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

31–40 of 261 posts

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

#31

Post by corin_ »

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?

Sometimes it would screw over the drivers, sometimes the customers, and depending on how it was priced you could force that to one side or the other.

Distance + time is the most fair solution, as if there's no traffic and you get there super fast the driver still gets a fair fee (unlike if it was time only), if there's lots of traffic and it takes ages to get there then the customer doesn't have to pay a huge fee (like if it was time only).

Personally I'd never use a taxi service that charged only by time. I'm OK with time+distance, or with distance only (which is also used in some places).

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

#32

Post by scbrg »

Reading their press release (the Swedish one, I'm a native Swedish speaker) I get a feeling that they are, quite frankly, not a serious business. It's filled with paranoid tinfoil hattery where they claim the Big Nasty Government is out to get them without actually pointing out what rules they're asked to comply with.

Sweden is fairly big on consumer protection, and price comparisons is generally a mandatory part of that (all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km). That they're being asked to follow those rules is hardly government bullying - in the eyes of most everyone here that definitely counts as "consumer protection".

It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all.

To be honest, I'd never heard of this story before I saw it here. It certainly hasn't been covered by mainstream press. I don't live in Stockholm though, so it might be bigger there.

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

#33

Post by ankitml »

effn wrote: post #6
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)]

The mistake was not researching local laws before entering a new market. It has nothing to do with anti-govt sentiment.

The mistake(s) : Not researching local laws, not co-operating with govt when they come to know about the laws, and then not following a proper channel of communication if they thought its a dispute.

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

#34

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #30
Confusion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unregistered and unregulated minicabs in London resulted in a lot of raped girls. This seems like a good reason for regulation to me.

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

#35

Post by ankitml »

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,…

If the country is sweden and the company is american. Default value would be "laws are fair and company has some issues"

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

#36

Post by lotsofcows »

snitko wrote: post #30
Confusion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right of course, quality, safety and professionalism are all subjective...

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

#37

Post by Retric »

oleganza wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pol…

It's not an accounting trick it keeps budgets honest. Otherwise outsourcing would be at a huge disadvantage even if they also get that money back.

Also the 60:40 vote issue this is why we use a representative democracy backed up with a constitution. It's harder to stay in office when you regularly piss off large voting blocks. A politician will often consider more than just what percentage of the population would vote for something but how much people on both sides of a issue care about it.

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

#38

Post by snitko »

Nursie wrote: post #34
snitko wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unregistered and unregulated minicabs in London resulted in a lot of raped girls. This seems like a good reason for regulation to me.

So if government was really concerned with its citizens well-being, maybe they should have simply launched a campaign informing people that it might be dangerous to take private cabs. Then private cabs industry would respond by introducing new business practices that would ensure more safety. Your reply suggests that young women have no brains of their own and should rely on government patronage solely to avoid potentially dangerous situations.

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

#39

Post by _delirium »

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 suspect the angle of an Ayn-Rand-quoting American who sees himself as Galt won't play quite as well in Sweden, either...

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

#40

Post by Indyan »

They did the same thing in USA. Here's a series of articles penned by Paul Carr documenting what Uber did in the US.

http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/

http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or... [written by Nathaniel]

http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-th...

http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-victory-a...

http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-month...

Post reply on HN