Comment by eh78ssxv2f | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eh78ssxv2f | Hacker News Reader

May be I am being too naive, but can somebody answer two questions for me here (note: I have no personal relationship with Uber or Lyft except that I like ride sharing services more than traditional taxis):

(1) Taxi industry has been using medallion system to create artificial scarcity and scam passengers by providing low quality service at higher prices. And, this scam has been running with the help of local politicians at false pretexts (too many taxis ruin the look and appeal of the city etc.). What exactly are Uber's options in a city where the scam is supported by politicians?

(2) I personally know a lot of cities where Uber sued or used other means to force the local politicians to open up the city for ride sharing services. This benefited not only Uber, but other ride sharing companies too such as Lyft. If we believe that Uber used unethical means to get in many of the cities, what ethical responsibilities do we expect from Lyft? Should Lyft stay away from these cities or is it ethical for them to take a dip in these unethical gains provided by Uber?

(1) Only some cities use medallions. Many do not. Many more have little to zero taxi presence - you won't see cabs waiting on city streets to pick folks up. Gotta call to get one and wait. But there is a slew of other regulations to follow - such as having a special category of drivers license. The options for Uber are to follow laws or work on changing them if they want to work legally. In my opinion, this is Lyft's greatest strength. They tend to work with others.

(2) Suing isn't illegal, and a valid form of getting things changed. And sure, others can benefit from this way of working with instead of against the system, just like a ruling on gay marriage isn't limited to the one couple that sued. Or like civil rights aren't limited to the few that caused problems. Asking Lyft to stay away because the market was helped by someone else doing things isn't exactly fair (Lyft has been going into markets as well and trying to change things, so I refuse to give all credit to Uber. Uber simply gets more press).

Lawsuits aren't really the thing that is unethical, though. We expect companies to not spy. Not outright break the law. Treat people equally. and so on. This applies to lyft as well as Uber.

”What exactly are Uber's options in a city where the scam is supported by politicians?”

The management could always open up a pizza company.

If your business model sucks because it depends on regulators giving you a break, that’s on you. No business has the right to be profitable, that’s how capitalism works.

If Uber however lawfully changes the regulations with the help of the court system, they need to understand they aren’t a special snowflake that are the only ones allowed in on the market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com