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

131–140 of 261 posts

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

#131

Post by Nursie »

gw wrote: post #124
Nursie wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Except the numbers are now smaller, less people are put at risk and less people see that risk realised. It demonstrably has made the s…

Since the article doesn't get into your purported statistics, I can only speculate as to what you are referring to. People in the U.S. often try to retroactively justify tougher drug laws by pointing to lower crime rates, when in fact often times people are simply less likely to report being victimized because they were engaging in an illegal transaction. Moreover, reality has a way of resisting controlled experiment…

And you simply asserting that the economic incentives that do underly the drug market apply everywhere is every bit as arbitrary!

Drugs are not like cabs. You can't get a licensed drug after five minutes wait. Nobody actually wants or needs a specifically illegal cab, they just want a cab. The analogy simply does not work.

What's unconvincing is you calling my argument a fallacy and then falling back to "oh but it's hard to measure!"

--edit-- also FFS you think anyone's put off reporting assault because they were in an illegal cab? What the hell are you on? It's not illegal to be a customer, it's illegal to run the service.

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

#132

Post by untog »

viggity wrote: post #118
Indyan wrote: post #40

They did the same thing in USA. Here's a series of articles penned by Paul Carr documenting what Uber did in the US. http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or... [written by Nathaniel] http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-th... http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-vi…

regarding the first link, in which Uber jumped fares during Hurricane Sandy - People who think price gouging have obviously never given the consequences more than a moments thought. He even mentioned that Uber reported the supply of drivers went up 50%. Isn't that a major, important factor. The author just blows it off and calls the Uber evil. fuck that. I'd rather know that a service is going to be available, but at…

Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most.

Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to people with excess income to absorb the gouged price.

The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is that it was an exceptional event, and maybe not one we should leave to market forces. If every grocery store tripled the price of bottled water and essential supplies then many people would be unable to afford them and starve. How is that a good thing?

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

#133

Post by dopamean »

tixocloud wrote: post #125
dopamean wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the flipside, sometimes it really makes new businesses think about the role they play in society. Just because Tom, Dick and Harry has money and wants to start a business, it doesn't mean that they can do whatever they like. There are bad apples looking to make a quick buck when they can. Of course, the good apples are the ones to suffer as well. It's a hard problem to solve. Should businesses be only about making…

I may be a little cynical here but I think that businesses are amoral institutions by nature. They exist to generate a profit. That is why consumer protections have to be put in place by the government because businesses would not change a policy so long as it was continuing to generate a profit. It would be great if businesses considered the "social good", if you will, of their actions but I don't think that is realistic nor should it be expected.

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

#134

Post by venomsnake »

viggity wrote: post #118
Indyan wrote: post #40

They did the same thing in USA. Here's a series of articles penned by Paul Carr documenting what Uber did in the US. http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or... [written by Nathaniel] http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-th... http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-vi…

regarding the first link, in which Uber jumped fares during Hurricane Sandy - People who think price gouging have obviously never given the consequences more than a moments thought. He even mentioned that Uber reported the supply of drivers went up 50%. Isn't that a major, important factor. The author just blows it off and calls the Uber evil. fuck that. I'd rather know that a service is going to be available, but at…

No it means that the resources will go the ones that have the means to pay the most. Those are not always the ones that need it most. There is reason why there was rationing during WW2.

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

#135

Post by subsystem »

dantheman wrote: post #100
subsystem wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless you use a screen. They could probably get away with showing the price in the app, it just have to be in the 10 km in 15 min format. They would still have to have a meter or their app certified. Or provide a fixed price option in the app based on from and where you're going like the other companies do, in which case I imagine they would be covered by the exemption.

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

#136

Post by viggity »

untog wrote: post #132
viggity wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regarding the first link, in which Uber jumped fares during Hurricane Sandy - People who think price gouging have obviously never given the consequences more than a moments thought. He even mentioned that Uber reported the supply of drivers went up 50%. Isn't that a major, important factor. The author just blows it off and calls the Uber evil. fuck that. I'd rather know that a service is going to be available, but at…

Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to people with excess income to absorb the gouged price. The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is…

It is either Higher Prices, or ZERO availability. I'll opt for the former.

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

#137

Post by gw »

anu_gupta wrote: post #116
gw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the price is the same, then that indicates that there is a shortage of supply and the unlicensed cabs are filling that demand. In that case, the choice for many people isn't between licensed and unlicensed cabs, but rather between unlicensed cabs and no cabs at all. Cracking down on these unlicensed cabs won't hurt the wealthy as much, who naturally have more choices for transportation, but it could absolutely hur…

Well you seemed fairly clear that poor people were being priced out of the market, but surely , if there's demand, there would be supply at a lower price with increased risk? Why isn't this happening? Given that you seem to have plenty of real world experience about this, it would be interesting to hear your explanation. Also, still waiting for you to explain how poor people have been priced out of the industry.

I was referring to lower cost (but legal) services. For example, living in a cheaper apartment complex generally is riskier, because there tends to be more crime in the area than there would be in more expensive apartments. This point (which I made in my third paragraph) is separate from the point I was making about black markets.

In the case of unlicensed cabs, they are clearly in the "black market" category. As with all black markets, they aren't necessarily cheaper than their legal equivalents, but nonetheless they are there due to unmet demand in the market.

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

#138

Post by chrisrhoden »

onemorepassword wrote: post #95

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),…

So, part of the problem is that in the US, not only would such things fly, but they have been on the receiving end of some suspect pressure and investigations. Most of the taxi systems in Uber's homeland are highly regulated and effectively run by strong lobbying organizations who are very vocal about their concerns and distaste for having their business threatened. In the US, such allegations are not only reasonable, but they're not even really a sign of corruption - typically, the people who get their way are the people who ask the loudest and most frequently, and that doesn't mean that anyone is acting in an unsavory manner.

This isn't to say that there isn't a twinge of tinfoil hattery going on, or to say that the same tactic is appropriate here, but the fact is that they've had tremendous success asking their users to tell the authorities that they're good guys in the past - they had success in this endeavor here, for that matter. The fact that there is a blog post calling them out doesn't really seem to have had a strong impact on the support that their users are giving them.

Moreover, this blog post smacks of tinfoil hattery - is the suggestion that, by not signaling itself as a taxi, Uber is attempting to confuse users? To my knowledge, they're not picking people up on the street - only people who have signed up for an account and are well aware of the price differences. It seems likely that they're less interested in removing the need for the meter and more interested in removing the need for external signals that the car is fared similarly to a taxi - which is, after all, 50% of what they're offering. So a yellow license plate, sign, and fare sticker might have the larger impact in their eyes.

Based on that, do you not think that it's reasonable that, in an, "unregulated," market, they should be allowed to charge people who have jumped through the hoops to actually get into an Uber car, with all of the fare information shoved in their faces a number of times, however they have agreed upon with their customers?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but let's please be intellectually honest.

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

#139

Post by untog »

kmfrk wrote: post #17
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?

Maybe they saw the manufactured outrage as a good PR opportunity. That only lasts so long, until people get tired of it and start looking into the details, of course.

This definitely seems to have been Uber's tactic since the day they launched. In SF it worked because the taxi industry is an unholy mess, but that isn't replicable everywhere.

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

#140

Post by venomsnake »

mindjiver wrote: post #76
_delirium wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the angle of an Ayn-Rand-quoting American who sees himself as Galt won't play quite as well in Sweden, either...

There are strong libertarian strands in several swedish parties so there are some comrades in arms. Quoting Ayn Rand in parliament has happened. But even as a libertarian leaning swede I find myself quite annoyed by Uber. In the 1990s, IIRC, the taxi market was striktly regulated and finding taxis where a problem. Now in Stockholm there are many, many taxis all over the place so I personally don't get what problem Ub…

The problem of how to cash higher in an IPO and be hailed by the media as the next next Zuckebergs.
Post reply on HN