Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by venomsnake » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:09 PM UTC

ryanmolden wrote: post #180

venomsnake wrote: post #128

Disruption for the sake of disruption. Some of the taxi regulations are there for good reasons. If Uber cannot provide better, cheaper and safer service at lower price with the same rules they do not have right to exist. And if they want to bring a regulation down they should do it for the whole industry if it is already obsolete.

A cheaper price for goods and services is not a necessary precondition to existence. People are free to pay more than absolute rock-bottom if they feel the more expensive goods/service are superior. Unless you intended your list to be disjunctive and I read it as conjunctive, if so, apologies.

Sorry ... I meant in Stockholm. There the market is free (as few swedes here comment) with no artificial barriers on entry like medallions. There are rules but they are for everybody. So if Uber cannot make their model work they should not operate there and not whine for exceptions. So they should just find ways to make money or seize to operate there. They could bring efficiency - cheaper, quality - faster response time etc or better cars or something.

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

#192

Post by Uchikoma » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:10 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #126

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),…

If the devil didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Uber was built from the ground up to tangle with cantankerous and corrupt authorities whose first impulse is to outlaw it. Even if that enemy turns out not to exist, they operate as if it does. Its their nature.

Uber was built from the ground up to make money.

Everything else is PR.

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

#193

Post by illuminate » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:11 PM UTC

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),…

I can't be the only person who utilizes Uber/Sidecar/etc and shuns deregulationism, can I?

The problem in many of these situations is the nebulous definition of "taxi", "towncar", and other conveyances, along with the protectionistic (for self-preservation) industry. If the definitions had anything to do with consumer safety/protection, I'd be opposing Uber as well.

Are there any cities in the US and abroad who have handled the Uber problem by updating their regulations in a more harmonious manner? I'm aware of those who have tried to ban Uber's loopholes outright, but I'm curious how any may have integrated these services while eliminating perceived exploitative aspects of their business model.

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

#194

Post by Uchikoma » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:16 PM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #117

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…

the small price on the rack sticker next to the big price is the price per unit. I have seen that in Connecticut, Vermont, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Norway. Actually pretty much every grocery store I have been to in my life.

In the EU it's also for cleaners (all liquids I assume) etc. not only food.

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

#195

Post by Uchikoma » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:22 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #39

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)]

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

What I find funny - and I like a lot of Rand, though I've understood the books completely different as most Americans - is that many of the Americans that quote and evangelize Rand would be "parasites" in a Galt world, e.g. all the Republican politicians who never produced or created anything in the Galt sense and are paid by the state.

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

#196

Post by gw » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:22 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #162

gw wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't arbitrary to assert the universality of economic laws -- no school of economics holds otherwise. In fact the entire point of this science is to discover principles that exist in all circumstances. Moreover asserting the difficulty of empirical measurement isn't a cop-out; it's one of the most fundamental debates, not just in economics, but in philosophy. This is Plato vs Aristotle, or Kant vs Hegel. It's an…

It isn't arbitrary to assert the universality of economic laws But it is arbitrary to assert that it works identically for all commodities and services. Demand for some things (a ride home) is easily sublimed from one solution (unlicensed cab) to another (licensed cab). Demand for other things (heroin, weed, whatever) does not work the same way because the demand is 100% aligned with the illegal item and therefore fa…

Of course a fully-illegal thing will create a larger black market than a partially-illegal thing, but that's only a quantitative difference; the economics of the resulting black market remains then same. As long as they are outside the legal system, they will experience more violence, and unscrupulous people will continue to falsely claim that this justifies further marginalizing and regulating such activity.

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

#197

Post by Uchikoma » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:23 PM UTC

oleganza wrote: post #7

Some quotes from the article: "The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your services." "You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market." "You do need a permit to have a taxi service." "The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on unfair grounds" Notice some contradictions here? Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair,…

A lot of markets are "regulated", e.g. the food market, there is a lot of thing you can't mix into food (even in the US). Though no one would call this market "regulated".

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

#198

Post by ubersync » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:25 PM UTC

jfoster wrote: post #81

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.

Having been part of student protests in the past, I believe this is one of the worst ways to handle a protest.

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

#199

Post by nailer » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:29 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #104

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…

> It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi-like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all. I was wondering about that too, but instead of declaring Uber to be lying here on HN, I went and looked for more information. What I found, was a news article that actually went and asked the Swedish T…

I'm not an Uber user but don't really think they are stretching the truth:

- Permits exist for private car hire services in Sweden. The STA has issued them before.

- However these are currently reserved for circumstances eg members of royal families or prominent business leaders.

It isn't a stretch of the truth to say the STA are denying such permits to Uber, and that regular citizens should have the same services available to them as these other groups.

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

#200

Post by dopamean » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 3:30 PM UTC

ryanmolden wrote: post #177

dopamean wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 real…

Businesses are run by human beings, so while businesses themselves may be amoral, people making the decisions on direction of the business are not. Or at least one would hope that is the case. That isn't to say there is no place for regulation, but assuming without regulation business should be expected to run amuck is a bit cynical.

Terry Gross interviewed Matthew Weiner, the creator of Mad Men, on her show yesterday and he had what I thought was a great quote about morality. "People have great morality when they are observing other people." If you are making the decision you probably have a reason for thinking it is the right one and it will be hard to see that it was the wrong one. You will believe that you are justified in your actions. I think if you are a well paid executive at a company and you know your job is to increase shareholder value then it may be difficult to see what may be good for society if it is ultimately bad for business.

I went to school for finance and in my experience the social good of business decisions is rarely considered. What is considered is: Will this make a profit? Are we working within the law? I am fairly certain that, at least on Wall Street, businesses would totally run amok without regulation.