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

81–90 of 261 posts

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

#81

Post by jfoster »

ubersync wrote: post #5

I was on Uber's side for a long time initially. But with what's have been going on in the past few months, I am more than willing to believe the author. Especially after that protest by some drivers, outside their office in SF. "It was only a handful of drivers", you might argue. But the fact that none of the company officials came down to listen to them, just points out their "we don't give a fuck" attitude. And it…

I don't think their failure to attend the protest was necessarily "we don't give a fuck." If only for self preservation reasons they almost certainly do care. They likely didn't attend because they didn't want to increase the likelihood of the protest becoming a larger story on the media. They're much better off only engaging drivers in private meetings.

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

#82

Post by dagw »

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.

In Sweden anybody can get a taxi license by passing a written and practical test and filing some paperwork. The whole processes costs less than $1000. To actually operate a taxi company you also need insurance and to meet certain capital requirements, but it's nothing that any serious company should have any problem meeting.

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

#85

Post by RBerenguel »

kalleboo wrote: post #80
RBerenguel wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> if I spoke Swedish and knew Stockholm well enough With some of the drivers I've had, you don't even need those two. Not that it's actually a problem, everyone speaks english and they all have GPS devices.

I was just guessing they are the bare minimum requirements that then are overlooked. I'd rather learn Swedish :)

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by kalleboo »

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…

> But when you start talking about regulation, then it is real threat of violence, guns, prisons, rape and confiscation.

You don't know much about the justice system in Scandinavia, do you?

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

#88

Post by Nursie »

gw wrote: post #78
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.

This is a complete fallacy. Any black market, by definition, will have a higher incidence of other criminal activity, because people who are willing to violate one law are often willing to violate others. This is no different than arguing that we should continue drug prohibition because there are a lot of violent incidents that occur during transactions. That violence exists precisely because the activity was forced…

"This is a complete fallacy."

What's a fallacy? That the unregulated market resulted in a lot of rapes and assaults, and now it's more regulated (and parts of previous practice are illegal) there are less?

Because that's what actually happened, whether you think it's a fallacy or not.

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

#89

Post by kalleboo »

oleganza wrote: post #69
amalcon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except none of this is true in this case - Sweden. The only regulation in place is consumer protection (driver's licenses, reputable businesses, regulated taximeter, comparison prices posted on the cars). There's nothing protecting driver's interests.

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

#90

Post by dopamean »

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…

Seems to me like this is the double edged sword of consumer protection. I think Sweden has the right idea here but I can also see how someone starting a business might think that these consumer protection laws protect the existing players in an industry.

In America we have a lot of laws governing the hotel industry. For the most part I think they are in place to protect the millions of Americans and tourists who stay in hotels here every year. However, if I understand correctly, some of those laws have made it difficult for new businesses to enter the market.

Post reply on HN