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

Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 178 posts

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#51

Post by Retric »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.

How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.

“a type of vehicle for hire with a driver, used by a single passenger or small group of passengers, often for a non-shared ride. A taxicab conveys passengers between locations of their choice.” So yea that sounds like Uber/Lyft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi

I regularly see people say they’ll call a cab and then use Uber/Lyft.

Ride sharing generally means carpooling/picking up hitchhikers etc. Where the driver is going on the route anyway and is adding passengers for HOV access, gas money, or just conversation. https://rideshare.org/

Uber’s initial intention was carpooling where someone would put in their intended destination and could pick people up for money. However the business model clearly switched to a taxi model with a paid driver not staying at the destination. They still wanted to call it ride sharing because what they where doing was often blatantly illegal

PS: Their initial subsidized prices convinced many people to advocate for an exception which was often granted. That’s the bit that’s rarely talked about, they essentially bribed the general public.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#52

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

Izkata wrote: post #33
farhanhubble wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.

The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers. It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps…

They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#53

Post by mvdtnz »

protocolture wrote: post #38
weq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol. This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.

Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players. Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place. Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse.…

You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The law of the land is, in fact, very relevant in a lawsuit.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#54

Post by mvdtnz »

protocolture wrote: post #43
kevingadd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.

>They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up…

Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#55

Post by lannisterstark »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #19
lannisterstark wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations? Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last? Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?

do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?

Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages."

You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#56

Post by NoPicklez »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.

How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.

I think your average person does think that way.

This entire debate and court case is between Taxi's and Uber, because they're competing by providing essentially the same thing.

The passenger clearly doesn't care if the person driving them from A to B is using a company vehicle vs their own vehicle. Ride sharing is a silly name, as you're not really sharing the ride if the driver isn't going to the same place are they.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#57

Post by xeromal »

mihaic wrote: post #45
bouncycastle wrote: post #32

they didn't break the law. Otherwise, if your boss asked you to drive their friend to the airport, then that would be illegal.

In many places it is illegal to ask someone to drive if that's not their explicit job. Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.

[flagged]

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#58

Post by zeofig »

protocolture wrote: post #46
zeofig wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.

>They broke the law. Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it. >Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices. >the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC. Yes, so it…

>Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it.

I disagree that they had a moral imperative to break it. But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them while claiming the moral highground.

>And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.

Is there any successful rideshare company without similar financial practices? I admit I don't know much about any of them other than Uber. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm glad to hear that uber isn't seeking a monopoly.

>Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.

Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the take

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#59

Post by mihaic »

xeromal wrote: post #57
mihaic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many places it is illegal to ask someone to drive if that's not their explicit job. Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#60

Post by [deleted] »

pjd7 wrote: post #35

Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison. A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me. Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too. The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN