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

91–100 of 261 posts

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

#91

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #79
Nursie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If anything, it is governments that have, throughout history, a track record of screwing their citizens.

I'm not trying to say that all government and all regulation is necessarily good either. Over-regulation is a problem in a lot of places and there absolutely should be debate on what rules are sensible, which rules are unjust and intolerable, or make life worse.

I just don't accept that government, laws, taxes etc as morally wrong from the outset, or that it doesn't matter what the outcome would be without them because OMG violence!

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

#92

Post by fennecfoxen »

Entrenched taxi industry suppresses competitors in the name of "protecting" the consumers who choose them, claiming that it's "unfair" they're operating with a different business model... Oldest story in the book.

Bureaucracy. I hope you choke on it.

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

#93

Post by anu_gupta »

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…

Here in London, unlicensed cabs are often as or more expensive than the regulated ones. So, please explain how this helped your "poor people" to get taxis?

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

#95

Post by onemorepassword »

The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive start-up.

This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation.

Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody please disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market), but in cultures where simply sitting down and figuring out how to remove the obstacles is the custom, hyperbolic scream fests by an American company is not going to work.

Especially not an American company that thinks it's a good idea to conquer Europe with a name like "Uber"...

Both the company name and their PR strategy scream "culturally insensitive American douchebags".

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

#96

Post by gw »

Nursie wrote: post #88
gw wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As you pointed out, the rapes and assaults are ongoing. By making the bottom of the market illegal (by making it uneconomical), you haven't stopped these crimes from happening, you've simply forced them to occur in the black market where there is even less of a chance to prevent them.

Again, the analogy with drug prohibition is clear. There is an incredible amount of violence occurring, but that isn't a justification for continuing its illegality. To the contrary, its illegal nature is the primary reason the violence occurs, because there is no way to settle disputes in the court system.

Similarly, someone operating a black market taxi cannot call the police when someone refuses to pay. Instead, they must resort to threatening (and engaging in) violence to get payment. The customers may engage in violence against these underground drivers for the same reason. Making it illegal serves nobody, and only increases danger for all parties.

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

#97

Post by jusben1369 »

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)]

Just based on this blog post it appears to have done well. He (?) starts off discussing that people seem to have believed and rallied around the Uber story without applying any critical thinking. So I'm guessing it did resonate.

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

#98

Post by subsystem »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #92

Entrenched taxi industry suppresses competitors in the name of "protecting" the consumers who choose them, claiming that it's "unfair" they're operating with a different business model... Oldest story in the book. Bureaucracy. I hope you choke on it.

FUD. What different business model? It's fairly similar to what's already being offered by other companies (nice cars, phone app, good service) and all they have to do to comply is a price sticker and a meter.

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

#99

Post by dantheman »

michaelt wrote: post #52
dantheman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The certified tamper-proof meter... and the sticker in the window. You're using an app to arrange transport. All of the information you need is there.

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

#100

Post by dantheman »

subsystem wrote: post #98
fennecfoxen wrote: post #92

Entrenched taxi industry suppresses competitors in the name of "protecting" the consumers who choose them, claiming that it's "unfair" they're operating with a different business model... Oldest story in the book. Bureaucracy. I hope you choke on it.

FUD. What different business model? It's fairly similar to what's already being offered by other companies (nice cars, phone app, good service) and all they have to do to comply is a price sticker and a meter.

Dynamic pricing is a different business model -- it's kind of incompatible with a sticker.
Post reply on HN