Live data from Hacker News

Uber Boston Has Been Served

blog.uber.com

121–130 of 139 posts

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And as the trusted middleman, Uber has every commercial incentive to spot check its drivers.

As the company that gets paid more the farther you go, Uber also has a rather different commercial incentive...

Although Uber would probably prefer that someone rides with them again and tells their friends/family about their pleasant experience, rather than squeeze a rider for a few more pennies. Their helpful community managers and system for doing a fare review certainly give the impression that they are looking at building a long term business. As a pre-IPO startup facing regulatory issues in a number of cities, they really don't have the luxury of offering a bad customer experience. The alternative is also simple, if someone has a bad experience, they don't have to use the service anymore.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice post, and you definitely bring a certain amount of insight with it. However, the current system is, in many cities, broken. Working to change laws to fix a broken system will produce a better outcome than trying to work within the broken system to bring about its maximum potential. I love and use Uber because it provides a different and better service than taxis do in San Francisco. I don't even own a car, and i…

Thanks -- this is a subject that is near and dear to me. I definitely agree with you that there is a service gap between Uber and standard taxis. Some of it comes from the app, some of it comes from their quality control. (On that note: Uber does a really solid job with quality control, and I've personally recommended a stronger emphasis on quality control to fleets we work with. They all seem to want to take us up o…

all of the innovations and improvements you bring up ... come from areas that few, if any, regulators take issue with

They don't issue with them, but still no one in the regulated industry bothers doing them. And why? Because thanks to the government distortions in the market, you don't need to do any of that stuff to compete.

And that's what government interventions in markets almost always ends up doing: protecting a group of entrenched companies at the expense of consumers.

Good for Uber for trying to fuck over an industry that's been fucking over their customers for decades, with the full faith and protection of the governments those customers pay for.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#123
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, Uber is neither a cab NOR a private car service. It's a communications network that links private car services with people who want to get a ride from the private car service.

Given that they handle payments, its considerably more than a communication network.

True - it's a marketplace, eBay for livery services.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#124
post #35

Uber, AirBNB and Food Trucks are interesting for two reasons: 1) They are on a collision course with the regulatory state. 2) Their employees are, by and large, young liberals. Cab medallions are not much different in concept than wind and solar subsidies. In both cases, the government is picking a winner. Our types of companies have been happily immune from the meddling of the regulatory state. As we crawl out into…

As I understand it, food trucks are mainly running into trouble where they do business while parked on streets. It does seem reasonable to me that the public regulates whether you can park a big honking truck on the street and operate a retail business there. For example, Atlanta bans food trucks on public streets, but they operate out of private parking lots when the landowner has given them permission to do so (they often make the rounds of corporate offices). There's even a privately-operated "food truck park" where a number of them gather: http://atlantafoodtruckpark.com/

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks -- this is a subject that is near and dear to me. I definitely agree with you that there is a service gap between Uber and standard taxis. Some of it comes from the app, some of it comes from their quality control. (On that note: Uber does a really solid job with quality control, and I've personally recommended a stronger emphasis on quality control to fleets we work with. They all seem to want to take us up o…

all of the innovations and improvements you bring up ... come from areas that few, if any, regulators take issue with They don't issue with them, but still no one in the regulated industry bothers doing them. And why? Because thanks to the government distortions in the market, you don't need to do any of that stuff to compete. And that's what government interventions in markets almost always ends up doing: protecting…

I believed this point too when we first started our company, and were more Uber-clone-y than we are now. However, after spending a year working in the industry, I've learned that it's more "catchy idea" than reality.

It turns out that the taxi industry is a little different: the fleets have wanted to innovate for years now, but have little idea how. The regulations clearly permit innovation. In cities where taxis aren't run by the municipal government (i.e. "in cities that aren't New York"), there is healthy competition between taxi providers, in spite of their commoditization (regulated pricing, supply, etc.).

IMO, the existing taxi technology players are the ones who are stifling innovation (and/or "protecting a group of entrenched companies at the expense of consumers"). 2 of the big 3 dispatch technology providers charge hefty fees just to open access to their APIs for new entrants, if they'll even grant you access in the first place. And, due to the long-term, hardware-heavy, dispatch-focused nature of their contracts, they rarely have any incentive to innovate for the passengers; one of them once told me that they have nobody on staff who understands the web or web technologies!

Working with the existing dispatch companies, while not a necessary evil (take Hailo or GetTaxi, for example), is the best way to ensure scale and distribution -- the amount of cash consumer-focused players must spend in this industry in the hopes of curbing cab booking behaviours is enormous. Our research showed that, when calling for a pre-arranged cab, 95% of taxi passengers chose their fleet because it was first to mind, or the fleet they always called. In other words: only 5% of consumers chose what TaxiCo to call for any rational reason. Having an existing brand identity, and a number of cars on the street constantly hocking your wares, goes a long way in this industry.

But even before Uber came along, a wave of new dispatch companies had started cropping up, most of which are relying on a healthy partner ecosystem in order to make it in the first place. But, since dispatch technology contracts have typically been signed as 10-year license agreements, evolution naturally trends to a slow change: a lot of forward-thinking fleets I've met with renewed their contracts in the last year or two, since they didn't feel the new technology was mature enough yet (and, in most cases/for their needs, rightly so).

All this to say: I'm not yet sure what the best way to spark the necessary change is (FWIW: currently leaning towards "open standards", but I'm not 100% sure how that would look yet... ); figuring it out will likely be a huge benefit to my company. But I firmly believe, based on facts and experience, that it's not a regulatory issue.

(edit: formatting)

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#126
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that pretty much sums it up correctly. The City of Boston placed a sting operation on one of the Uber drivers in the issuance of ticket (i), where once they saw the driver had used an unauthorized meter, they made him pull over where a police officer was already waiting. It's unfortunate that Boston has issued a cease and desist on the service though. I live in Boston, and Uber is great as it's almost impossi…

As always in situations like this, my thoughts are simultaneously on how awesome Uber is, and how not awesome every other service/scam that takes advantage of this flexibility might be. It is very important that cities be able to provide visitors with a reliable way to get a ride from point A (usually: the airport) to point B (usually: the convention center hotel) at a predictable price. Obviously, Uber doesn't preve…

But if the "Uber way of doing business" effectively drives regulated cabs out of business, that's a problem.

A problem for whom?

Yes, it's a competitive problem for regulated cabs and their owners and operators. It's certainly not a problem for the customer who benefits from a greater number of options.

One could hope the regulated cab business would respond in a competitive manner - e.g. with greater accountability, ability to call a cab via app, GPS tracking, and other competitive innovations that Uber has introduced.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#127
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An untrackable actor can't pick someone up or be paid, but how hard is it for the actor to lie to the system? How hard is it for them to change their identity to the system? How hard is it for the counterparty to cause problems and how hard is it for him to change his identity? And what if there are competitors to Uber? What if these competitors, as part of their attempt to get a wider car network refuse to rate thos…

It's harder for an actor to masquerade under an Uber-style system than traditional regulation. Every move is tracked, and customers could even get photographs of registered drivers via their own trusted channel -- as opposed to the easily-faked licensing documents carried by traditional cabs. (Big cities sometimes have 'gypsy cabs' whose markings and meters can be hard for even local police to distinguish from licens…

I just think it's insane to say that there is one best meta-solution for all problems. I don't think regulation is the perfect response to every issue just as I don't think that the market is the perfect response.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#128
post #35

Uber, AirBNB and Food Trucks are interesting for two reasons: 1) They are on a collision course with the regulatory state. 2) Their employees are, by and large, young liberals. Cab medallions are not much different in concept than wind and solar subsidies. In both cases, the government is picking a winner. Our types of companies have been happily immune from the meddling of the regulatory state. As we crawl out into…

As I understand it, food trucks are mainly running into trouble where they do business while parked on streets. It does seem reasonable to me that the public regulates whether you can park a big honking truck on the street and operate a retail business there. For example, Atlanta bans food trucks on public streets, but they operate out of private parking lots when the landowner has given them permission to do so (the…

Bringing it closer to the story, Boston limits food trucks, as well. They can only be in certain spots in the city, and space is limited. This causes a lot of kvetching by food truckies and their fans. Of course, traffic in Boston is absolutely insane, and I'm not wont to support food trucks anywhere and everywhere in the city.

So, Boston is right in the cross-hairs of the, "Why can't you understand innovation?" crowd. There's a lot of really good reasons why you can't let food trucks roam free and do business wherever in Boston. There's also a lot of really good reasons the Department of Weights and Measures exists. Sadly, I don't think those reasons will be considered by fans of these services.

That being said, I'm a huge fan of Uber Boston and I would like to see them be able to continue operating. If they would discuss with the city of Boston (or the Commonwealth) how they could become compliant with the law (or can agree that they are, in fact, compliant with the law), even if it means regular government audits, then that would be fantastic. I worry that Uber will take the child's approach and shove their fingers in their ears and yell, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Hopefully they'll understand that they need to work with regulators, and that they actually do so.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all of the innovations and improvements you bring up ... come from areas that few, if any, regulators take issue with They don't issue with them, but still no one in the regulated industry bothers doing them. And why? Because thanks to the government distortions in the market, you don't need to do any of that stuff to compete. And that's what government interventions in markets almost always ends up doing: protecting…

I believed this point too when we first started our company, and were more Uber-clone-y than we are now. However, after spending a year working in the industry, I've learned that it's more "catchy idea" than reality. It turns out that the taxi industry is a little different: the fleets have wanted to innovate for years now, but have little idea how. The regulations clearly permit innovation. In cities where taxis are…

You don't seem to be understanding. The regulations themselves don't stop innovation directly, but the fact that it's very difficult and expensive to get a medallion, plus the fact that once you cross that barrier, you'll be protected by law from much new competition, means that it's harder for new players to enter the market and compete.

The medallion system is stupid and should be done away with. It's purely anti-competitive.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believed this point too when we first started our company, and were more Uber-clone-y than we are now. However, after spending a year working in the industry, I've learned that it's more "catchy idea" than reality. It turns out that the taxi industry is a little different: the fleets have wanted to innovate for years now, but have little idea how. The regulations clearly permit innovation. In cities where taxis are…

You don't seem to be understanding. The regulations themselves don't stop innovation directly, but the fact that it's very difficult and expensive to get a medallion, plus the fact that once you cross that barrier, you'll be protected by law from much new competition, means that it's harder for new players to enter the market and compete. The medallion system is stupid and should be done away with. It's purely anti-c…

Again, you're right on the fact, but not on the interpretation. The medallion system used by most cities restricts the number of cars on the road in a city. However:

1) Most taxi fleets -- especially the larger ones -- collect monthly rent from car owners, rather than own a ton of medallions themselves. The medallion system benefits owners of medallions, not fleets. This distinction, while invisible to the masses, is incredibly important.

2) It's definitely not rare for new fleets to pop up. We talk with plenty of folks who own fleets that are only one or two years old. All you need is a subset of drivers (and/or owners!), a couple of regular clients, and a little gumption. New fleets are popping up, and trying to innovate as best they can. The new, lower-priced, often mobile-based dispatch systems I mentioned in a previous comment have really been a boon to this segment.

3) In most cities, black car licenses are similarly restricted to medallions. The limits may not be posted, but they exist. In fact, a great article about Uber in The Atlantic exposed this issue in DC back in May[1].

4) Again, fleets working with us are achieving similar results; companies like Hailo and GetTaxi (who seem to be trying to work within the system) are as well.

In short: the medallion system is a red herring when it comes to stifling innovation. It is definitely an issue, one that tends to marginalize drivers and unnecessarily restrict supply for passengers. But every one of the companies you and I have mentioned abide by the restrictions it imposes, so your point is moot.

Going back to my original issue: I have no problem with challenging rules, conventions, and decisions (I'm an entrepreneur, posting on HN... do you really expect me to disagree here?). My issue lies in Uber's underhanded approach, where they both flout actually sensible laws and arguably force governments to send C&Ds by refusing to engage with them when initially approached.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-...

Post reply on HN