Uber triumphant
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
1. Create a service that people love, flouting or violating local regulations.
2. Rely on user outrage to get the regulations changed.
3. Profit.
It's frustrating that there's a regulatory model that makes it necessary to do this in order to innovate, but I'm glad to see it working out for Uber.
I honestly get a little tired of Uber, Airbnb, et al, who found startups pursuing models that turn their customers into unknowing accomplices in order to execute and gain traction. And then abuse the rest of the startup community just to gain press attention. It is profoundly unfair to take advantage of ethical lapses and should not be rewarded.
Why isn't it the case that part of the proof for VCs for businesses of dubious legality is the advocacy of regulatory reform early in product development rather than paying for hot air punditry in media that makes everyone look bad after the fact? Is it because any advocacy they pay for would only help competition giving away lead time?
I don't disagree that heavy-handed overregulation is a bad thing, but we are going to face more of it not less if recent history is any indication. Seems like some better strategies are needed.
No, the way it's supposed to work, as we're taught in civics, is to adhere to the laws as they currently exist, and if we want them changed, to get deeply involved in city council meetings until we can beg the council members, who have no understanding of the unseen costs and missed opportunities of the current system, and are typically in league with a local guild, to grant us special permits to do our innovative activity.
On the way, we're supposed to develop our own political faction, and eventually get powerful enough to figure we can use the city regulatory apparatus to hold back our own enemies.
Because we wouldn't want to risk people having a subpar experience from one of these upstarts, in contrast to the consistently ideal service we get from city-blessed operators. Or something.
That's the main reason I believe private entrepreneurs can have a bigger say in making the world a better place than governments, and starting a business is better than going into politics if you want to change something.
Some regulations are necessary. They ensure that we don't usually get feces in our food, etc. But this is a clear case of legislation directly interfering with competition.
I'm wondering what the regulatory fallout will be when Uber suffers their first (unfortunately apparently inevitable) rape incident.
It sounds like you've cited something that's technically true without any context, so it's unclear as to whether there is a trend, or if it's just hysteria.
I predict that driver-on-passenger crime will be less frequent, and easier to prosecute, in such a system, compared to the traditional-licensed taxis sector. And also: compared to 'gypsy' cabs that successfully pretend to be licensed cabs, because of supply and authentication problems inherent to the traditional system (but obsoleted by Uber-like services).
So if/when an unfortunate event occurs, the right response will likely be: his new system is already doing better than the traditionally-regulated category, and so no special regulations are needed – just vigorous investigation and prosecution of individual crimes.
This statement is completely impractical. I can't think of a single law that does not affect the markets in some way. By its nature, any regulation requires proof of compliance on the part of the regulated party. This will always create some costs, at least in time spent, to the regulated party. Since "established players", by virtue of being established, have more resources at their disposal, they can comply more easily than upstarts with much more limited time and money on their hands. Hence, any regulation will stifle innovation to some extent while benefiting the established players.
Creating and updating regulations for the benefit of the majority is exactly what democracy is supposed to do most efficiently. Taking that right away from the government would be tantamount to taking the government away entirely.
10 years ago taxi regulations were not stifling innovation enough to be detrimental to the majority. Over the past few months they have. Then they were updated democratically. The system worked.