Live data from Hacker News

Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

smh.com.au

81–90 of 178 posts

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

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ordered an uber from one side of the Sydney CBD to the other. We got to talking about ubers situation in the CBD. He told me he doesnt normally accept fares in the CBD because he gets pushed around by the police. As he was saying that, a motorcycle cop ordered him to pull over for an inspection. I thanked him and decided to walk the rest of the trip. Anyway, now armed with the reason I couldn't get an uber reliably…

Or, you know, public transport...

I mean if I am in the Sydney CBD I am there for work. I usually need access to a variety of suburbs, the airport and the CBD itself for various work engagements. I need to be on time, and spend ideally less than 45 minutes in transit between engagements.

When I am on my own time in Sydney, I have an opal card and will train everywhere possible.

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

#82
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 rides…

The biggest issue with Ubers financial practices (other than, not having much money) is that in the US they can also provide car finance, and can take the car payments directly from the trip payment. Its got a whiff of the company store about it. As far as I am aware none of their competitors do this anywhere.

Considering the low value proposition of the Uber app, I am relatively surprised that theres no strong open source competitor with a very modest sum going to maintain the app. Such a hypothetical competitor would now also be allowed after ubers entrance.

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

#83
post #75
post #71

This is like compensating purse snatchers because the promotion of mobile payments reduces their income. Sydney's taxi is a shame to this wonderful city. I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95, which made me fearful of Sydney prices. It took me time to realise that I had just run into a scam and that the ride should have cost just $20+. Now…

The taxi firms lost income because it wasn't a level playing field. They played by the rules where Uber's well-known modus operandi in many countries was to skirt the rules or downright ignore them, while using billions of dollars of investor money to undercut the market. I'm glad they exist to shake up the taxi market, and the rules changes were probably overdue. But I'm also glad uber got fined, because they behave…

As a costumer, I'm glad they skirt the rules because they provide better service for cheaper, and I certainly hope that traditional taxi parks go out of business, because compared to Uber and other apps they're horrible.

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

#84
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.

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

#85
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its a thought terminating cliche. A law being a law doesnt end an argument. If the law shouldn't be, we are permitted to continue thinking towards its removal.

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

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but the responsibility is always to break unjust laws. And in this instance they were able to demonstrate why the laws were unjust and succeeded in getting them changed. There shouldn't be consideration for unjust laws. Its like suing a german car company for not using enough slave labor. "Its the Law" is just a rhetorical was to shut down debate. It should never have been the law, and when it was contested it n…

Given uber developed software to block the regulator from regulating (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/109129... and links therein), I'm not sure they can have said to have any moral ground in this. It's worth noting that the regulator also blocked a majority of Taxi providers from providing a single app ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of... ), I think uber should…

They don't need moral ground just agency to act against the greater evil.

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them). If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

>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?

I don't know, I used to catch gypsy cabs in London twenty odd years ago and you were taking your life into your own hands. There were some pretty shady operators. I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.

> 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?

Why do we bother licensing drivers then too? Are we that much of an authoritarian nation that we need to control who drives a car? Should Uber drivers be allowed to drive without a driver's license too?

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

#88
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 rides…

>But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them

There was a great interview I watched recently on ABC. A gentleman was politely explaining why theres a shortage of produce in Australia at the moment. He explained how the government increased requirements on local farmers, but haven't set the same requirements on imports. So large aggregators set up shop in countries with cheaper wages, and less onerous laws, can the produce there and ship it into Australia while pocketing the difference.

The reporter conducting the interview was shocked, and immediately asked the standard question. "Should the government be seeking to impose penalties, or tariffs or some other kind of support"

The farmer shook his head. He said he didn't think it was an issue of penalties, or tariffs. He just wanted the government to put the industry back the way they found it. But the reporter literally didn't understand his line of thinking. And kept asking. 2 more times he answered. No. No new laws please, just let us compete on the same basis as NZ. The NZ produce is being eaten by aussies anyway. so there's no net difference. Just let his business continue.

So yeah I believe our laws are quite bad. For a variety of reasons. Mainly that the country is addicted to the idea of a great national project, and despite terrible results in these areas (National Energy Market (Debatable but I think it does a lot more harm than good), National Broadband Network, National Disability Insurance Scheme) governments of all stripes continue to smash anything that's right fit at a small scale to fit it into these dumb nasho boxes. I am just glad that the government of the day has forgotten about its pre election promise to disband all private fibre network providers and roll them into the NBN.

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

#89
post #71

This is like compensating purse snatchers because the promotion of mobile payments reduces their income. Sydney's taxi is a shame to this wonderful city. I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95, which made me fearful of Sydney prices. It took me time to realise that I had just run into a scam and that the ride should have cost just $20+. Now…

How much “should” it cost?

$90 is too much but $20 is just right?

Why?

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

#90
post #71

This is like compensating purse snatchers because the promotion of mobile payments reduces their income. Sydney's taxi is a shame to this wonderful city. I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95, which made me fearful of Sydney prices. It took me time to realise that I had just run into a scam and that the ride should have cost just $20+. Now…

The single best thing that Uber did to taxi companies was it eliminated this bullshit in so many places. I live in Edinburgh, and prior to Uber this sort of stuff was rampant. Now, all the private hire and black companies have apps, accept card payments, are clean.

I'm Irish, and on my last trip to Dublin, I ended up with a €70 taxi. The driver wouldn't take card, so he drove around until we found an ATM, by which time the meter was €75. I paid him the €70 and he left me at the ATM, without a receipt for me to claim reimbursement.

I have absolutely no sympathy for this nonsense.

Post reply on HN