Uber hit by legal setback in Europe
money.cnn.com
money.cnn.com
Just in case it isn't clear, Uber is just the easy whipping boy because of bad PR -- the legal hurdles Uber is going through will crush Lyft just as quickly (probably faster because they have a smaller legal team).
Taxi unions aren't going to say "oh, but Lyft doesn't have as much sexual harassment in the workplace, we'll let them slide."
This is a reactionary kick by a protected industry, but if the legal framework ends up crushing hail-to-ride companies, those laws aren't going anywhere for a long, long time.
The change will only happen if it's not-explicitly-illegal and people are able to use the service to see the value; if one of those stops, we're going back to unavailable, dirty, unsafe, cabs with perpetually broken credit card readers.
As an European? Yes.
Things were evolving fine in Europe; from our POV, Uber isn't doing anything innovative - they're just a personal transportation company (we have those) with a cute app (we have those) that tries to outcompete everyone by unilaterally deciding that laws don't apply to them.
> Taxi unions aren't going to say "oh, but Lyft doesn't have as much sexual harassment in the workplace, we'll let them slide."
I wish this would stop; I get that sexual harassment is what media loves to write about, but this was not remotely the biggest or most wrong thing Uber has done. Their whole business model is antisocial.
- Getting scammed by the typical "longer ride"
- Aggressive driving, crossing red lights, etc
- Unpleasant drivers: either passive-aggressive who won't reply to your "good morning", or permanently complaining about everything, including the current trip (too cheap!)
- Apps? Ha! They don't even have GPS, and no, they don't know "the whole city", good luck getting to a smaller street just by the address.
- Your trip goes a bit outside the city limits? Here's a surcharge for the remainder of the trip plus a fee for the trip back (even after your left the cab).
Plus one can't even point to Uber's corruption and lack of respect for law: our association of taxis and its president are no better, just smaller.
Uber's are not particularly cheaper around here, yet I'd choose it or one of their competitors over taxis any day even if they were 50% more expensive.
But if you are a person who is willing to pay 50 % more just to get the Uber experience, then it is rather likely that you are part of a minority. Which, I think, proves my point of the group that Uber mostly caters to: convenience-focused people with enough money not having to worry about (frequently?) pay for ridesharing.
Someone like you is already able to take Uber Black, so everything is fine, isn't it?
And I disagree that it's just convenience. Crossing red lights and similar behavior that I've seen make it a safety issue as well.
By the way, I'm not willing to pay more because I'm flush with cash, but because I drive it rarely enough that it wouldn't mean much at the end of the year.
Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.
But what you want in addition: it should be cheaper than taxi. Better overall experience, but cheaper. Makes sense, everyone wants that. But this comes with larger costs for the society (especially long-term) which frustratingly, the biggest Uber advocates always choose to ignore.
Having said that, I really do understand the frustration about the regular imperfections and inefficiencies of hailing a cab. The problem I see that the proposed answer - Uber - the very company - is in the end a very bad solution from a big picture view (even if it elevates the rider experience).
It's my experience, atypical or not.
> Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.
Incorrect. There's no legal difference between the two in my jurisdiction.
Maybe you're confused by Uber's names? Around here, like in other (all?) countries in Europe, UberX only uses drivers with professional licenses to drive passengers. The "free-for-all" model is UberPOP (which was never introduced in my country).
By the way, please don't tell others what they want. Obviously all other things equal I prefer to pay less, but I was very explicit in that I don't mind if they're somewhat more expensive, I'd still use it over taxis.
Having said that, while I like that Uber gave a kick in the pants in a complacent and frankly arrogant professional class, now that the market has been opened up I don't care if Uber itself sticks around.
I usually use night tram (living in northern part of Poznań is quite nice) when I drink, but when I use taxi they usually have GPS. At least for a few years.
If in fact there is "little actual need" for Uber, then nobody will use it. That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.
> That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.
From hundreds of years of running market economies in the world we already have a clear experimental result: consumers prefer cheaper goods/services to more expensive ones of equivalent quality.
If you can make your service cheaper by subsidizing it with VC money and then even more by ignoring regulation, then there's no surprise consumers will use it - even if long term, the service is unsustainable and socially destructive.
I've never had to tell an Uber driver where to go or approximately where my destination is, so it's really frustrating when I can remember a few times where I would get into a taxi and have the taxi guy be frustrated at ME, the paying customer, for not knowing what region of the city my destination was.
Of course some people take Uber. For almost any kind of service there will be customers. But that's not the point. At least not my point. My point is that the large majority of people in Europe do not need Uber for their mobility needs. And therefore, Uber should - in my point of view - not get outsize influence over transportation policy.
Because Uber is not just a startup that wants equal terms. It is a predatory (I really rarely use this word, but for Uber, I do) giant that has zero consideration for social responsibility and very deep pockets for lobbyism. Once they have a foot in the door, they'll push it wide open. Which is why cautiousness in this case is really necessary, in my eyes.
Why didn't the EU block companies like Expedia taking over the traditional travel agent business, why didn't they stop Amazon and others from selling books online and stoped hundreds of traditional bookstores from closing, why didn't they stop VoIP and chat companies from closing, etc.
I'm not a fan of Uber as a company/culture, but the value they provide to me is huge. The traditional taxi driver isn't willing to change, admit that their license/medallion is a barrier to entry designed and speculated by them. If they don't want to change others will come and provide a better service/product.
To me, Uber is a necessary evil. I will continue to use them night and day... until a better service pops-up.
And even if it was just bending or breaking some rules unfairly lobbied in by the taxi mafia, I'd cut Uber some slack. But over the years, they've shown time and again, and again, that it's not about some greater social goal (in spite of their marketing copy), it's not surgical lawbreaking to make things better. They just play dirty and don't care; hell, the management was always pretty smug about it.
The really disrupting thing here is the ability in ordering the car from the mobile phone, and the frictionless experience. This is what is making the taxi obsolete. Now that black cab drivers have realised of the threat, they want to consider all others equals, when before they where happy living with Addison Lee, et al.
PS: travel agents do need licenses to sell airplane tickets, and have bank guarantees, etc., just to gain a fee. Pass through websites which earn a fee, like the travel agents, don't.
Even though US states have laws that differ they operate using same legal system, culturally they are very similar and the majority of people speak english.
This is not the case within the European Union, for example German and Italian law uses a different legal system to Ireland. Their is no common European language and culturally their are massive differences from place to place.
I've had awful taxi experiences in many European countries (Italy, France, Belgium to name a few) in the years before Uber. Maybe I'm missing something, could you provide some examples of European countries where getting a taxi was a pleasant experience prior to Uber?
> could you provide some examples of European countries where getting a taxi was a pleasant experience prior to Uber?
Probably everywhere. The problem is still lack of consistency.
Just look at this whole thread. I never had a bad experience with taxis in Poland, pre- or post-Uber - but I have a friend who had, and he hates taxi companies because of it. 'yoodenvranx doesn't like taxis in Germany, but 'burgreblast presumably doesn't mind. 'user15672 and 'phillc73 are ok with taxis in London, but hating on London taxis is so common I don't even need to look for examples.
So taxis in Europe aren't uniformly bad or uniformly good; they seem to be a mixed bag, with a lot depending on city, company or even the driver you get. Something that definitely could be improved, but then again, people report bad rides with Uber too, and all of that doesn't free Uber from the requirement of following local laws.
Having all those different culture / legal systems with combination of EU regulation is how the market can act as one economy.
1. When you say "evolving fine in Europe," can you clarify what portions of Europe, perhaps specifically countries or cities? Or can you expressly state that you mean the entirety of Europe?
2. Can you name the personal transportation companies with cute apps that make Uber unnecessary for the regions indicated by (1) ?
2) Where I live - Kraków, Poland - we had iCar for years (they've expanded to several cities in the region now). Their app could use a facelift, true, but otherwise works fine, and in pre-app times, their phone dispatch worked well too.
I remember them first showing up when I was a teenager, 10 or so years ago. They had a conflict with regular taxi companies over their business model - a conflict which over the years got resolved in courts, and regulations were appropriately adjusted. I can point to that as an example of how to handle the issue in a civilized way.
There are also at least two companies that attempt to bridge different services in different cities under one app - Taxi.eu and myTaxi. They also work together with the regular taxi services (the evil "taxi mafias") too.
So they started operating before the regulations were changed to accommodate their model. How exactly is this different from Uber?
Regular taxi companies obviously got angry at the new competition, there was some tire slashing, and eventually courts clarified the regulations in a way that didn't turn out bad for either party, and now they peacefully coexist. Regular taxis adopted some of the new ideas, too, and the overall quality of service improved for every company.
- actually broke any local law
- pulled any shenanigans with taxes or employment laws
- allowed nor encouraged drivers to operate with improper insurance
- messed with journalists
- used investor money to subsidize rides to the point no one could compete with their prices
Their one innovation was using GPS, which allowed them to avoid the need for training drivers in city kowlege (and the legal workaround they found thus let them operate under one company-wide transportation license), and to bill by distance instead of by time. The latter was actually a huge value for consumers, because it removed the price variation caused by congestion, as well as allowed the company to state the whole price up front, which made people trust them more.
I don't see a reason why a licensed taxi company couldn't work as Uber on the outside. (Liftago does.)
I remember that as a kid, my mother and grandmother would teach me to never take a taxi that's parking in front of the train station, because those are the scammers that prey on tourists. Instead one should order a taxi from a known company using a phone.
This does not make it OK. If Uber solves this problem alone it will help lift the local economy.
I'm enough of HN comment reader to know you mean well, but I honestly don't think you are thinking this through clearly because of your personal experience. Keep in mind, I live in a small town in fly-over-country-USA, so I have no use for Uber.
I think the major innovation that's overlooked (because they haven't rolled it out in many markets) is UberPool/Lyft Line. Being able to match strangers with departures/destinations on the same route leads to significant savings for the customers and better car efficiency (one car for two trips, instead of two cars).
If you believe that taxis are getting better in Europe, see the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl2QcEOIdHg
Sorry, I couldn't find proper English captions, however the numbers are still clear.
The person who made the video, made 4 trips from the same point A to point B and these are the prices he had to pay for the same exact journey:
- 1250 HUF - 2000 HUF - 2500 HUF - 5950 HUF
None of the drivers provided a receipt willingly. Meanwhile Uber cost 1105 HUF.
Note that: taxi tariffs are regulated in Budapest, yet it clearly doesn't stop drivers from overcharging unsuspecting foreigners.
If it was able to achieve one or more of the above benefits because it broke laws, I'm curious as to the benefits of those laws and do they outweigh the benefits uber apparently provided?
As an American, I am unfamiliar with taxi regulations in Europe, but I would be hard presssed to find any benefits of the taxi regulations in US cities in which I have lived.
On the other hand, in Japan where I live now, there are very few taxi regulations (no medallion system). Unlike the US, taxis are cheap, convenient, and high quality. As a result, uber is almost non existent. My intuition is if Europe had a well functioning taxi system like Japan, uber would not have become popular.
I can imagine mild popularity in Berlin, but I (living in a smallish town near a middle-to-big city) don't think I know anybody who has ever taken an Uber.
Not because of how scummy Uber is, but because it's nearly irrelevant.
It's only notoriety and relevance stems from it's legal troubles.
Now of course the taxi lobby got it banned, but there's something called taxify instead, of course it's the homegrown version by some blessed local firm.
Can't wait to see them crash and burn and be replaced by commodity ride-share services that have a better connection to their service area.
But all the extra work getting people to drive in the spare time doesn't really add much value. It's only viable because they are dumping money in the market to subsidize it.
Uber could co-exist with taxis. In many cities you can hail a regulated cab with the app.
While the other comment is particularly snarky, and while modern day racism is less overt than activities like lynching, it still exists.
As an easy example from recent news, a Texas judge posting on facebook that it was "time for a tree and a rope" (which is an implied lynching)[0].
[0] - http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/judge-m...
"Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
(https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...)
They always dance this weird line between "the deep state run by the rich are destroying this country for their profit" and "people should be allowed to make money however they want, and do whatever they want with that money."
The prior sentence refers to inheritance, so it's clearly about personal property also (if not exclusively). But if someone inherits a Porsche, in what way is it supposed to serve the public good?
Also, the following sentence discusses expropriation (which appears to be what is known in the US as eminent domain). And the title of the section is "Property — Inheritance — Expropriation".
I wonder if this means this section (including the intriguing sentence you quoted) is just talking about rules for inheriting and expropriating property. That is, perhaps it's not a general rule for property to serve the public good (just that it may be called to do so in cases of expropriation).
I would be very interested to know how other people interpret this sentence and the section in which it's found.
So paragraph 1 guarantees property and inheritance. And makes both subject to limitations, set out by law (freedom of art, for example, is not limited by laws, at least not literally in the text of the constitution).
Paragraph 2 lays out one such limitation: social benefit.
Paragraph 3 lays out a means to achieve that: expropriation (exceedingly rare, I think it is sometimes used for huge infrastructure projects like Autobahnen or railroad tracks, but only after years of negotiations).
So it is indeed a general rule, not a detail to expropriation.
To your question about the limits on paragraph 2 let me just throw in a bit from the German Wikipedia, without having checked it:
* Not all property is subject to this limit to the basic right to property, but only such property that has "social relevance"
I would interpret it so that apartments and housing are clearly having social relevance, but your Porsche probably hasn't.
Furthermore:
* Those limitations to the basic right to property must be rooted in fomal law, not just regulations or jurisprudence.
What I mean is, I think history has shown that the "best" definition of property (as in, which one has the best outcomes for society) is one that's "mostly private". Full Communism clearly doesn't work very well, but an absolutely inviolate right to private property carries all kinds of problems too, so instead most countries have settled on a flexible definition where there is private property with an enumerated set of restrictions and limitations (which a hardcore Lockean can't do, because to them property is absolute). The sentence in the constitution seems like a reminder of this when it comes time for a constitutional judge to evaluate a particular law, which I think is right - a constitution can't cover every possible situation, it should be a set of guidelines for entering unfamiliar territory.
There is also Article 20, saying in part: "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
So the social obligation of property isn't a fluke, but more a consequence of this provision.
The "social" is really important here and it is being interpreted as a real duty of the state to achieve social welfare. And it is so central to our constitution that it is protected by the "eternity clause" in Article 79:
"Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible."
And of course, changes like this would be likely to happen in political environments that don't care about these things.
(Teleological interpretation)
No. No one is asking for Uber to go away. I just want Uber to follow the rule of law and operate lawfully, just like most of their competitors.
If there are unfair taxi medallion restrictions in cities, remove the unfair restrictions. Uber should never get to just ignore laws they don't like, for the same reason you and I don't get to do so.
Uber isn't the single pillar carrying the transportation world forward - they forced a change, yes, but inertia will keep such competition going. There is no need for Uber and all the baggage that comes with it. It has been shown clearly that others can and will fill any hole Uber leaves.
They're part of a huge step backwards for employee's rights. They might have a good app, but from all the people I know who've used Uber, they use them primarily because they're cheap. They're cheap because their drivers aren't paid well enough and because they evade taxes. Their appropriation of the phrase "sharing economy" is in my opinion spin to avoid the responsibility any employer has towards their employees.
As for "Uber drivers can just quit", I think that's a very simplistic argument. Uber are pricing competitors out of the market (using venture capital!), turning what used to be a fairly decent job into something that's barely enough to scrape by on. The people likely to driver for Uber likely don't have as many options, and probably fewer by the day as jobs that don't require are lot of skills are increasingly being turned into temporary jobs and platform gigs. I'm from Scandinavia, which has a very high degree of social cohesion and low economic inequality, and I see it very mch as a regression and a danger to society.
That hasn't been true in the US. In NYC Uber drivers make $30/hr and don't have to work under the existing exploitative Taxi system where they could actually lose money on an unprofitable day. Also, Uber has brought car service to smaller cities (e.g. Mountain View) where there used to be no Taxi system at all (in fact airport taxis would price gouge you for going SFO -> South Bay). Maybe Europe is different but I don't think you can make blanket statements like that.
"Driving a Taxi, Difficult in Best of Times, Gets Tougher"
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...
[1] well some of their car lease deals seem sorta like locking people people in. But I don't know enough about them.
You might think that's ok, but in societies where we have agreed that having people go without healthcare or housing, or letting people starve is unacceptable, predatory employers end up in effect subsidised by the state, and those subsidies hurt both tax payers and more ethically run competitors.
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/24/one-uber-drivers-story-...
This part in particular:
> When Brunelle got home, he realized he had signed a loan with a 22.75 percent interest rate. That means he will end up paying around $49,000 on a Kia Optima that normally retails for about $25,000.
It really makes me question the morals of the person or people who signed off on both of these.
Edit: I mean, the loans are terrible enough, and then they try to make the same drivers redundant? Disgraceful.
Another likely possibility is that people often think their cost to drive someone is just gas ignoring cost of of car registration, insurance, car maintenance etc. Ignoring other costs the Uber's pay seem attractive.
Why is the choice about going back? I want to move forward into a world with driver-owned Ubers (aka platform cooperatives). I like ride hailing apps, I don't like how Uber is a vehicle for VCs to extract rent from drivers.
But, some of my recent experiences with taxi have been (both in New York):
- Asking at the airport for a Taxi where we could pay with card, since we had no cash. Finding out at the hotel that the driver had it disconnected and refusing to put it on since "it wasn't working". It ended up with him driving me to an ATM to get cash to pay him.
- Going from the center to LaGuardia, checking the route on Google Maps it's clear that the driving is taking us for a ride. When confronted he asks us cheekily if we are from around there (no, but we can read a map).
Note that both occurrences cannot possibly happen with Uber (since you are given the fee at the start and payment is transparent).
It's possible I'll have bad experiences with Uber/Lyft, but no, I wouldn't go back to a world without it, I wish they would be given fair legal status, and made to follow these laws like other services.
Yeah, totally. I want a world in which taxi drivers can actually earn a living rather than scraping by with double shifts for Uber, Lyft and every other gig-economy vampire to come out of Silicon Valley.
Because, you know, chronic job insecurity and ever-sliding standards of living fucking suck.
I think it's disingenuous to suggest that there's no middleground to between complying with regulations and providing poor service.
There's definitely an argument to be made that the laws should be rewritten to be more conducive to competition while maintaining consumer protections, but let's not pretend that Uber isn't a taxi service and doesn't deserve to be treated as such.
This seems very different from my experience in Athens two weeks ago. According to Google maps, getting from the city to the airport by car takes around 40 minutes by car and the alternative of taking the train costs 10 euros per person for the same amount of time. Paying around 40 euros seems reasonable for such a long trip if you have more than one person.
Honestly, as a tourist I absolutely fucking hate taking taxis :-/
That said, the service I get from black taxis is routinely better.
As for other incentives: They get dictated improvements and failing to make the required changes will cost them their license.
This is how it works in a lot of places and there Uber is just one company among others - and I don't see how they are revolutionary. The other taxi companies also have prepay, books and tracks with an app etc.
I work in London, so Uber is not really much use to me. I live on the outskirts of London (technically London but a few miles out and TfL cease to exist. It's bordering on rural) and the local cab companies/public transport work just fine for everything I need. I grew up in a not small, but not giant town and Uber is no more useful or cost efficient than the local taxis (public transport os horrible though).
So sure. If Uber vanish tomorrow it'll make zero impact on my life beyond not having that particular train crash to watch in the media. In fact, I'd prefer Uber die unless they start being lawful/stop being asshats and stop this crappy "but the rules are in our waaaaay!" attitude.
>> have to gains shipped off to billionaires in California?
The more I think about it, the more I see economic efficiency as a double-edged sword. Too little of it, and you have bad services and lots of waste. Too much of it, and people involved in delivering goods and services spend most of their lives working and yet can barely get by.
As long as it's people who work in businesses, we need to keep in mind that they want to live a happy life too.
It makes transport more expensive. Uber makes it cheaper.
It's a bit like Tesla. Tesla has turned electric cars into something cool and edgy, but if it were to go under tomorrow it wouldn't even slow the pace of electric car adoption.
Yes. I would be fine with that. I lived in London for 13 years and never used Uber. Black cabs provide an excellent, if somewhat expensive, service. Minicabs, effectively licensed private car carriage, filled any gaps at an excellent price point for pre-booked rides.
I now live in a medium sized continental European city with no Uber service.
My life will continue just fine without them.
For sure, honestly the sooner it is gone the better. I would not mind a similar service existing but done right, not tricking driver into the service through unsustainable subsidy while pushing employee to suicide and denying claim to the family, spying on users to overcharge, going rogue and illegal to avoid law enforcement, the list goes on and on.
It can be done in a human and respectful way but uber seem to have other priorities.
Uber drivers are clearly not contractors by any useful definition. All taxi companies should be regulated the same. We don't want regulatory arbitrage to be the main competitive advantage of new companies just because they call themselves tech companies.
Surely, that doesn't mean we have to defend the sort of ridiculous protectionism that taxi companies enjoy in some cities.
The idea that anyone can be an uber driver doesn't help me the passenger much, as long as I can get a ride.
OK, I get that in the US taxis are notoriously bad and generally older cars (and no Mercedes). But UberX just substitutes beat down American cars for a beat-down Prius, Kia and smaller cars. How great is that win?
I don't think the haughty arrogant attitude of Uber is good for any society.
If companies can't provide their service without flouting employment law they shouldn't exist. It might make my life a bit more inconvenient but I'd rather that than a lot of people getting exploited. Employment laws exist for a reason - to protect people.
They brought this negative focus on themselves by not respecting local laws and ordinances. It's unfortunate, but after Uber takes on the brunt of the backlash, another ride-hailing company will swoop in, respect the laws, and reap the rewards.
That's the risk you run when your philosophy is move fast, break stuff, and ignore all the rules.
How about Uber for drug dealers? Or Uber for prostitution? Why stop at illegal taxis/ride sharing?
While you are enjoying the rides and Uber the real profits: have you ever stopped to think about drivers who are being fined $1,000's/ even arrested for nothing more than being an Uber driver? Or the fact that Uber turns around and fires these drivers for not effectively evading the law?
And your kids underleveraged child labor to be exploited in the sharing economy...hey you're just a tech company nothing to see here.
yes and yes, prohibition is idiotic and does not work, so legalize and tax this shit
And no I don't think drivers are always aware and no i don't expect them to do legal research on a city, county and national level to determine whether being an Uber driver is unlawful. As a mater of fact I don't expect any employee/contractor to have the burden of performing legal research if their job duties are lawful because it is unlawful for any employer(Uber) to enter into contracts with employees/contractors (drivers) to perform illegal acts. So in short no I don't drivers know what's best for themselves when they break the law to work for Uber for a few bucks per legal violation, much less the real cost of getting a criminal record and losing their Uber job.
And yes I think governments are needed to pass laws that carry penalties, generally I think that's called civilized society, how long do you think you would last in a world without laws.
yes. Please. Please give me a world without Uber / AirBNB / Whatever is the hip unicorn of the year.
It's all just a bunch of shit.
It's hard to tell if you are being ironic here.
Uber/Lyft's main innovation is creating a way to increase and decrease the supply of drivers when needed.
Blaming it on the entrenched taxi interests is a lazy and narrow narrative.
It's always been ridiculous to me that America lets companies self-opt-out of the rules and laws, just because they feel like it.
> As a supplier of a transport service, Uber may be liable for value-added-tax, or VAT, imposed on businesses that supply goods and services.
I can't imagine the stress, even if alot of it is self induced, that the company is under right now. You have to feel some level of empathy for the company's employees.
Most of them probably came from other well paying jobs and were already counting their option payouts int heir heads.
It's easily conceivable at this point that Uber could IPO well under its $50+ billion private valuation.
Top things I would do even though I'm wildly unqualified to give Travis advice..........
1) Drop self driving cars completely. YOu aren't getting there first, second, or anywhere close to third, just partner with a car company and call it a day.
2) Settle Google's lawsuit, hopefully 1 will help
3) Hire a new CEO, Sheryl Sandberg is almost certainly not available but someone who can show that change will and is happening internally.
I'm trying to, but as you said, a lot of it is self-inflicted. In fact, it's been extremely clear for many years now that Uber is a morally bankrupt company, so it's hard to say anything but "what goes around, comes around".
It's almost like stock options are monopoly money 99.9% of the time
Most of them probably came from other well paying jobs and were already counting their option payouts int heir heads.
Uber doesn't skimp on talent, so most of those employees will likely be able to get new, better jobs, elsewhere. Lyft, perhaps. And even before all of these scandals, it sounded like Uber mgmt. forged some bad golden handcuffs that would screw their employees' option payouts:
https://www.quora.com/Uber-in-2015-How-do-most-Uber-employee...
You realize that it's literally impossible to become profitable if they don't have self driving cars, right?
I think the burden of proof is significantly on your side for this claim.
I'm confused as to why you think that partnering with a car company won't work.
I mean, if your statement is true then Uber is worth zero if you believe they won't be able to manufacture their own self driving car, and I don't see anyone credible who believes they will. All the analysts I see point to htem partnering with someone, which is what I suggested:)
It would significantly devalue the company if they can't. What value would Uber actually provide then? How hard would it be for Lyft to just do the same thing then?
how many of those employees thought the drivers were getting a good deal under uber?
And lose all investors.
That said, there is a high chance that the court sides with the opinion. From the article:
> A final decision in the case is expected before the end of the year. While guidance from the Advocate General is not binding, the court typically rules in similar fashion.
So here you have Uber, which has always been in the business of ferrying people around, but tries hard to separate itself from the business of ferrying people around. "We're not a transportation company, we're an app." "They're not employees of Uber, they're contractors." "They're not taxis, it's ride-sharing." "Uber's not liable for this tax, the driver is." It's not us, we're not the ones, we're not doing it, we're not involved, we're not responsible. The ultimate schism between the doer and the act. They're not exactly rushing forward to integrate the whole system under a unifying banner of Quality, are they?
If anything they're the epitome of the rationalist/analytic view of reality complete with all its schisms, all of which results in the kind of drab ugliness (on the human end mostly) that makes people want to shoot themselves in the face. Ugliness (poor quality) papered over with cheap stylistic embellishments that make it "not just depressingly dull, [but] also phony."
Forcing licenses doesn't restrict the number of possible drivers? In my country most licenses are held by cartels who don't let any new incumbents in the market.
Also there are some who don't want to be taxi drivers but just do this in off time in the weekends. In my country people that drive for Uber need to have either a juridic registration either as a company or as an authorized person and since Uber has forced online transactions, predetermined pay and a review system, the tax evasion is nonexistent, there is no pay cheating and the drivers behave (as opposed to the taxi drivers who due to cash transactions do a lot of tax evasion, temper with the registering devices and don't care about customer feedback even refusing rides based on tipping).
I hope that if the legislation changes then it also brings the old system to the 21st century.
This here would be primarily clarifying that Uber is the one offering the service, fulfilling it using contractors, and can't claim that the contractor is directly offering to the passenger, and they just provide a place for the two to find each other.
If that "transportation service" is covered by local laws about Taxis/cars-for-hire/... is not something discussed at this level (and if the answer is yes, then if it is in compliance with them), as far as I understand. The ECJ was asked to clarify on the platform-vs-service-provider point, not the local issue of what specific kind of provider they are and what rules apply to them.
It doesn't look on demand, or anything really like a taxi service, so it's quite unlike Uber or other taxi services.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-most-dangerous-machine/
Note: This is a rehash of 2 earlier podcasts.
This is speculation, not news.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/06/...
Just in case it isn't clear, Uber is just the easy whipping boy because of bad PR
Umm, no. I defended Uber in its early days against the unethical actors int he taxi industry, and it would be hypocritical of me to ignore Uber's own apparent lack of ethics.
Your parade of horribles is manipulative, to put it mildly. I can't help wondering to what extent you're financially rather than just emotionally invested in the firm.
Your comments have become increasingly uncivil lately. Would you please fix that? This one, in particular, crosses a line into personal attack that's not allowed. Surely you've seen one of my bazillion comments about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR....
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317517 and marked it off-topic.
But as you'll see if you scroll back through those comments (not that I recommend them), it's a big deal and a consistent one.
One of pg's most famous essays, The submarine, identifies the phenomenon of apparently disinterested reportage or commentary actually being engineered by those who are commercially interested in a particular point of view gaining popularity.
I reject your claim of incivility and stand by the legitimacy of my inquiry. I have always made a point of preemptively declaring an interest or lack of same when it appeared my comments might be read as advocacy on behalf of a specific firm.
Since you've detached this from the discussion I'm going to go ahead and say that I am having increasing doubts about your neutrality as a moderator.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=http:%2F%2Fwww.paulgraham.com%...
In the overwhelming majority of the cases it's cited, it's used mostly to suck the oxygen out of a discussion, so that rather than discussing the merits of an argument, we're instead required to first resolve the motives of the people making the argument.
I think you should keep declaring your interests in controversies! That's a good thing. I try to do that too. But I'm sure you've seen instances on HN of people litigating this issue and it making for stupid, angry, pointless flame wars. Even if you're very careful about when you deploy this challenge, the rules have to work for the median HN commenter, not just the super careful ones.
Shortly afterwards:
I also think Dan is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good by not updating the guidelines to say this directly and announcing the change --- I know that's because they have bigger plans for the guidelines, but it would save everyone some time to make this incremental change anyways.
We're not asking you to follow any rules that don't apply to everybody here. Conversely, you do have to follow them, just like everybody else.
That doesn't require ad hominem, nor unsubstantiated accusations of financial ties.
As an obsessive HN comment reader, I would say I've noted your comments taking on an increased sense of vigor of late (don't mean to be creepy, but I read a lot of comments). Maybe browse your recent /threads and see if you agree?
You're not wrong about my comments being a bit more charged lately. I have my reasons for this but whether they're well-founded remains to be seen. It's a difficult needle to thread.
Has the law actually reduced the usage of third party tracking?
For what its worth, they did "disrupt" the economies in question and made the incumbents appreciate the consumer more, but also profited highly from it. Now its time to stop the free lunch and even the playing field.
I wonder if it makes sense to charge the drivers a "listing fee" and somehow have the transaction happen directly between the rider and driver. It seems like they'd be further away from being a taxi company if they did that.
Their best bet is for the users to be the one breaking the law: If you fine a million people you'll just be voted out of office.
I wonder why they even need to "operate" in Europe at all. Local servers reduce latency, but aren't strictly necessary. I guess there's payment processing with a local bank, but foreign credit card transactions are a thing.