Hacker News Reader

I'm not big on buzzwords or vague subjective terms like "disruption," "innovative," or "cool." I also won't deny that Uber and other ridesharing services clearly violate laws (at least in some jurisdictions). But I don't believe that the fact that they violate laws means that they're not providing a valuable product. That's mostly because I don't believe that all laws which ostensibly protect consumers actually do.

> What the fuck is innovative about facilitating unlicensed taxi drivers in private cars?

Again, I'm not really concerned about the term "innovative." But what is good for me, the consumer of these services is that I can get a ride more conveniently, reliably, and inexpensively than I could from a traditional taxi or other commercial car service. And of course ridesharing apps are newer than taxis. If you define "innovative" as "newer and better," then I guess ridesharing services are "innovative."

Other consumers surely have different preferences, which is fine, but I do not care about licenses or who owns the cars. I care about the actual product I get, and I invariably (so far) get a better experience with ridesharing services than with traditional taxis. Now granted, I use Lyft and Sidecar over Uber, mostly just because of UI preferences with their iPhone apps. I'm speaking about the ridesharing industry as a whole rather than Uber specifically.

The gist of your argument seems to be one of two things. Either you dislike companies which violate any regulations, or you dislike companies which violate regulations that you approve of (with taxi regulations being one example). I disagree with both premises.

First off, let me say that I want someone to please counter my argument. I have been unable to see a valid counterargument so far.

I've thought about this quite a bit, anytime I see someone use the phrase 'disrupt an established company,' I assume they're talking about barely skirting the law through the use of hazy, gray areas. And an app.

The only 'innovation' in (most of) these companies is the same 'innovation' that this site screams about when it's on the part of patent trolls; I will do X, but now I will do X with a smart phone or computer. That's not innovative, it's lazy.

It would be super easy for giant companies to meet the same prices if they were able to ignore laws. That's not competition, it's cheating.

Its hard to counter an argument that includes vague terms like "most".

Some companies do what you're describing.

Some companies who are trying to "disrupt an established company" are doing so because they're leveraging new technology, changes in the marketplace, and/or the fact that they're unencumbered with politics/contracts/bureaucracy that exist in large companies.

Okay, take out the 'most' out and I still stand by the very declarative, very encompassing statement.

But, for sake of example, take companies like Airbnb and Uber specifically, as they seem to be the hottest touch-points. How is what they're doing not simply breaking the law for sake of price?

They're certainly skirting the law.

What about Dropbox, Snapchat, Square, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Palantir, etc?

The reason so much disruption comes from "barely skirting the law" is because government sets up the law/regulation to entrench these old business models. So much of what the US government does today is in service of big business, not necessarily adhering to whatever moral standard you have in mind for the rule of law.

Uber has to use the gray areas precisely because regulation was set up to prevent disruption of the cab industry. This regulation inhibits growth and promotes stagnation, evidenced by the fact that NYC cabs did not accept credit cards until 2007 and by how obviously under-served the SF cab market was.

Uber, by skirting the laws that were not serving the consumer but rather entrenching an industry has been able to do more in five years than the entire taxi industry has in 50.

I think you have the chicken and egg backwards. Issues with quality and service are what formed regulation in the first place. Regulation exists to fix a problem; look at the history of transportation, and the current state of 3rd world country transportation.

Cabs were dangerous and took advantage of people before regulation, much as 3rd world country cabs do today.

Your argument is not persuasive and is very short-sighted in terms of history.

And to take it one more step: Lead-uber, by skirting the laws that were not serving the consumer but rather entrenching an industry has been able to do more in five years than the entire lead mining industry has in 50.

Does that make you feel comfortable about 'disruption'? What makes mass transportation any different?

I may be wrong, but I doubt the initial laws were setup to protect the cab industry. It solved a problem of safety, reliability, and set prices with cabs. See third world countries where a cab ride can easily mean a kidnapping or robbery at worst, or a fleecing at best. I'm sure once the basic infrastructure was in place cab companies used their lobbies to further entrench, but the basic laws are there for consumer protection.

You seem unduly concerned with the terms "innovative" and "disruptive." Perhaps you should try to define the terms more clearly before arguing about which companies qualify.

We call them Jitneys or Hacks here in the US. Very common means of transportation in poor areas, but an app makes the same concept hip I guess.

In New York City "gipsy cab" is a common term for it.

"Hack" is a slang name for a taxi driver in general not necessarily a gypsy cab. Livery cab might be the term you're looking for.

Hack specifically refers to gypsy cabs in many places esp. Baltimore: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-15/news/0909150013_...

It seems to be prevalent in Baltimore. I couldn't find the "many" places that hacks are common names for illegal cabs. Chicago, Philadelphia and NYC all use hack to refer to legally licensed cabs and they're all much larger cities/metropolitan areas than Baltimore. I think this is why it is much more common to use "hack" to describe a legitimate taxi driver. Thank you for your input.

In the 1940s, absolutely. I haven't heard it said out loud except to describe a gypsy cab in my life (not including movies.) I have heard it used to describe the license.

I understand that cab drivers have been called hacks, and that of course the term's origin is more general than its current usage. I hear "hack license" but I never hear "hack" as a verb except to refer to doing it illegally.

edit: or as an anything but something before the word "license." You've heard a legitimate taxi driver called a hack lately?

I am indeed from Baltimore, didn't know it was not widespread.

What about the fact that because of the internet we can have things like easily accessible reviews?

Other users rate the drivers, so you can be more sure of their safety than a completely anonymous and unknown driver.

Yes, just like Yelp

I would liken Yelp to be closer to organized crime than Uber. Yelp subtly shakes down businesses as part of their revenue through the "People love us on Yelp" program to earn the sticker on their business and because of the perception Yelp creates that paying customers will show up higher on the search results page and with a higher Yelp rating.

It has been documented that Yelp actively solicits sponsorship fees that not only help earn these stickers but also subsequently serve to boost business rankings and ratings.

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-lazarus1...

[2] http://consumerist.com/2014/09/04/appeals-court-yelps-ad-tea... <-read the details on what the court defined as "hard bargaining" vs "extortion"

[3] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clie...

Uber literally is an "organized crime outfit" though, right? People just don't say that because they commit the "ok" kind of crimes.

As unsavory as their business practice is, I wouldn't go that far, yet. Organized crime is much more than an organization which commits crimes. Money laundering, racketeering, extortion, murder and/or assault, trafficking in contraband, prostitution rings, corruption in public office, and many more factors are part of being organized crime. It's a complex system that goes far beyond Uber's anti-competitive practices, deplorable though they are.

It might appear that bvanslyke is correct because if Uber is understood to be breaking the law and that revolves around the core of their business then they could be considered in the business of organized crime.

I can't help but question whether the difference is doing something illegal to obtain the money and THAT being the organized crime part or the fact that their means of generating revenue could be viewed as legal but that it isn't legal because of consumer protection and liability laws.

In other words, shaking someone down for protection money is illegal. Driving someone from point A to point B is legal. Doing it as an unlicensed cab is illegal but the actual practice isn't.

I liken what they do to be more closer to how Tesla chooses to sell their cars. Legal in theory and and ethically positive but not legal in some areas due to skirting the line between where the laws come into place.

I don't think RICO statutes would be a very strong case against Uber.

Are you technically an unlicensed cab if you won't drive your friend to the airport unless he gives you gas money?

I think they certainly could reach some level of organized crime status if they keep sliding down the already slippery slope they are on. I didn't mean for it to sound like all of those things I listed were required for that classification, they were just meant as examples. Here's the actual definition straight from the FBI:

"The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole."

The difference between Uber's business model and Tesla's is that, unlike Uber, Tesla isn't trying to get other dealerships shut down by wasting their money with fake customers, nor are they poaching and trying to convert employees over to their company. Tesla is trying to get rid of outdated laws that, in today's day and age, only encourage dealerships to screw over their customers. There was a time when those laws served their original purpose, to protect dealers from manufacturers. But the world has changed a lot since then.

I hate Uber.

> "The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole."

This does not describe Uber's activities. While there is plenty wrong with Uber the hyperbole of describing them as near organised crime is unhelpful.

Uber used fake rides as a recruitment technique; they did not knee-cap drivers for other companies.

>Uber's anti-competitive practices

Those aren't the criminal parts, the violations of state and local laws are.

People don't say that, because "organized crime" is an idiom that carries more specific meaning than simply "crime which is organized." Two coworkers who arrange to carpool and then exceed the speed limit are committing crime which is organized, but I also wouldn't describe them as engaging in "organized crime."

The organized part in organized from refers to an organization. The crime part obviously refers to the crime but the actual definition refers to the fact that the organization gets its revenue through the commission of crime.

It isn't quite the same as committing a planned crime.