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

Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

digitalmcgyver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 261 posts

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#21

Post by zalew »

Retric wrote: post #16
zalew wrote: post #9

I don't understand it. Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? Can't they just obtain ones just like the rest of driver services or do the authorities owe them something?

Livences often cost a lot of money. Enough that buying one can easily make there model unprofitable in many areas. Ex: In NYC there worth 750,000+ USD at 4% thasts 30,000 dollars plus added per taxi every year.

"do the same as the competition but illegally so it's cheaper" as a business model is just begging for trouble.

around here we have discount taxi-but-not-a-taxi who manage to skip the regulations, yeah, they're cheap, but it's not like they don't generate a lot of controversies. and it's not like one of them after 30hrs of driving without sleep didn't crash into my gf's car on the parking lot and fainted. transport regulations have their faults, but they are invented for a reason.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#22

Post by _pmf_ »

zalew wrote: post #9

I don't understand it. Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? Can't they just obtain ones just like the rest of driver services or do the authorities owe them something?

> Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license?

I don't know about Sweden, but here in Germany licenses are limited, i.e. there is no infinite amount of taxi license per city.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#23

Post by oleganza »

Nursie wrote: post #19
oleganza wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about Stockholm, but in US and France taxi drivers must buy a taxi license for many thousands of dollars/euros that effectively allows them be a part of a monopoly. The price for the license is market-defined because there is a limited number of licenses and few restrictions on trading them. But the interesting point is that licenses were initially created many years ago by some taxi mafia and lobbied to…

Completely unregulated and unregistered cab services have a history of very bad things happening in them in the UK. Customers do not win, customers get assaulted and raped.

I've heard from my San Francisco friends that Uber is superior in every way to yellow taxis. And main reason is that it's very easy to rate drivers and you don't pay them directly.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#24

Post by dantheman »

derefr wrote: post #3

I find it odd that Uber is constantly fighting various countries' laws to be considered "a taxi service, but not a taxi service", when they could just change their business model a tiny bit and fall straight into the middle of the "limousine service" classification. Why not charge just-time instead of time+distance? Would it screw over the drivers?

Why not work to change the law since it doesn't make sense? What's the point of keeping it?

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#25

Post by oleganza »

Confusion wrote: post #18
oleganza wrote: post #7

Some quotes from the article: "The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your services." "You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market." "You do need a permit to have a taxi service." "The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on unfair grounds" Notice some contradictions here? Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair,…

Notice some contradictions here? Only ones that are only visible to hardcore libertarians.

So you admit there are logical contradictions, just some people don't see them?

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#26

Post by matthiasl »

andrewcooke wrote: post #2

this approach has worked well for uber in the usa. wonder if they've made a mistake by assuming that anti-govt sentiment in other countries is similar? or by simply copying the technique without thinking? but this is from a single english-language post. what is the rest of the local reaction like? [ah, see reply below - i missed "response was huge" (in the sense of support for uber)]

I'm a local. This is the first time I've heard of Uber, so in a sense the PR has worked.

Looking at the 20 or so comments (in Swedish) below Uber's original press release/blog entry (http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/25/transportstyrelsen-forsoker-...), they're almost all opposed to part or all of Uber's post.

The biggest non-tabloid newspaper, DN, hasn't mentioned Uber at all. The next biggest, SvD, hasn't mentioned the current spat, but had an interview (a month ago) with Simon Breakwell from Uber. Choice quote:

Reporter: You've encountered resistance from taxi companies in some cities.

Simon: Right, but that's mostly in the USA. Before we enter a new market, we conduct a thorough investigation into the local rules and regulations to avoid nasty surprises. We've never encountered resistance based on Uber itself being illegal.

(Source: http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/handel-och-tjanster/h... I translated it by hand.)

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#27

Post by Nursie »

oleganza wrote: post #23
Nursie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely unregulated and unregistered cab services have a history of very bad things happening in them in the UK. Customers do not win, customers get assaulted and raped.

I've heard from my San Francisco friends that Uber is superior in every way to yellow taxis. And main reason is that it's very easy to rate drivers and you don't pay them directly.

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that dropping any/all regulation doesn't immediately make everything sunshine and roses, there are very real problems that regulation and registration seek to address.

It's not always (or not only) down to cartels and corruption.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#28

Post by zalew »

_pmf_ wrote: post #22
zalew wrote: post #9

I don't understand it. Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? Can't they just obtain ones just like the rest of driver services or do the authorities owe them something?

> Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license? I don't know about Sweden, but here in Germany licenses are limited, i.e. there is no infinite amount of taxi license per city.

in Poland we have a similar situation, but it's just a problem of increasing (or lifting) the cap, not deregulating everything.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#29

Post by oleganza »

Retric wrote: post #13
oleganza wrote: post #7

Some quotes from the article: "The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your services." "You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market." "You do need a permit to have a taxi service." "The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on unfair grounds" Notice some contradictions here? Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair,…

Fair says nothing about reasonable just applying the same rules to everyone. Forcing a school bake sale to collect sales taxes is "Fair" because it's the same rules a bakery operates under.

It's good you mentioned "same rules to everyone". Do you know that anyone on government payroll does not pay any income taxes? (Even if they do nominally, their salary is paid from everyone else's tax anyway, so it's just an accounting trick.) So the income tax is not an example of "same rules to everyone".

Same goes for certification. There are people who get the right to define certification rules and use armed police force to make you comply, and there are people who cannot do that.

Whenever you have a democratic vote and 60 persons outvote 40, a new "fair" rule is applicable to everyone, however 60 people are okay with it and 40 were against. In other words, 60 people think it is fair to force 40 persons just because the numbers look good. Is it an example of the rule that applies fairly to everyone?

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#30

Post by snitko »

Confusion wrote: post #18
oleganza wrote: post #7

Some quotes from the article: "The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your services." "You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market." "You do need a permit to have a taxi service." "The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on unfair grounds" Notice some contradictions here? Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair,…

Notice some contradictions here? Only ones that are only visible to hardcore libertarians.

Of course, because instead of trying to understand libertarian arguments it's easier to say "oh, but they're just bananas".

There is not an objective reason in the world to regulate taxi-services. None.

Post reply on HN