Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jgrubb | Hacker News Reader

It's fucking unbelievable to me in 2013 that there are still so many businesses who just don't get it. Y'know your profitable 20th century business model? The internet is coming for it, and you can either get on board or you can get crushed out of existence.

I just can't fathom why these idiot cab companies wouldn't just copy the service that Uber provides, which is a really basic idea nowadays.

Build an app that summons your cab. Problem solved. Competitor thwarted. Stop trying to hide behind lawsuits or you'll end up just like these sad sacks in the music business.

View on HN

As a regular HN reader the number one thing I've learned about business from the comments people post here is that every business is so nuanced that applying sweeping generalisations without any domain knowledge is ultimately pointless. HN has so many smart, knowledgeable and experienced people in every business you can imagine that you should take the opportunity to learn why Boston Cab Dispatch are doing this. Furthermore the issue Boston Cab Dispatch has (as explained in the article) is not that Uber has an app, it's that Uber is breaking cab regulations that Boston Cab Dispatch must abide by if they want to continue to operate.

    Barenholtz pointed out that Boston Cab also has a smart phone app, 
    but nevertheless has to comply with industry regulations.

If those regulations actually protected riders and cabbies instead of entrenched cab company profits, don't you think Uber would have folded by now under the weight of consumer complaints? By giving the rules a run-around, Uber has done a great job of proving the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of those rules in the first place.

Taxis have existed for more than half a century, the current regulations are built around the current model and are the culmination of over 50 years of knowledge, to discount the value of those regulations because a new company is having success by ignoring them is a mistake, just like it's a mistake for the regulations to not be revisited in light of the options new technology is creating.

What Uber is doing is interesting but there are real problems that need to be addressed, labelling every opponent in the business as "idiots" ignores the problems. Let's say hypothetically Uber becomes the biggest source of taxis in Boston, they drive out the incumbent "idiot" companies[1] that can't compete with the service Uber provides and then once Uber has an 80% market share they decide to increase their prices 50%? They decide to ban rides of less than 1 mile because that is hurting their bottom line? They decide that if you want to ride in an Uber cab you need to provide ID and have your fingerprints taken in case of crime? If they're a company built around ignoring regulations and have effectively killed all alternatives, then what? People can't just boycott Uber, because they have no other choices.

The current taxi companies cannot compete with Uber; if they try to they will lose their licenses to operate and they're not big enough to swallow the losses and evolve into an Uber alternative... by ignoring regulations Uber is making it impossible for anyone to compete. The regulations now are not perfect, as many articles have explained there are problems with them (such as restricted licensing to operate, huge start up costs...) but just ignoring them is not the solution.

As others have pointed out in this thread, there are ways to innovate within the taxi business while respecting the regulations and there are businesses doing that now, if Uber wants to genuinely protect consumer interests in the long term they should be pushing for the regulations to be addressed; not ignoring them and putting consumers at risk in the long term.

[1] Companies that have identified the regulations as not being perfect.

You can have a general law against monopolies (or near monopolies), e.g. if a company gets 80% of the market share, then the company is regulated. You don't need to proactively use regulation to prevent that from happening, because the chances are that the regulation is not necessary and factually speaking decreases competition.

I agree about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however what prevents other Uber-like competitors from popping up to compete with the evil-Uber you describe?

How do you capture the market in taxi rides in an unregulated market? It isn't like a telecom where there is only so much physical infrastructure.

The regulations are not there to protect consumers. They are there to protect the existing cab companies from competition. It is instructive to note that it is not the consumers who are suing Uber, it is the cab companies.

Yes, it very likely that the regulations have worked great so far and that the customers have gotten used to its benefits and accept the status quo as a given natural state of nature.

Its very unlikely that customers will complain if a law isn't framed and they are enjoying a benefit. Customers will complain later though, once something goes wrong.

If the internet is going to crush your business by avoiding rules you are legally bound to, then yeah, I think you have a right to complain.

Uber (or whoever does Uber's PR) does a fantastic job of making every single one of their legal problems look the same. They really aren't.

Cab companies and local government have had a good thing going. The cab companies pay the government big fees and in return the government keeps out competition, forcing consumers to have to pay above market rates. Uber threatens this model and this is why they are having legal problems.

From what I've read, the taxi companies are mad that Uber's cars are acting as taxi's, but aren't paying the upfront cost to get a medallion, use a meter, that sort of thing. It's not the app that is causing problem, it's the unfair playing field.

Especially when you consider that they're not going after Hailo, who are operating in Boston. Hailo's drivers are licensed taxi drivers.

I find the two companies to be really interesting: they're both competing for roughly the same space (especially now Uber switched to a meter rate model in Boston), but Hailo takes a much more 'softly softly' approach. I suspect one reason for this is that Hailo's been co-founded by taxi drivers, so they're probably more sympathetic to existing market concerns.

That information is in TFA, but you have to click over to the second page of it to read it. That pisses me off just as much as the taxi companies using protectionist tactics to protect their outdated business model.

Decisions to bury important information like the legal reasons of why the taxi companies are suing is why I think that most media companies are fundamentally broken.

I'm no student of journalism, but shouldn't best practice include guidelines like: "Make the best case for every side of an argument as soon as possible in an article. Do not bury important points that could be made early on in order to force the reader to turn the page or give the impression that one side is being favored."

Paragraph 4 on the first page:

"The taxi company argues Uber operates a taxi service without bothering with any of the rules and regulations that govern the industry."

I too hate the page breaks in order to get more eyes on more adds - but this article seems fairly balanced to me.

Granted, they put that vague line in there on the first page, but really all of the meat that made the taxi companies look like greedy corporatists protecting their turf was on the first page.

I still think that slanting articles - whether it's to get ad views or whether it's to express the bias of the reporter/publication is highly unethical and should be called out wherever possible.

"Unfair playing field" is exactly what taxi companies have built for themselves erecting government hurdles to keep out competition. Why are medallions necessary to protect the public? They are not. They are necessary to protect the above-market rates charged by the taxi companies.

I'm totally down with that part of the argument, but wouldn't it be a complete non-issue if it were as easy to hail a normal cab as it should be in 2013?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com