Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 218 posts

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#71

Post by yapcguy »

67726e wrote: post #24
joosters wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA: "If Uber employees intentionally diverted Gett drivers from legitimate business by making phony calls, that is an unfair business practice, illegal under California law," he said. "It is also an intentional interference with Gett's business which makes them liable for money damages."

Except the incident occurred in New York state and they consulted someone about California state law? I'd guess most states have similar laws so it is a bit of a moot point.

I am not a lawyer but if anyone out there is...

If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one? What if the e-mail trail reveals similar activity in multiple states directed by managers in San Francisco?

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#72

Post by jellicle »

icebraining wrote: post #54
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #33

One man's dirty tricks is another man's free market - http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?

No one; higher fees due to state-enforced limited supply are more than enough to keep the poor from riding taxis. "Nearly half of [NYC taxi] passengers have a household income of $100,000 or more a year." (2014 Taxicab Fact Book)

That's why Uber came along, the service for the common man, dedicated to reducing the price of taxis. Right?

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#74

Post by waterlesscloud »

livejamie wrote: post #61
defen wrote: post #7

Between this and how they handled the girl who was killed by an Uber driver on New Year's Eve in San Francisco...my opinion of them has taken a decided turn for the worse in the past few weeks. And for both, I can't help but think that company culture is set from the top.

To play devil's advocate; how would you have had them handle the New Year's Eve situation better?

They could acknowledge the driver was working for them. That would be a start.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

yapcguy wrote: post #71
67726e wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the incident occurred in New York state and they consulted someone about California state law? I'd guess most states have similar laws so it is a bit of a moot point.

I am not a lawyer but if anyone out there is... If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one? What if the e-mail trail reveals similar activity in multiple states directed by managers in San Francisco?

> If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one?

No, though that may make it so that a federal crime (e.g., wire fraud) was committed in addition to any state crime that was committed.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#76

Post by freehunter »

colinbartlett wrote: post #40

I love the doublespeak in the statement: "Our local teams can be pretty determined when spreading the word about Uber and how our platform opens up new economic opportunities for drivers" "opens up new economic opportunities" is that what we are calling "sales" now?

To me it says they open new economic opportunities by bringing black car service to the masses and fairly cheaply (I compared Uber to a cab for a trip I'm taking soon, UberX was much cheaper). AFAIK, black car services weren't very accessible by the public not that long ago. Services like Uber or Gett let the drivers make money in a new way, which sounds about spot on to me.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#77

Post by icebraining »

hristov wrote: post #64
icebraining wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The network effects will take care of the competition. Will it? Why? Unlike social networks, I don't see why would Uber benefit particularly from network effects; it doesn't even have switching costs, since the consumer can use both concurrently.

Each Uber user benefits when there are more Uber drivers. They can get rides faster and more conveniently. Each Uber driver benefits when there are more Uber users. They can get clients faster and closer to their current position and thus make more money with less downtime. These are the network effects. A consumer can use Uber and a competitor. This, however, is not unlike social networks, it is entirely like social…

Each Uber user benefits when there are more Uber drivers. They can get rides faster and more conveniently. Each Uber driver benefits when there are more Uber users. They can get clients faster and closer to their current position and thus make more money with less downtime. These are the network effects.

As nickpinkston said, those are economies of scale, which is a related concept, but not the same.

A consumer can use two social networks as well.

Yes, but this is where the difference highlighted above kicks in: in a social network, the total number of users is not as relevant as the number of connections the user has, so the user can be "stuck" even if he feels the product is not good enough. In a product like Uber, there's no such effect; people can switch as soon as they feel like trying the alternatives.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#78

Post by eli »

leephillips wrote: post #31

Just this morning there was a story on NPR about how Uber has price-gouging built into their system: during a snowstorm you may pay something like 5x the normal fare.

The idea is that it warns you first and you agree to the increased price because you really want the car. This makes them more money (obviously) but it also incentivizes more drivers to get on the road when demand far outstrips supply.

I personally feel like that's not price gouging, so long as it isn't your only method of transportation. If you were very price conscious, you would probably be using a cheaper Uber competitor to begin with.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#79

Post by icebraining »

jellicle wrote: post #72
icebraining wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one; higher fees due to state-enforced limited supply are more than enough to keep the poor from riding taxis. "Nearly half of [NYC taxi] passengers have a household income of $100,000 or more a year." (2014 Taxicab Fact Book)

That's why Uber came along, the service for the common man, dedicated to reducing the price of taxis. Right?

I'm not defending Uber.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#80

Post by yapcguy »

livejamie wrote: post #61
defen wrote: post #7

Between this and how they handled the girl who was killed by an Uber driver on New Year's Eve in San Francisco...my opinion of them has taken a decided turn for the worse in the past few weeks. And for both, I can't help but think that company culture is set from the top.

To play devil's advocate; how would you have had them handle the New Year's Eve situation better?

Did you read their statement?

They were more worried about being associated with the accident than the accident itself. Lots of weasel words and excuses in trying to claim that the driver didn't work for them, or that the driver wasn't active or doing a trip.

If I worked for Uber, I would have posted something simple and left it at that e.g.

"We have been informed by law enforcement that there has been a traffic accident in San Francisco involving an Uber driver. We send our deepest condolences to the family and victims of this tragic accident."

The end.

Post reply on HN