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

41–50 of 261 posts

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

#41

Post by snitko »

lotsofcows wrote: post #36
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.

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

Actually, they are. But, more importantly, you are trying to decide for other people what's good for them. Some people might prefer a less safe ride with a less professional driver for less money. Now, I don't see anything wrong with informing people that private cabs might not be as safe, however the decision to use one should lie with the customer, not with the government.

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

#42

Post by mjn »

snitko wrote: post #38
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poten…

The "free market" doesn't work in the idealized way you think it does, and does not react in a way that solves such problems. The Scandinavian social-democratic model, by contrast, does work. Very few Scandinavians want to trade it in for the US model, and certainly not some kind of Tea-Party-sounding paranoia about Big Government like this press release oozes.

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

#43

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #38
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poten…

1. That campaign was launched

2. Regulation was also brought into place that made it illegal for private cab drivers to hang around touting for business, they must be called up and dispatched to you. This way you get a cab from a registered business, not some shady guy hanging around saying "I take you home seven pounds".

3. We consider it, in communist europe, part of the government's duty to protect its citizens and to enable them to live lives free of constant worry about assault, rape, robbery etc etc. I know you brave libertarians consider us childlike for not constantly considering personal defence, but it makes life a heck of a lot more pleasant.

4. The libertarian model disgusts me. If you get food poisoning you won't eat there again? If you get sexually assaulted or the car falls apart then by gum, you just won't use that firm again and you'll give them a jolly poor review! The rest of us like safety standards and rules to prevent these situations in the first place.

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

#44

Post by iSnow »

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…

This is just a smoke screen, it has nothing to do whatsoever with Uber and taxi regulations in Sweden.

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

#45

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #41
lotsofcows wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually, they are. But, more importantly, you are trying to decide for other people what's good for them. Some people might prefer a less safe ride with a less professional driver for less money. Now, I don't see anything wrong with informing people that private cabs might not be as safe, however the decision to use one should lie with the customer, not with the government.

How does the average person know if the cab they're getting into is in good mechanical order?

What you propose results in a race to the bottom, where cars and drivers are dangerous but deceptive about it. You create incentives to lie.

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

#46

Post by netcan »

Taxis tend to be locally regulated. Regulations are good and bad. In some places, they ended up with plainly stupid rules. In some places the are about protecting drivers' revenues. But, they also protect consumers. IE, some of these regulations are not net bad, even if they are inconvenient or have some bad side effects.

Even good regulation creates inflexibility. It's just a cost. It takes into account the way things are now and makes it difficult to allow new business models to develop. It makes it difficult for companies to operate in multiple regulatory regions. They can lock in revenue streams and/or profit margins for companies, drivers or taxmen.

Uber's a new player threatening income streams. That will rattle cages. But they are also a global company and an innovative^ one. Being innovative means they clash with existing rules and policies by not fitting into existing classifications. Being multi-regional means they have a hard time being flexible themselves. They want to be able to drop in their system in every city they operate in.

They want to represent themselves as on a collision course with bad/corrupt regulation. But, they are really on an unavoidable collision course with all taxi regulators everywhere.

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

#47

Post by arethuza »

Nursie wrote: post #14

So what exactly is their model? I found it hard to figure out from their website how they differ from any other taxi service with online ordering and payment. Also, if there are rules in Sweden about meters and price displays, there's probably a consumer-focussed reason for them.

I've wondered that myself for a while - I guess there are problems with the market for taxis in the US but that level of service has been available here for a long time.

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

#48

Post by oleganza »

Retric wrote: post #37
oleganza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vot…

Wait, what? There is a group of people outside government that produce something that did not exist yesterday. Through taxation people called "government" are taking part of that product. (I'm not saying if it's good or bad, it's just what it is.)

Then they use a lot of accounting here and there, but it does not change the fact that in the net some people had some property transferred from others to them in a non-market fashion (not in direct exchange for some other product, but because it's a "rule"). In my view it means that "taxation" is not applied equally to everyone. So it cannot be an example of a "fair" rule that you defined earlier.

Of course, we may talk whether redistribution of wealth is "good for society" or not, but that's outside the question of "universality of the fair rule".

Am I wrong about that?

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

#49

Post by _delirium »

Nursie wrote: post #14

So what exactly is their model? I found it hard to figure out from their website how they differ from any other taxi service with online ordering and payment. Also, if there are rules in Sweden about meters and price displays, there's probably a consumer-focussed reason for them.

In the U.S., one difference is that they have more convenient and reliable dispatch than regular taxis, focused on virtually "hailing" a nearby car through their mobile app, rather than the two traditional options of: 1) trying to flag down a taxi on the street, or 2) booking one over the phone or internet and then waiting for it to come.

I think that's less novel in Sweden, though. Taxi apps are already common, and "virtual hailing" is how most younger people already hail taxis. In addition, there are a number of taxi companies, each of which can set their own prices and position themselves in different market niches, so you can choose one you like. In that market, Über may just be another taxi company with an app, and not have enough differentiation: http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockho...

Starting in SF probably helped them, too: SF's taxi system is worse than most.

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

#50

Post by arethuza »

scbrg wrote: post #32

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…

Does Uber run these international operations or is it some kind of franchise?
Post reply on HN