31–35 of 35 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber succeeded mostly by violating local licensing laws. And federal employment laws which they may still need to pay the piper for.
Exactly, that's why the incumbents couldn't replicate them, because they had to stay legal. Let's not go into whether this is ethical or not. I'm simply pointing out what disruptive means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, that's why the incumbents couldn't replicate them, because they had to stay legal. Let's not go into whether this is ethical or not. I'm simply pointing out what disruptive means.
that's kind of a stretch on the definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> violating local licensing laws They recognized that the local licensing laws were causing horrible market distortions or outright market dysfunctions. The salient points are the market dysfunctions. Where is the market failing and causing misery? What businesses/organizations have captive customer bases, really don't care about bad user experiences, and have outdated equipment? 20th century cabs were miserable, and…
most small businesses do it they pay fines and penalties of 100% or more. They were able to play politics and won, congrats to them. didn't work so well for theranos, lending club, zenefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's kind of a stretch on the definition.
Ok smart guy, then tell me how so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok smart guy, then tell me how so.
usually the definition is around some technology coming out that the incumbents were so heavily invested in earlier technology that they couldn't embrace the new technology until it was too late. It's not that taxis companies couldn't have developed tech, it's because they followed the law which caused them not to be able compete. so, unless you call "law" a technology I don't include it in my definition. And since m…