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

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

#241

Post by dopamean » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 7:57 PM UTC

tixocloud wrote: post #235

dopamean wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Don't get me wrong. I definitely agree that it is possible. I just think that when running a business it happens too frequently that the decision makers are put in a position to have to make a choice that is not in support of social good. This is made more complicated by the fact that in many cases those people may be rewarded financially for making that choice.

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

#242

Post by Nursie » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 8:43 PM UTC

gw wrote: post #189

Nursie wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

No I have no problem with it, the costs are miniscule compared to the results. There is no hedging here unless you mean a rational weighing up of costs and benefits.

It is entirely ethical to rule out the worse risks in society, because fundamentally it makes it better for all of us. Particularly the vulnerable in whatever form they take. Not everyone is even capable of rational risk assessment, and many of the rest of us don't want to have to be constantly on guard. I'm sorry if this offends you.

I'm glad you admit the outcome doesn't matter to you, only your ideals.

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

#243

Post by Nursie » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 8:46 PM UTC

snitko wrote: post #217

Nursie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh there's nothing in the world like libertarian absolutism is there? Everything can be reduced to 'violence', therefore everything you disagree with is demonstrably, objectively wrong. Here's one major flaw in your thinking "We both just try to solve the problem in a peaceful manner." You ascribe honourable motives and noble behaviours to all actors. You are demonstrably wrong where human behaviour is concerned. Any…

You ascribe honourable motives and noble behaviours to all actors. You are demonstrably wrong where human behaviour is concerned. Then by this definition, you should be more concerned with giving the power to a monopoly which is a state. People would surely be very likely to abuse this kind of power. When you a have a private company, it goes out of business the moment its customers stop paying money. Government does…

History shows us that merchants and service providers are constantly, constantly out to deceive and screw us. It's just a fact and it's why we have so many consumer protections.

The government is also not to be trusted, it's true, but at least we can vote them out.

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

#244

Post by gwright » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

king_jester wrote: post #237

gwright wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How 'quickly' is not quick enough for you? Companies like Walmart and Home Depot are getting pretty darn good at responding to disasters, especially for things like hurricanes where there is considerable lead time.

Smaller events like tornados are much easier to respond to because they are localized.

Price gouging laws negate any sort of systemic planning to take advantage of short-term price spikes. Eliminate the laws and you open up opportunities for creative businesses to plan and respond to these short-term opportunities.

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

#245

Post by geon » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 9:59 PM UTC

willurd wrote: post #219

geon wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Swede I found it really weird that the "traffic agency" would be interested in protecting businesses. It really feels like someone is trying to do a direct translation of the US situation. Lobbying isn't really a thing here, and is actually considered to be corruption. Whenever that sort of thing happens (which is pretty rare), the press is having a field day.

> Lobbying isn't really a thing here, and is actually considered to be corruption. As an american, I would agree wholeheartedly that lobbying is most definitely corruption. > Whenever that sort of thing happens (which is pretty rare), the press is having a field day. Oh how I wish the US news would report something like this. Just once. But our media is in the government's pocket. Or, rather, big business' pocket, an…

Yes, the nordic countries is a thing here too. We have a lot in common.

Generally, I think you will feel welcome. Swedes can be a bit reserved and tough to get to know, though. We don't talk with strangers on the bus, etc. Once you get to know us, though, we tend to be genuinely friendly. (Or so I'm told.)

There is some xenophobia, but the prejudice is mostly about arabs. I think if you are a caucasian/black american you will have a blast.

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

#246

Post by sesqu » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 10:20 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #31

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?

Sometimes it would screw over the drivers, sometimes the customers, and depending on how it was priced you could force that to one side or the other. Distance + time is the most fair solution, as if there's no traffic and you get there super fast the driver still gets a fair fee (unlike if it was time only), if there's lots of traffic and it takes ages to get there then the customer doesn't have to pay a huge fee (li…

It's worth noting that with Uber's current price structure, if you get there super fast the fee is small, and if it takes ages it's huge. So it sounds more like worst of both worlds.

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

#247

Post by snitko » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 10:21 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #243

snitko wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ascribe honourable motives and noble behaviours to all actors. You are demonstrably wrong where human behaviour is concerned. Then by this definition, you should be more concerned with giving the power to a monopoly which is a state. People would surely be very likely to abuse this kind of power. When you a have a private company, it goes out of business the moment its customers stop paying money. Government does…

History shows us that merchants and service providers are constantly, constantly out to deceive and screw us. It's just a fact and it's why we have so many consumer protections. The government is also not to be trusted, it's true, but at least we can vote them out.

Once in n years. And you don't really vote them out. You get the same parties and interests screwing you all over again.

You just don't see consumer protection as a service while it is - and it's monopolized by the government. If you had private consumer protection agencies financed directly, then the moment this agency starts screwing its customers, it's out of business, because people stop paying. Compare this to consumer protection via a government: you can't simply stop paying, you can't effectively influence how an agency works and you don't have a choice between various protection agencies that best suit your interests as a consumer.

Now tell me why should I ever choose government over a private market given this situation? In other words, can you convince me (and not force me to comply) that a government can protect my interests better?

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

#248

Post by willurd » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 1:33 AM UTC

geon wrote: post #245

willurd wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lobbying isn't really a thing here, and is actually considered to be corruption. As an american, I would agree wholeheartedly that lobbying is most definitely corruption. > Whenever that sort of thing happens (which is pretty rare), the press is having a field day. Oh how I wish the US news would report something like this. Just once. But our media is in the government's pocket. Or, rather, big business' pocket, an…

Yes, the nordic countries is a thing here too. We have a lot in common. Generally, I think you will feel welcome. Swedes can be a bit reserved and tough to get to know, though. We don't talk with strangers on the bus, etc. Once you get to know us, though, we tend to be genuinely friendly. (Or so I'm told.) There is some xenophobia, but the prejudice is mostly about arabs. I think if you are a caucasian/black american…

Thanks! I'm generally reserved until I get to know people as well. It's been my experience that most americans really don't fall into that loud/obnoxious/rude/belligerent stereotype that seems to be making the rounds (maybe not this generation's teenagers, though...).

Really, the thing that scares me the most about moving somewhere like sweden is learning the langage ;) I don't really have a gift for (human) languages, and swedish seems pretty tough already.

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

#249

Post by geon » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 6:24 AM UTC

willurd wrote: post #248

geon wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the nordic countries is a thing here too. We have a lot in common. Generally, I think you will feel welcome. Swedes can be a bit reserved and tough to get to know, though. We don't talk with strangers on the bus, etc. Once you get to know us, though, we tend to be genuinely friendly. (Or so I'm told.) There is some xenophobia, but the prejudice is mostly about arabs. I think if you are a caucasian/black american…

Thanks! I'm generally reserved until I get to know people as well. It's been my experience that most americans really don't fall into that loud/obnoxious/rude/belligerent stereotype that seems to be making the rounds (maybe not this generation's teenagers, though...). Really, the thing that scares me the most about moving somewhere like sweden is learning the langage ;) I don't really have a gift for (human) language…

A hacker worrying about learning a new language? ;-)

There are courses in swedish offered to all immigrants. My wife did it in 4 months. Meanwhile, you won't have a problem getting around with english only. Virtually all swedes speak english, and most do it well.

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

#250

Post by corin_ » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 12:16 PM UTC

sesqu wrote: post #246

corin_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it would screw over the drivers, sometimes the customers, and depending on how it was priced you could force that to one side or the other. Distance + time is the most fair solution, as if there's no traffic and you get there super fast the driver still gets a fair fee (unlike if it was time only), if there's lots of traffic and it takes ages to get there then the customer doesn't have to pay a huge fee (li…

It's worth noting that with Uber's current price structure, if you get there super fast the fee is small, and if it takes ages it's huge. So it sounds more like worst of both worlds.

That's the way most taxi services work - if it takes longer you pay more because the driver is spending more time getting you there, however it's not as bad as if the price was just time and not distance.