Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The gentleman in the video has a couple of good points (and it is likely that Uber will eventually get regulated). That being said, the premise here seems to be confused on a number of issues.

+ "Unsafe everything, assaults [and] kidnappings" are in fact already illegal. More regulation will not make them more illegal. Claiming we need a taxicab commission to enforce basic laws is a non-sequitur of breathtaking scope.

+ There was a vibe that Uber will compromise the customer experience to make more money. This is nonsense, uber is operating in a cut-throat environment where any cost savings will be passed directly to consumers who are getting what they pay for. As one questioner pointed out at the end, Uber isn't actually making a profit. Any cuts in quality are being passed on to the customer in reduced fares.

+ Insufficient insurance. This one is one that is up for debate; but the message of 'insurance good, profit bad' is probably oversimplifying the issue and likely pushing an outcome where everyone has to pay more for transport without a proportional improvement in outcomes. The speaker might feel better about that, but I doubt the Uber passengers would.

+ "Unsafe everything, assaults [and] kidnappings" are in fact already illegal. More regulation will not make them more illegal. Claiming we need a taxicab commission to enforce basic laws is a non-sequitur of breathtaking scope.

Indeed they are already illegal, however adequate checks are not done on those who want to be people driver. That effect of not actually doing due diligence does allow much higher incidence of bad actors in positions of power.

+ There was a vibe that Uber will compromise the customer experience to make more money. This is nonsense, uber is operating in a cut-throat environment where any cost savings will be passed directly to consumers who are getting what they pay for.

Bullshit. They have one of the hottest stock request IPOs out there. A year ago their estimated market cap was $50B. Now its estimated at $70B. Sure doesn't sound like a no-profit company.

+As one questioner pointed out at the end, Uber isn't actually making a profit. Any cuts in quality are being passed on to the customer in reduced fares.

Hollywood accounting. And foregoing profit to starve the market is also a perfectly valid strategy. In other words, the lack of profit is intentional and easily reversed at will.

> Indeed they are already illegal, however adequate checks are not done on those who want to be people driver. That effect of not actually doing due diligence does allow much higher incidence of bad actors in positions of power.

You're going to need actual statistics for that. Claiming that we can detect a class of people who are acceptable citizens except under the specific circumstance that they are acting as a chauffeur isn't a reasonable position. Either they are dangerous and should be locked up or they aren't. Their status as a taxicab driver isn't going to be relevant. They would be just as dangerous if they were unemployed, if not more so.

> Bullshit. They have one of the hottest stock request IPOs out there. A year ago their estimated market cap was $50B. Now its estimated at $70B. Sure doesn't sound like a no-profit company.

Pretty sure the profit line is in the red for 2017. You might find yourself on the wrong side of the facts here, even if they don't conform to your worldview.

> Hollywood accounting.

Always willing to be corrected, but Hollywood accounting is a fairly specific practice where they claim specific projects made a loss so they don't have to pay the actors, but the profits still appear in a different part of a controlled conglomerate.

What you are alleging is tax fraud, which is also illegal as it happens. And, again, nothing to do with regulation of the taxi industry, in America I believe it is an issue for the the IRS. Companies in competitive markets have a lousy track record of unilaterally deciding their profits need to be higher. Its investors believe Uber can make a profit, but there isn't any evidence of that yet. They are taking a pretty substantial risk.

You make a lot of good points but I question this,

> And foregoing profit to starve the market is also a perfectly valid strategy. In other words, the lack of profit is intentional and easily reversed at will.

If they start raising rates what stops their customer base from migrating? I see how companies capture their community and there is friction to move, such as Facebook or even Twitter or Reddit.

I don't see the same loyalty to Uber. My speculation is the real decider will be self driving vehicles and I have no inside knowledge of how far these companies are but I also think there is an issue of superficial good enough vs true self sufficient (and safe) driving vehicles.

I would bet on Waymo over Uber, I just don't see how the business model of subsidized fares is sustainable or easily reversible without creating space in the market for competitors (and self driving is on the horizon).

>Bullshit. They have one of the hottest stock request IPOs out there. A year ago their estimated market cap was $50B. Now its estimated at $70B. Sure doesn't sound like a no-profit company.

So, Uber has outperformed Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC's one-time market cap of $64B.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com