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

51–60 of 261 posts

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

#51

Post by RBerenguel »

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.

The thing here is that you are comparing US taxis to taxis everywhere. Not everywhere taxis are crap and prices are huge.

You developed a Mac App, so you paid the required fees to Apple (Developer license, 30% cut, passing through the sandbox hoops, etc.) What would you think if another developer could do exactly the same as you, without need for sandboxing, developer license and getting 100% of the money? Don't you think this would be, let's say, odd? Wouldn't you feel it was unfair?

I just looked it up to make sure (I'm from Spain,) and taxi licenses are unregulated in Sweden. So if I spoke Swedish and knew Stockholm well enough, I could go and get a license, by passing an exam and probably paying some kind of minimal fee. It's not like the government is asking for the Moon and Uber is offering a geostationary satellite. The government asks for the bare standard, and police comply with illegal taxi laws. Illegal taxis are illegal since they don't have a permit, just like an illegal driver is one without a driving permit.

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

#52

Post by michaelt »

dantheman wrote: post #24
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?

As far as I can tell (and I'm not an expert in swedish taxi law) what the law says is you can charge by time (as a limousine), or by time+distance (as a taxi), and if you charge by time+distance you must use a certified tamper-proof taxi meter and have a price sticker in your window.

Which of these laws do you consider not to make sense?

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

#53

Post by zalew »

Nursie wrote: post #43
snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

if a cabbie raped me, I'd totally trash him on yelp.

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

#54

Post by snitko »

mjn wrote: post #42
snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People always say the chant "free market doesn't work" without giving any explanation or examples. Moreover, any example should be carefully dissected and analyzed, which rarely happens. Even if people come up with examples, it's usually followed by "and this is why free market doesn't work".

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

#55

Post by amalcon »

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.

I love libertarian logic sometimes. Taxi regulation must have come about because mustache-twirling government goons said "This taxi thing is working too well; let's ruin it with some regulation!"

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

#56

Post by oleganza »

Nursie wrote: post #43
snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

"it makes life a heck of a lot more pleasant"

"the libertarian model disgusts me"

Do you agree that people have different standards of what is good and what is not? If you don't like something and I'm forcing you to swallow it, you won't feel any good (even if it's good for someone else).

Now, one way to resolve it is to come up with some boundaries that we cannot cross (e.g. "do not kill") and then everyone does what they please.

Another way is to say "stronger/bigger majority can press others to comply with what those in majority feel is good".

Do you realise that any law is a threat of murder? Even if it does not say so. If I make some customers happy, but you get jealous and angry and use a law against me to make pay a fine or shut down business, you are basically threatening me with a violent police force. If I don't comply, police will take me. If I try to protect myself, they may kill me.

What's my argument for you: if you want some protection, go make it, no problem. I'm not the one who will threaten you with violence. If you find a great business model to offer protection, monitoring, insurance etc. and my company goes out of business, well, that was my risk and my opportunity. And if you go out of business, it's the same: no one gets threatened, robbed or killed. We both just try to solve the problem in a peaceful manner. But when you start talking about regulation, then it is real threat of violence, guns, prisons, rape and confiscation.

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

#57

Post by RBerenguel »

oleganza wrote: post #48
Retric wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-mar…

Hmmm, well, yes, and I don't know why you don't see it yourself. The people on government payroll are doing something for their income (and they are taxed like anyone else, but to avoid routing money around it may be deducted before they get paid... Here in Spain it's not the case, they pay income tax like anyone else). Not everything is a product that is sold: education would be the simplest and more down-to-Earth example.

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

#58

Post by zalew »

oleganza wrote: post #56
Nursie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

"it makes life a heck of a lot more pleasant" "the libertarian model disgusts me" Do you agree that people have different standards of what is good and what is not? If you don't like something and I'm forcing you to swallow it, you won't feel any good (even if it's good for someone else). Now, one way to resolve it is to come up with some boundaries that we cannot cross (e.g. "do not kill") and then everyone does wha…

> Do you realise that any law is a threat of murder? Even if it does not say so. If I make some customers happy, but you get jealous and angry and use a law against me to make pay a fine or shut down business, you are basically threatening me with a violent police force. If I don't comply, police will take me. If I try to protect myself, they may kill me.

dude, what's wrong with you.

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

#59

Post by Nursie »

oleganza wrote: post #56
Nursie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

"it makes life a heck of a lot more pleasant" "the libertarian model disgusts me" Do you agree that people have different standards of what is good and what is not? If you don't like something and I'm forcing you to swallow it, you won't feel any good (even if it's good for someone else). Now, one way to resolve it is to come up with some boundaries that we cannot cross (e.g. "do not kill") and then everyone does wha…

Oh there's nothing in the world like libertarian absolutism is there? Everything can be reduced to 'violence', therefore everything you disagree with is demonstrably, objectively wrong.

Here's one major flaw in your thinking "We both just try to solve the problem in a peaceful manner."

You ascribe honourable motives and noble behaviours to all actors. You are demonstrably wrong where human behaviour is concerned.

Anyway, we're no longer talking about taxis at this point, and I'm not up for a full discussion on the libertarian model. Needless to say, we don't all see the world in as black and white a way as you.

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

#60

Post by oleganza »

Nursie wrote: post #43
snitko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Extra reply to "libertarian model disgusts me": you probably live 95% of your life in total peaceful anarchy. All your personal relationships are voluntary. You don't threaten your friends with moral obligations when you plan to go to a pub. You just negotiate. You try to be nice and keep others happy. And everyone in your circle values that because if you break the trust, people will stop talking to you and your life will be less happy. And you use simple tools like doors, locks, privacy, avoiding bad districts to protect yourself against random assaults. You try to prevent problems and voluntarily establish good relationships, you are not going to a church or a court any time something does not satisfy you.

It's just remaining 5% of our lives are affected by some forces that we don't understand and/or don't really like.

So I don't believe that "libertarian model" disgusts you really. You just confuse lack of imposed regulations with a lack of security. Look around you: how much security is nicely and cheaply provided for you by the fellow citizens without laws, courts and guns.

Post reply on HN