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), but in cultures where simply sitting down and figuring out how to remove the obstacles is the custom, hyperbolic scream fests by an American company is not going to work.
Especially not an American company that thinks it's a good idea to conquer Europe with a name like "Uber"...
Both the company name and their PR strategy scream "culturally insensitive American douchebags".
So, part of the problem is that in the US, not only would such things fly, but they have been on the receiving end of some suspect pressure and investigations. Most of the taxi systems in Uber's homeland are highly regulated and effectively run by strong lobbying organizations who are very vocal about their concerns and distaste for having their business threatened. In the US, such allegations are not only reasonable, but they're not even really a sign of corruption - typically, the people who get their way are the people who ask the loudest and most frequently, and that doesn't mean that anyone is acting in an unsavory manner.
This isn't to say that there isn't a twinge of tinfoil hattery going on, or to say that the same tactic is appropriate here, but the fact is that they've had tremendous success asking their users to tell the authorities that they're good guys in the past - they had success in this endeavor here, for that matter. The fact that there is a blog post calling them out doesn't really seem to have had a strong impact on the support that their users are giving them.
Moreover, this blog post smacks of tinfoil hattery - is the suggestion that, by not signaling itself as a taxi, Uber is attempting to confuse users? To my knowledge, they're not picking people up on the street - only people who have signed up for an account and are well aware of the price differences. It seems likely that they're less interested in removing the need for the meter and more interested in removing the need for external signals that the car is fared similarly to a taxi - which is, after all, 50% of what they're offering. So a yellow license plate, sign, and fare sticker might have the larger impact in their eyes.
Based on that, do you not think that it's reasonable that, in an, "unregulated," market, they should be allowed to charge people who have jumped through the hoops to actually get into an Uber car, with all of the fare information shoved in their faces a number of times, however they have agreed upon with their customers?
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but let's please be intellectually honest.
They only thing they (or their subcontractors) have done to date is apply for an exemption which they weren't covered by and then complain about it. If they include the proper information in their app and get it certified as a meter than they might have a case. Now they just come of as spoiled and childish.
Also a sign isn't required and the yellow plate gives you advantages in traffic (bus lanes etc.), but they'll probably want an exemption from that too?
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 should they need to change? If you acknowledge that the changes required are superficial, why are they required?
And based on the way in which Uber is marketed, you're either completely unfamiliar with the service or you're being more than a little disingenuous when you suggest that a yellow license plate wouldn't affect their business. Part of what they offer is the appearance at your destination of having been delivered by a private driver.
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.
Sometimes regulation gets in the way of innovation, but this time it seems like regulation only gets in the way because they can't be bothered to innovate. Getting their app certified as a meter would be a nice precedent for more innovation.
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.
why should they need to change? If you acknowledge that the changes required are superficial, why are they required?
If they're superficial, why can't Uber just play ball? I can't disconnect my electricity meter and install a more accurate one of my choosing, even if that leads to me paying more in utilities. Some things are standard just because it makes it easier for people to tell that nobody's breaking the rules.
Because these superficial changes are part of the package that they're selling. They've got charters (or whatever) in cities all over the world and their first product was a livery without the scheduling nonsense and with a pretty reasonable price. Telling them that the thing that they want to sell is against regulations is fine, but saying that those regulations exist strictly to protect against bad actors and that exemptions are granted for everyone else is thesame as saying that you think that they are bad actors. And in that case, asking people to sign a petition saying that they're not is completely reasonable.
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.
I don't know, but it's completely irrelevant. I don't understand why people care about the color of their hair enough to dye it, but it seems to matter to some people, and if it matters to people that matter to you, then I guess it matters to you as well.
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.
It seems purpose built to garner upvotes from many of those who frequent HN - insults the American right wing while praising European level-headedness and rationalism. Add in a final parting shot at American stereotypes and I'm not surprised at all I found it at the top.
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.
If the devil didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Uber was built from the ground up to tangle with cantankerous and corrupt authorities whose first impulse is to outlaw it. Even if that enemy turns out not to exist, they operate as if it does. Its their nature.
That's certainly true but it's how they were built to make money that's important here. If I ask what the case of the new MacBook is made of and you reply "atoms", it's true enough but it isn't exactly useful.
Your entirely uninformed comments which you make without providing an ounce of information backing your claim is what is useless. This whole thread is ridiculous. Has anyone upvoting these comments ever used Uber and do they understand how it works and it's niche within the industry? Because I see a lot of hyperbole and about zero facts.
Perhaps not, but the context is that this dialogue is a response to Uber's response to the situation in Sweden, which is at best jarringly strident in tone.
Dialogue that doesn't /start/ nuanced rarely becomes so half way through...
It's a legitimate business, and they've generally been a bit smoother than this hacktastic email.
It just so happens that they're entering a regulated market, and some observers will go full tea-party upon hearing things like "we have extra regulation applying to taxi services due to some experiences we've had over the last hundred years."
Better dispatch over the internet doesn't change everything.
This email reminds me of talking to some idiot soda lobbyist at a cocktail party in 2009, telling me she doesn't understand why her boss told her equating taxes on soda with fascism was a bad idea.
Can we please stop using "tea-party" as a derogatory term? Not only is it needlessly offensive (and I'm not even a member of the tea-party), it doesn't even make sense. Since when did "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" and "reducing U.S. government spending and taxes" (see Wikipedia) mean "retarded" (as in, "full retard", as in where you got the "full XYZ" template)?
I can't be the only person who utilizes Uber/Sidecar/etc and shuns deregulationism, can I?
The problem in many of these situations is the nebulous definition of "taxi", "towncar", and other conveyances, along with the protectionistic (for self-preservation) industry. If the definitions had anything to do with consumer safety/protection, I'd be opposing Uber as well.
Are there any cities in the US and abroad who have handled the Uber problem by updating their regulations in a more harmonious manner? I'm aware of those who have tried to ban Uber's loopholes outright, but I'm curious how any may have integrated these services while eliminating perceived exploitative aspects of their business model.
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), but in cultures where simply sitting down and figuring out how to remove the obstacles is the custom, hyperbolic scream fests by an American company is not going to work.
Especially not an American company that thinks it's a good idea to conquer Europe with a name like "Uber"...
Both the company name and their PR strategy scream "culturally insensitive American douchebags".