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

61–70 of 261 posts

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

#61

Post by rscale »

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…

The following article might provide some insight into the company's response: http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

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

#62

Post by snitko »

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…

Well, food poisoning happens all the time in the regulated market. People get assaulted all the time by government employees on duty.

The libertarian way, however, is not that there should be no regulations. The idea is to 1) make regulations voluntary 2) not give the right to regulate to a monopoly with the exclusive power to use force.

You see, if there is a demand for certain things on the market - like safety, for example - market finds a way to provide those things. You don't need a government to protect you, it's an illusion and the longer you believe in it, the harder it is for you to see an alternative.

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

#63

Post by pathy »

_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.

No limits on taxis as such in Sweden, there used to be but not anymore. However, you need to be licensed as a taxi company/driver and provide certain details on the cab, like price comparisons etc.

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

#64

Post by Nursie »

oleganza wrote: post #60
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…

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 lif…

No, the libertarian model, of allowing anything and working by reputation, disgusts me.

It results in (for instance) a world where idiots drive unsafe cars with impunity. Where private drivers rape young women (somehow the market is supposed to solve this? It demonstrably did not), and a million and one other things that we, as a society, have decided constitute an unacceptable risk to the rest of us.

The problem is not that I can't form good relationships, the problem is that assholes exist, and always will. The rest of us came up with government and rules to protect ourselves from them.

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

#65

Post by snitko »

Nursie wrote: post #45
snitko wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does an average person knows which restaurant to go, which shoes to buy, which ISP to connect to internet through, which car to buy, which computer to use and which city to live in?

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

#66

Post by masklinn »

ubersync wrote: post #12
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?

Exactly, they have to obey the law of the land. If the limousines in Sweden are supposed to charge by time, then do that. Change your app to charge by time in that particular country.

It's not really about limo v not limo, it's really the other way around: you can charge either for time only or for time + distance, if you charge for time + distance you need a tamper-proof meter.

Time-based is mostly used by limousine services and time+distance for "regular" taxis for obvious reasons (a limo tends to be rented for a long time but not to move far, the opposite is true of regular taxis) but nothing prevents a limo service from charging for time+distance (besides looking cheap) and nothing prevents "regular" cabs from charging for time only.

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

#67

Post by mjn »

_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.

Sweden deregulated its taxis in 1990. There is now no limit on the number of taxis (though drivers do have to pass an exam), and no restrictions on what they can charge. The deregulation did produce a big uptick in the # of taxis in Stockholm.

There are now some complaints in the other direction about the deregulated prices, especially because some less scrupulous drivers are trying to deliberately trick tourists into paying outrageous prices. Prices have to be posted in windows, so of course no Swede or tourist paying attention would take a taxi that charges $200 for what would normally be a $20 trip. But you only have to trick a handful per day to make it a profitable scam. Just need to get some tourists who either don't realize that rates are unregulated in Stockholm, who didn't see the rate sticker, or who did but didn't mentally convert the SEK to something they understand.

A bit on that: http://www.thelocal.se/16868/20090112/

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

#68

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #54
mjn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The free market did not solve the problem of rapes, robberies and assaults in London's unregulated private late-night taxi business.

No, it didn't.

Now, you can argue that the people getting into those cabs should have known better, and that morally you ought to have the right to run one of these services. Law is the rest of us telling you where you can stick your absolutist morality while we find a nice balance that allows people to live the best they can with minimal restrictions.

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

#69

Post by oleganza »

amalcon wrote: post #55
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.

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!"

Government is just an abstraction. There were early taxi companies that lobbied for a monopoly for themselves. They asked for laws to establish a hard limit on number of licenses available. Then, they cashed out nicely because supply of taxis was limited with police force, but demand was growing. Later taxi drivers just had to buy the permit and now they are also interested in keeping the existing laws (or they lose a lot of money). There is no magic at all, pure economics + violent intervention via police.

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

#70

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #62
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…

Well, food poisoning happens all the time in the regulated market. People get assaulted all the time by government employees on duty. The libertarian way, however, is not that there should be no regulations. The idea is to 1) make regulations voluntary 2) not give the right to regulate to a monopoly with the exclusive power to use force. You see, if there is a demand for certain things on the market - like safety, fo…

Except it doesn't. The market finds a way to screw the consumer, it has been like that since the dawn of recorded history ("Caveat Emptor!") and we no longer stand for it, sorry.
Post reply on HN