[ThomPete]

Thats a wrong argument then given that the legislation is in fact in place to hinder too many drivers to flood the market. And so to get into the taxi market is very hard and politically controlled.

In most European countries european insurance isn't really a problem.

Ironically your view on this is proving my point by mixing your political view with what the discussion is about.

And so instead of European companies disrupting the American market you we have American companies disrupting the European.

[kuschku]

There is no regulation at all regarding the amount of drivers where I am.

You need a drivers license of type P (same as bus drivers, chauffeurs, etc) and you need insurance, and you can start driving. It’s literally that simple, and we could have a million drivers by tomorrow and it would be legal.

And Uber isn’t disrupting anything in Germany. They’re just one cheap company under many, others of which provide better service.

[ThomPete]

You need medallions for things like taxi stands and hailing people off the street so it's just not true what you say.

Anyway your ideological view is getting in the way of the point of this discussion.

It wasn't a german company that created uber, wasn't a german company that created airbnb it wasn't even an european on and that is the problem.

[kuschku]

> You need medallions for things like taxi stands and hailing people off the street so it's just not true what you say.

That’s not even part of the discussion, as uber isn’t trying to change that.

Fact is, uber isn’t disrupting anything.

Fact is, there were uber-competitors in Europe like mytaxi, some of which even existed before uber did. Exactly same business model.

The issue isn’t that these companies never get started in europe – because they do – the issue is that these companies expand slower than their US competitors, and therefore lose in this extremely volatile market.

But if the market crashes, these companies can continue to exist, while many of their US competitors would crash, too.

[ThomPete]

Uber is trying to change the rules that you have to have a license to be able to drive taxi. Thats the part you are missing here. Its not about the technology its about the legislation.

They dont just expand slower they get bought by american companies not the other way around that is part of the problem which is what this whole discussion is about.

There is nothing to back up your claim that they are more resistant to a down market. How many European social networks are left? How many European transportation companies are in the US? The list is long of american companies dominating the markets in the EU not the other way around.

That is the core of this discussion no matter your obvious ideological reasoning.

[kuschku]

> There is nothing to back up your claim that they are more resistant to a down market. How many European social networks are left? How many European transportation companies are in the US? The list is long of american companies dominating the markets in the EU not the other way around.

Great, so companies based on making billions of losses a year were able to buy competitors that had to make profits.

That is more a sign for Silicon Valley being yet another investment bubble instead of a sign for SV somehow being "better"

[ThomPete]

Again you are confusing your political/ideological views with what this discussion is about.

I am pretty critical of ubers methods but thats not what we are discussing here. Uber is just one example out of many american companies that challenges legislation to disrupt an industry. European companies don't do that and thats one of the reasons why there are no European uber, airbnb etc.

You can think thats a good thing but thats not what we are discussing here.