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

251–260 of 261 posts

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

#251

Post by willurd »

geon wrote: post #249
willurd wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know haha. Give me a computer language and I'm good, but those pesky human languages... Who knows, maybe the problem is all in my head. Anyway, thanks so much for the info!

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

#252

Post by sesqu »

corin_ wrote: post #250
sesqu wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah - just saying that if the goal is to have a function that's medium for both high and low speeds, m+s is not it.

It definitely makes sense to pay more for longer distances, but I for one do not want to pay extra for slower travel. Something like m-s or m+s^-1 would be better.

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

#253

Post by 59nadir »

One would think a company that has success in mind would have the brains/motivation to actually learn about the culture they're setting up in. [A pattern could emerge if one were to draw parallels to wars in far-away Asian countries, though.]

They can't have that good of a grasp of Swedish culture if they thought this would work. I'm struggling to find a hypothetical country in Europe where "obnoxious American" is the preferred type of American.

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

#254

Post by freshhawk »

gwright wrote: post #239
freshhawk wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (legall…

You: Really? There is no historical record of the market responding to increased prices?

Me: we're talking about "price gouging" during disasters or some other event that disrupts normal supply lines

Seems pretty clear what I was talking about. Your hypothesis about price gouging during emergencies doesn't have historical evidence.

I understand perfectly why you think it should work that way according to your ideology. I was pointing out that, in these circumstances, it doesn't match up with the data.

Plenty of other commenters, with knowledge of inventory logistics, have explained why.

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

#255

Post by corin_ »

sesqu wrote: post #252
corin_ wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah - just saying that if the goal is to have a function that's medium for both high and low speeds, m+s is not it. It definitely makes sense to pay more for longer distances, but I for one do not want to pay extra for slower travel. Something like m-s or m+s^-1 would be better.

Of course you don't want to pay more for a slower trip, but taxi drivers don't want to have their hourly profit reduced by being stuck in traffic.

At the end of the day, they could reduce the time cost so that going slower doesn't cost more, but they'd have to also raise the distance cost, so that drivers (and taxi companies) still make the same amount of money on average.

But combining them, the way it works now, makes the most sense, as when you use a taxi service you are paying for the technical costs of getting somewhere (fuel, etc.) and the cost of your driver's time, so why shouldn't it be calculated that way.

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

#256

Post by jfoster »

ubersync wrote: post #198
jfoster wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that it's imperfect, but what's the alternative? How would you envisage that alternative playing out for each of the parties?

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

#257

Post by sesqu »

corin_ wrote: post #255
sesqu wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - just saying that if the goal is to have a function that's medium for both high and low speeds, m+s is not it. It definitely makes sense to pay more for longer distances, but I for one do not want to pay extra for slower travel. Something like m-s or m+s^-1 would be better.

Of course you don't want to pay more for a slower trip, but taxi drivers don't want to have their hourly profit reduced by being stuck in traffic. At the end of the day, they could reduce the time cost so that going slower doesn't cost more, but they'd have to also raise the distance cost, so that drivers (and taxi companies) still make the same amount of money on average. But combining them, the way it works now, ma…

I'm not paying for the driver's time - the taxi company is responsible for that. I want a transport that takes me from point A to point B in the shortest time possible, and paying for the driver's time (at a higher rate, no less) is actively against my interests, since it disincentivizes speed.

You could make the argument that chauffeurs are paid for on a time-only basis, but then we're talking about a driver who I can tell to wait for me outside the store or party, a driver who can tell me about the sights on the scenic route we're taking, or a driver who will take me all over the county on business. Then you could add a basic wear or fuel surcharge per m, but again it should be decreasing (and small).

I haven't used chauffeur services myself, but a quote I found charges less per hour than Uber and nothing per km and no starting charge. They do have higher minimums, though. So I guess Uber could be presenting themselves as a chauffeur company for shopping trips, with 50%-150% markups when moving. As the article points out, they've failed to make that case.

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

#258

Post by corin_ »

sesqu wrote: post #257
corin_ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you don't want to pay more for a slower trip, but taxi drivers don't want to have their hourly profit reduced by being stuck in traffic. At the end of the day, they could reduce the time cost so that going slower doesn't cost more, but they'd have to also raise the distance cost, so that drivers (and taxi companies) still make the same amount of money on average. But combining them, the way it works now, ma…

I'm not paying for the driver's time - the taxi company is responsible for that. I want a transport that takes me from point A to point B in the shortest time possible, and paying for the driver's time (at a higher rate, no less) is actively against my interests, since it disincentivizes speed. You could make the argument that chauffeurs are paid for on a time-only basis, but then we're talking about a driver who I c…

> I'm not paying for the driver's time

Of course you are - whether you do so directly or through a company is irrelevant, either way the driver needs to get paid.

They could change it so that you don't pay more for slow trips, but in return fast trips would become more expensive to even it out, otherwise all you're doing is taking money away from the company/drivers. Then people who travel at peak traffic times are being subsidized by those who travel when the roads are empty.

(Personally I actually prefer non-metered trips, where I know that A to B always costs £x regardless of traffic, but there's certainly a lot of logic in charging by both distance and time.)

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

#259

Post by Nursie »

snitko wrote: post #211
Nursie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to say that all government and all regulation is necessarily good either. Over-regulation is a problem in a lot of places and there absolutely should be debate on what rules are sensible, which rules are unjust and intolerable, or make life worse. I just don't accept that government, laws, taxes etc as morally wrong from the outset, or that it doesn't matter what the outcome would be without them becau…

You not accepting it doesn't mean it's not true. When you say "we should regulate taxi industry because we want higher standards of safety" you have to remember that those standards are by no means universal. Every person has his own set of standards. If 60% of people accept your standards and 40% do not, that means that those 40% would be forced to follow them. If they don't - meaning if they decide to start a busin…

You believe in violence and force just as much as anyone else, becauser you believe in property rights and the use of force to protect them.

If 40% of people don't accept your interpretation of land ownership rights then you would have no problem forcing them to follow your interprewtation of those, so stop getting all high and mighty as if you have an unassailably correct and violence free philosphy. You don't.

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

#260

Post by Nursie »

gw wrote: post #196
Nursie wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except when you talk about something like drugs it's easy to show the total violence increases, and when talking about something like unregulated taxi firms you can't make any such claim because it's easy to see how that market is killed dead with little to no black market, because nobody particularly wanted the product in the first place, it was just there.
Post reply on HN