, at a policy level, of the distinction between residents and tourists.
Post reply on HN