and ignoring local laws?
People have voted with their wallets - they'd rather take an Uber than an outdated taxi with bad customer service.
Uber isn't doing anything like civil disobedience here, they're just making a new quick buck violating employment laws.
Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway.
False. Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
>Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway.
Intentions are irrelevant. It's end results that matter. People vote with their wallets. There is only one reason why Uber has created $51bn of market value, many people find it superior to the alternatives they have at their disposal. Uber _helps_ those with low economic or political power, more transportation options at a cheaper price.
Also, Uber doesn't help people with low economic or political power. Those people still have feature phones and walk or take the bus.
This has no effect on founders or early investors; they'll get rich anyway. This is Silicon Valley, where empires are built losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
Isn't it actually spending hundreds of millions of VC dollars building a global monopoly?
As the article described, this is a network effects platform that gets better as it grows. This also gives them the ability to offer a better product at a lower price, squeezing out competitors.
The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions.
Uber is using / exploiting the regulator's method of enforcement, which tends to be persuading people to comply with the law and taking them to cour as a matter of last resort or for flagrant breaches.
We see this with companies who avoid (but not evade) taxes - the tax authorities tighten the rules, arrange for a partial payback, and continue scrutiny.
Sometimes this makes sense. Court cases are expensive and not guaranteed. At least this way some of the money is gathered.
But it does leave space for companies like Uber to operate in grey areas of law that's written in statute and the way the courts have interpreted it and the way the regulators enforce it.
The insurance is most worrying.
Amazes me as well. The extent to which corruption was rampant all around the world in the same industry.
Uber is clearly a better service than your average taxi experience. But we also don't know the true price, since most drivers are skirting insurance requirements and the like.
It is difficult for me to imagine how a service like taxis can integrate a middle man like Uber, which everyone assumes will be massively profitable, compensate the drivers fairly and be cheaper than the current system. The math doesn't add up.
This implies that there are some taxi companies out there that are worth a massive amount of money, since they are capturing all the profit. Can you point to a single company worth even one tenth of what Uber is worth? I'm sure some companies do very well, but I don't think there are any taxi billionaires out there.
But it matters little anyway. The pie is divvied up so many ways. You pay the fare, some goes to the driver, some goes to the middle man. When you pay a smaller fare, there is less for the driver, middle man, or both.
How much of Uber's valuation is based on that pie (the number of people desiring taxis) growing?
That's simply because taxi companies are regional and Uber is global.
Taxi companies rent out the car and medallion so drivers are $100 in the hole before they've even started work. It's practically indentured servitude.
This is a misleading way of looking at things. Uber serves many more markets than taxi companies, so they can be much bigger while being more efficient per ride.
Pure hubris. Do you really think companies like DHL, which operates a logistics network in 220 countries, can't "dream of" the scale at which Uber is operating?
People have voted with their wallets
Companies like Uber and AirBnB (and countless others) simply pretend that those complexities don't exist -- the market to be disrupted only because they're willing to completely circumvent laws and standards -- and money starts falling on their heads.
This is entirely false. Uber's legal and political staff is _huge_. I'd assume the same for Airbnb.
No one is "pretending" they don't exist. They're building a product, allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways.
Stop talking and start doing.
allowing consumers to use better alternatives and challenging local authorities on their backwards ways
This is a profoundly naive way of viewing what they're doing.
Please, explain.
>They entered markets and gained a foothold
By providing a better product at a better price.
People like eating at the park. There are no current food options there. I can "disrupt" the park food business by wheeling my bbq down there and selling burgers (ignore the countless food safety, tax and regulatory issues, or the zoning/garbage/park use policies that led to the park not having food options). Disruption!
EDIT: Actually, why bother having the capital costs of BBQs, fuel logistics and safety liability, etc. Instead I'll just make an app ("Ubbq") and allow providers to register as park hamburger sellers, taking my skim off the top. Disruption!