Hacker News Reader

Comment by Loughla | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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 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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com