Hacker News Reader

Comment by xivzgrev | Hacker News Reader

He’s dead serious.

Uber got its start by flouting taxi rules. By the time the backlash started uber/lyft were too popular for governments to shut down so instead most governments created an awkward different category for them, so there’s at least some regulation applying to them.

If Uber had tried to work thru the regulation they would have never gotten off the ground or have been as loved by users. Taxis in many ways suck, and that was their opening.

Speaking of which…Uber is a master of regulatory influence. When California threatened to classify their drivers as employees, they successfully passed a proposition (prop 22) with the California public that promised more benefits for drivers…but kept them as independent contractors.

View on HN

>Uber got its start by flouting taxi rules.

No they got their start because the yellow cabs were late, never arrived, started their timer before I even got into the car, took me a long routes to my destination. It was waaaay worse with yellow cabs. And when I first heard of Uber, I immediately switched.

I may be in the minority, but I’m a happy Uber/Lyft customer.

Taxis only got that way because of the rules that created an artificial scarcity / monopoly on Taxi rides. Uber flouted those rules, and it was much better than a Taxi, so their lawyers cleaned up the mess later.

I don’t think your statement conflicts with the other users statement.

What about Google itself? Store content from billions of websites in your own index without permission and show snippets from those sites to your own users, making yourself into “the source” of all answers when, in reality, it’s all just scraped from other people’s sites? Imagine pitching that idea to copyright lawyers back in 1999.

Yes, and that was litigated and ruled in favor of Google, because search engines provide links back to the original content, so there’s a mutual benefit. Using copyrighted material for AI does not provide links back to the original sources, so that’s where it is not covered under the ruling.

So... move fast and break laws.

Yes, and just pay the law makers off

Not really. Taxi medallions are required to let you pick up someone else that hails you on the street. It is not required for a drive scheduled elsewhere like over the phone or the Internet. They weren't breaking laws, at least in the US.

Most of the regulations applied to Uber were new regulations introduced after their ride to popularity, often crafted with the express purpose of curbing Lyft and Uber.

> Not really. Taxi medallions are required to let you pick up someone else that hails you on the street. It is not required for a drive scheduled elsewhere like over the phone or the Internet. They weren't breaking laws, at least in the US.

Maybe not in the US, but Uber was (at one point) banned in multiple locations in (at least) Europe because they flagrantly ignoring existing laws.

In some locations, like Netherlands, Uber was fined and told it was illegal, but continued service anyway up until their offices were raided, then they finally shut down.

You're definitely misremembering history, then. Hailing is certainly a "category definer", but what Uber was doing in the beginning was definitely not kosher in many US jurisdictions.

Ordering on-demand in an app was seen by regulators as much more taxi-like than scheduling a black car for a particular date, time, and place.

Uber was originally called "Ubercab", and changed their name specifically to attempt to distance themselves from traditional taxi service.

> Ordering on-demand in an app was seen by regulators as much more taxi-like than scheduling a black car for a particular date, time, and place.

Regulators tried to reinterpret existing laws to placate an interest group. Most cities has explicit laws around this: responding to someone hailing on the street required a medallion. Scheduling a ride via the internet did not.

This is why they had to pass new laws to try and stamp out taxi's competition.

But is it really "scheduling" a ride if the target time is "right now"?

It sounds to me like what they cared about was the distinction between "now" and "plan for later", and the way this was actually implemented in the laws turned out to be based on inaccurate assumptions.

> But is it really "scheduling" a ride if the target time is "right now"?

The ride is usually at least a few minutes from the present time. And again, the medallions are only required to respond to people hailing on the street. This is why cities trying to obstruct Uber had to pass new laws, not just enforce existing ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com