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

141–150 of 261 posts

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

#141

Post by untog »

viggity wrote: post #136
untog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you assume that? During Sandy there was plenty of water to go around, and supplies were delivered. There was availability. Maybe if some asshole bought all the supplies available in a store then there might a be a problem, but guess what- no-one did.

If that situation had persisted it would actually be one of the rare situations where rationing makes sense- and that rationing would logically be controlled by the government. Which makes all the free market Rand-ians foam at the mouth- despite the fact that it makes sense.

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

#142

Post by jbooth »

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),…

It's a legitimate business, and they've generally been a bit smoother than this hacktastic email.

It just so happens that they're entering a regulated market, and some observers will go full tea-party upon hearing things like "we have extra regulation applying to taxi services due to some experiences we've had over the last hundred years."

Better dispatch over the internet doesn't change everything.

This email reminds me of talking to some idiot soda lobbyist at a cocktail party in 2009, telling me she doesn't understand why her boss told her equating taxes on soda with fascism was a bad idea.

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

#143

Post by gw »

Nursie wrote: post #119
gw wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not it is a luxury, the existence of unlicensed cabs is proof of unmet demand. They indicate either that licensed cabs are too expensive, or that they aren't in high enough supply.

It only indicates that drunk people would rather not wait five minutes for a cab they call (for the same price), but instead jump into whatever car is there. That choice has been taken away because people were getting hurt. I'm not really sure what your problem is here.

Painting all users of unlicensed cabs as "drunk people" may be a helpful way of coloring your argument, but nonetheless if the only advantage unlicensed cabs is speed of arrival, then that is still providing for unmet demand.

If the risk of these services outweighed the time advantage, people wouldn't be using them. Moreover, eliminating the choice doesn't necessarily stop them from being victimized. Whatever form of of transportation they may use instead, such as walking, could involve similar violent crimes, which wouldn't make it into your official statistics for taxi-related crimes.

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

#144

Post by tss20147 »

dzlobin wrote: post #106
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…

>all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km That's actually really interesting and I had no idea that was the case. In a supermarket, would such a list be in the isle next to the food? Or would it just be available from management or something like that…

I live in Virginia and all the grocery stores here do the same thing. It is listed on the shelf tag next to the item price.

Update: According to NIST, 21 of the 54 US states and territories have some form of unit pricing law.

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

#145

Post by Nursie »

gw wrote: post #143
Nursie wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only indicates that drunk people would rather not wait five minutes for a cab they call (for the same price), but instead jump into whatever car is there. That choice has been taken away because people were getting hurt. I'm not really sure what your problem is here.

Painting all users of unlicensed cabs as "drunk people" may be a helpful way of coloring your argument, but nonetheless if the only advantage unlicensed cabs is speed of arrival, then that is still providing for unmet demand. If the risk of these services outweighed the time advantage, people wouldn't be using them. Moreover, eliminating the choice doesn't necessarily stop them from being victimized. Whatever form of…

"Painting all users of unlicensed cabs as "drunk people" may be a helpful way of coloring your argument, but nonetheless if the only advantage unlicensed cabs is speed of arrival, then that is still providing for unmet demand."

They were drunk people, that's largely who used them. I have been one.

If the risk of these services outweighed the time advantage, people wouldn't be using them.

False, this assumes perfect information is available and that people always make good choices. These things are not true.

Moreover, eliminating the choice doesn't necessarily stop them from being victimized.

It makes it less likely, as the guys aren't hanging out looking for business outside pubs and clubs any more, and these drunk people (amongst whom I have been counted many times) call a registered and regulated company.

Whatever form of of transportation they may use instead, such as walking, could involve similar violent crimes, which wouldn't make it into your official statistics for taxi-related crimes.

Entirely possible, but public transport in London is pretty safe and as has been mentioned, licensed cabs are not generally more expensive, they just take a few minutes to arrive.

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

#146

Post by gwright »

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…

If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads of water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention at all.

It would also mean that smart entrepreneurs would pre-stage needed supplies in anticipation of the price increase. With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply difficulties (i.e diverting supplies from elsewhere, rushing delivery, etc)

Price 'gouging' contains the seed of its own destruction because it encourages over-supply and subsequently lower prices.

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

#147

Post by masklinn »

netcan wrote: post #107
masklinn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they are also [...] an innovative [company]. Not really, at least not as far as Stockholm is concerned. Unless by "innovative" you mean that they innovate in their ignorance and refusal to comply with regulations not matter how sensible those are (or, according to TFAA, how people attempt to help them: it was noted they could get their application certified as a meter and people have come forward to help with t…

Innovative, in this context, means they are doing things in a way that was not previously done. IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay. The current system is built around (presumably) people calling or waving & paying with cash or CC.

> IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay.

Except you already did that in Stockholm, at least for the ordering part (not sure about payment).

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

#148

Post by geon »

jdminhbg wrote: post #127
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),…

> a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization ... > we take a slightly more nuanced view Yeah, sure sounds like it.

> ...to the role of government regulation.

What did he write that conflicts with this?

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

#149

Post by paradoja »

netcan wrote: post #107
masklinn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they are also [...] an innovative [company]. Not really, at least not as far as Stockholm is concerned. Unless by "innovative" you mean that they innovate in their ignorance and refusal to comply with regulations not matter how sensible those are (or, according to TFAA, how people attempt to help them: it was noted they could get their application certified as a meter and people have come forward to help with t…

Innovative, in this context, means they are doing things in a way that was not previously done. IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay. The current system is built around (presumably) people calling or waving & paying with cash or CC.

If you read other comments in this thread by swedish people, they tell that other companies already do that.

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

#150

Post by jbooth »

untog wrote: post #141
viggity wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why do you assume that? During Sandy there was plenty of water to go around, and supplies were delivered. There was availability. Maybe if some asshole bought all the supplies available in a store then there might a be a problem, but guess what- no-one did. If that situation had persisted it would actually be one of the rare situations where rationing makes sense- and that rationing would logically be controlled by t…

Look Untog, on the one hand, we have what you saw with your own eyes.

On the other hand, I just finished my freshman year in economics, and when we draw a dotted line across the X of supply/demand, then there's this little triangle see? Shade it in. Yeah. So anyways that's what happened. BTW, there's no axis for "natural disaster" on my graph so clearly that's irrelevant. I don't know why you're bringing up red herrings.

Post reply on HN