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

231–240 of 261 posts

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

#231

Post by chrisrhoden »

subsystem wrote: post #207
chrisrhoden wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear that the email that was sent out was not written in the way that it should have been, and that they may have misjudged both the source of the friction they are encountering and the public sentiment about such regulations. We're sort of arguing past eachother on the other point. If we agree that Uber isn't out to rip people off and their customers like the way that they do business, why shoul…

They didn't argue that they complied with regulations, they applied for an exemption, see the difference? If they want to charge a non-fixed price I think they should have to show the price for comparison and during the trip. With an exemption they wouldn't have to do that at all. I might not know their marketing, but you don't know the market in Stockholm so maybe you should be a little less cocky about it. Sometime…

I'm not trying to be cocky about anything. I'm not saying that Stockholm is a good market for Uber. I don't know shit about what's happening here beyond what this post has written. What I do know is that all of the arguments for making them make changes has been one of the following:

1) It's just the way that things are done. Everyone else plays by these rules, so deal with it.

2) Uber is not doing enough to inform their customers about their pricing structure.

I assert that the first argument is extremely weak as a position. If you can't defend the rules themselves, then don't bother. The fact that exemptions are granted indicates that it's understood that organizations should be able to bend these rules if they meet certain requirements. What are those requirements? Why does Uber not meet those requirements? Why are those requirements as they are? Do they not meet the spirit of those requirements?

As for number 2, look, pricing is all over everything. You can talk about ways in which they could technically comply, but I think you're sort of assuming ignorance on the part of the consumers that doesn't exist. You can go to a website, or pull out your phone, and see a price.

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

#232

Post by rdouble »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #229
rdouble wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of what they offer is the appearance at your destination of having been delivered by a private driver. Uber X and Uber Taxi are just Priuses and regular taxis.

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Visit their website. See where the only words on the page are, "Everyone's Private Driver™"? I think it's pretty clear what they're selling. And in the case of Uber Taxi, they comply with all legal requirements for a Taxi service.

I use Uber all the time. Regardless of marketing slogan, most people in SF use it like they would a car service or taxi. It's not like the private cars are Bentleys, although that might be a cool option.

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

#233

Post by phdp »

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…

Rationing by the government makes randians "foam at the mouth" because as the government has proven over and over again, it is inept at thinking about every possible scenario that could exist, and rigid rules often fail to take into account a situation in which the best social good may be free market prices. Say there is a 2 gallon every two days ration. Now, if someone has their huge suv and uses it only to drive back and forth once a day between their house and school a mile a way but has an empty tank when the hurricane hit, under the ration they would be entitled to a lot of gas that they do not need. However, a private delivery business owner who makes all of his deliveries in his own car may use a tank a day, but now can only use a gallon a day. The deliveryman may be willing to pay a x% premium to make his deliveries, while the suv owner would not. People are going to be screwed in either case: either no gas available or cannot afford it. But people should at least be allowed to make the decision of whether or not to buy expensive gas.

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

#234

Post by jhnala »

willurd wrote: post #223
Uchikoma wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of Democratic politicians who, also, have never produced anything and are paid by the state.

That's besides the point because you don't see Democratic politicians promoting the Ayn Rand philosophy, unlike a large number of Republicans.

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

#235

Post by tixocloud »

dopamean wrote: post #200
ryanmolden wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

I think it's a great quote although a little sad about how true it is. I share your sentiment that many times the law is what keeps people in check. But as it is, we are humans and I think it is absolutely possible to at least ponder the thought of "social good".

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

#236

Post by freshhawk »

gwright wrote: post #226
freshhawk wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 You mean "According to my preferred economic ideology if every store tripled the price of bottled water you should have ...", because it's fairly easy to check the historical records and see that this is definitely not what actually happens. But by all means…

Really? There is no historical record of the market responding to increased prices? You are either trolling or economically ignorant.

I know it was 4 hours ago but did you forget that we're talking about "price gouging" during disasters or some other event that disrupts normal supply lines?

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

#237

Post by king_jester »

gwright wrote: post #208
king_jester wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In natural disaster scenarios, this is likely impossible as delivery infrastructure usually goes down for some period of time. This is why price gouging is successful for the businesses raising prices in first place. > It would also mean that smart entrepre…

The utility of 'price' (whether it involves "gouging" or not) is to signal the entire marketplace regarding the current state of supply vs. demand. The market is dynamic and responds to the signal. If you attempt to legislate the rules regarding price you are making it illegal to respond to the signal. This just leads to oversupply and legally enforced profit (the price is too high) or shortages and legislative enfor…

> The market is dynamic and responds to the signal.

W.r.t to price gouging, this is the thing that doesn't happen or doesn't happen quickly enough and means people who can't afford the new high price go without. For essentials like food, water, batteries in a no power situation, etc. that is a huge problem.

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

#238

Post by freshhawk »

pg wrote: post #212
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),…

Far from it. Uber is a remarkably professionally run company that has transformed transportation in the US cities where it operates. I'm surprised (or more precisely, dismayed) that a comment with such comically excessive language received so many upvotes. This is how a forum turns into a self-caricature.

> remarkably professionally run company

That may be true, you certainly would know better than most here, but the press about them and statements from Mr. Kalanick really don't give that impression.

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

#239

Post by gwright »

freshhawk wrote: post #236
gwright wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? There is no historical record of the market responding to increased prices? You are either trolling or economically ignorant.

I know it was 4 hours ago but did you forget that we're talking about "price gouging" during disasters or some other event that disrupts normal supply lines?

What are you talking about?

Disrupted supply lines mean higher cost to deliver materials (longer routes, special equipment, etc). Higher prices encourages suppliers to expend the extra $$$ to deliver the goods. Or even new suppliers to enter the market (for example think about construction workers or tree removal companies in the wake of a large storm traveling to where the work is).

If the price can't change (legally) then suppliers will simply ignore the problem until conditions return to 'normal' thus ensuring shortages.

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

#240

Post by Uchikoma »

willurd wrote: post #223
Uchikoma wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of Democratic politicians who, also, have never produced anything and are paid by the state.

Yes, and this is in which way relevant to the point?
Post reply on HN