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

181–190 of 261 posts

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

#181

Post by mikeash »

kybernetyk wrote: post #120
dzlobin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 don't know about Sweden but here in Germany it's on the price labels that are attached to the shelves. You have a price per unit. Say a 0.5l bottle of beer costs 0.78 EUR and then you have the price per 100ml or 1l below it (1l = 1.56 EUR). It's marginally useful if you compare the price of rice to the price of Coca Cola but it's really useful if you want to know what's cheaper: Buying a package of 6 1.5l bottles o…

We do this in the US. However, not being standardized on the metric system, it can end up being pretty useless. It's usually good, but every so often you come across something like:

    Item A: $3, $6/pound
    Item B: $4, $0.30/oz
Which defeats the whole purpose of the per-unit price. Occasionally drives me bonkers.

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

#182

Post by pekk »

jbooth wrote: post #150
untog wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 herri…

Highly demanded products do sell out during natural disasters, and it does cause shortages. In reality, not theory.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

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),…

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by mikeash »

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…

"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."

I think people either don't realize, or at least haven't properly internalized, the fact that Uber doesn't employ drivers directly, but just connects drivers and riders and manages payment.

If Uber employed drivers directly, then complaining about high fares during a hurricane would make sense. It would be reasonable to say that they should just keep fares the same, put a lot of drivers out there, and maybe take a loss for the good of the community. I don't know if I'd be comfortable saying that they should, but I can understand the point of view, at least.

But with Uber simply acting as an intermediary, they have no direct control over drivers. If they want more drivers out there, they need to offer an incentive.

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

#186

Post by mixedbit »

"... such a qualitative, safe and modern mode of transportation should be available for everyone"

This is such a BS. Stockholm is one of the best capital city to live in, and one of the reasons is that the car traffic has the lowest priority there. You actually need to pay to enter the city centre by car, which I would consider much more modern approach than giving everyone an easy way to drive a limo.

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

#187

Post by doktrin »

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.

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

Where did you get that stark either-or proposition from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

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

#188

Post by jbooth »

pekk wrote: post #182
jbooth wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 herri…

Highly demanded products do sell out during natural disasters, and it does cause shortages. In reality, not theory.

Yes, of course, but it does not follow that those products are being optimally allocated by price like a normal economy. Normal economies adjust to produce more, natural disaster is a temporary state with different rules.

It becomes a public policy issue (we have too few and how to apportion in the short term) rather than an economic issue.

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

#189

Post by gw »

Nursie wrote: post #175
gw wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't assume perfect information; all economic activity bears risk and your choices are guided by your risk tolerance. Sometimes, you make a bad choice and suffer the consequences. Eliminating choices doesn't eliminate those consequences, it simply forces you to either adjust your risk tolerance against your will or engage in even riskier activity. You agree, then, that awful crimes could still be occurring elsewhe…

I don't assume perfect information; all economic activity bears risk and your choices are guided by your risk tolerance. Not when you're drunk they aren't. It's arguable that a choice was being made. Secondly, if there isn't perfect information, it's not possible to accurately gauge the risk. Sometimes, you make a bad choice and suffer the consequences. And we don't, as a society, think it's reasonable to have people…

Perfect information is impossible, and the information held by an elected body is infinitely less perfect. There is no way they can take into account the subjective values of each person better than the people themselves, so it will always tend to be a majority forcing its preferences on a minority.

I make it no secret that I object to this. I think it is unethical and I certainly agree that I won't persuade you on that point. However to some degree I think you do see a problem with it, which is why you try to downplay the costs by pointing out that it is "only" 50p or "only" 5 minutes. If forcing your risk tolerance on others is indeed ethical, this psychological hedging wouldn't be necessary.

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

#190

Post by Too »

Ensorceled wrote: post #155
scott_s wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not, however, made any attempt to get the app approved to serve that function.

Not necessary ... it's MY app. The problem with not having approved and sealed meters is that I don't know if you've screwed with it or not. I know driver hasn't screwed with my iPhone app.

It's not your app. It's Ubers app, installed on your phone.

How do you know Uber hasn't screwed with your app? And how does the driver know that you are not screwing him with a tampered app?

It's not only you and the driver that need mutual trust either, the tax administration also has to trust the app.

Post reply on HN