Isn't ignoring regulations the most often quoted reason for Uber's success?
Not really. The "effective strategy to skirt regulations" seems to be "when someone makes an issue out of it, we'll burn investor money on PR and lobbying against the regulations, and on paying any penalties that get assessed for violations".
For that, you don't need much advance study of the regulations, just a deep supply of investor funds.
For example, if public opinion weren't on their side, perhaps due to, say, Uber rides being as dangerous as they're sometimes claimed to be rather than as safe as statistics show them to be, some of those "little" city lawsuits could have blown up much worse.
Remember, their core product was not violating regulations: it was filling empty spots for legit black limo drivers, and was more expensive than taxis but still competitive because of the quality of service.
Getting regulations to ignore you is the hard part.
If you invent an app in a few hours, then get fined out of existence your app sucks.
If you invent an app in a few hours, then it crashes under high load, your app sucks.
If you invent an app in a few hours and your code sucks and you can't adapt it later, your app sucks.
Yes
> If you invent an app in a few hours, then get fined out of existence your app sucks.
No
>No
Sorry, but back here in reality apps must comply to regulations. It's your job as a voter to make sure your regulations comply with reality.
Uber has famously skirted rules and has gotten away with it largely because they've been able to throw VC money at PR, lobbying, and paying fines. Unless you happen to be similarly lucky funding-wise, your first round or two of fines for breaking rules can easily shut you down permanently.
Maybe it's a bit hyperbolic to say that this would mean "your app sucks", but the end result is that you built something that no one can use and you can't make money of of. That sucks.