[jdrock]

The title and content of this article couldn't be farther from the truth.

1. Uber and Lyft's absence has created a huge void that remains to this day. There are crazy long lines at the airport.

2. There are multiple ridesharing companies that have sprung up in the meantime. Arcade City is just one of them.

3. I'm pretty sure Arcade City will disappear once either (a) U/L return or (b) one of the newer companies (Fare, Fasten, etc.) get more drivers.

Transportation in Austin is terrible right now. Arcade City hasn't changed that fact.

[joeblau]

Are the residents of Austin doing anything to let their state representatives know that the situation is as bad as you're painting it? From what I've read (not sure if it's factual or not), it seems people impacted by the loss of U/L either didn't turn up to vote or were potentially confused by the language on the ballot.

[jdrock]

The consensus is that U/L's aggressive political campaigning prior to the vote backfired big time. They really screwed up on messaging by not understanding their audience. Had they made it about losing 10,000 jobs, they might have won. Hell, if they had just not called people multiple times without consent, they might have won.

There are multiple efforts going on as a result of the vote. Former U/L drivers are trying to put together a rally. A non-profit group (Ride Austin) has sprung up to replace U/L. Certain council members are trying to fight the rest of the council. The state legislature is consider a bill that would pre-empt city legislation.

[tn13]

That is absolutely right. Uber most certainly needs to fire their PR people. If I had to design a campaign to ensure Uber loses the vote, that is how I would designed the PR. It was unbelievably bad.

Asking for votes is essentially an emotional argument and you need to play on people's emotions just the way Coke sells their soda or Axe sells deodorants. Uber should have shown "we are creating well paying jobs". "We are helping women", "we are helping environment" type of emotional arguments showing babies, blondes, mothers and cats.

Just to give an example how horrible Uber is at PR:

Uber's surge pricing is an excellent feature. But why on earth would you name it "surge pricing"? It is like BMW calling its cars "Overpriced Metal". Both "surge" and "pricing" are bad words and combined they are the worst possible naming for a feature.

The correct naming for surge pricing should have been "Uber Urgent" or "Uber VIP". The way it should have been designed is that: 1. Drivers opt in for Uber Urgent. Whenever there is a surge in demand driver goes into Urgent Only mode. 2. Let the passengers wait for the usual low fares or select Uber Urgent and get their rides quickly. In fact asking passengers to bid in 3-4 levels would make a lot of sense.

Uber Urgent could have been advertised as: 1. Empowers drivers to earn more by helping those in urgent need. 2. Helps people in need get the cars faster 3. Reduces traffic on road during rush hour. 4. Skip the line as if you are VIP. No more waiting.

[zaidf]

You're underestimating the value of being a company that always has a cab for you within minutes. With your approach, the default in the public's mind would be "there is no uber till 3am!" vs. "Uber is the on the way...btw it's 25% extra due to the rush."

A name like VIP is bad because it discourages regular use. It sounds like something you use once a year on special occasions.

[tn13]

You are correct. VIP might be not the right word but there could be better wording than the official "surge pricing". If you are charging someone 25% more clearly tell why and what the user is getting more than those who are not willing to pay 25% extra.

Or simply don't tell anything about increased prices. Just show the estimated price and let the user decide if he wants it or not.

In fact you can on-board the user into app to simply be blind to price increases up-to 75% or something.

[eric_h]

Not to mention that Uber already has a VIP concept in their product that's quite interesting. Pairs frequent customers with the highest rated drivers.

Amusingly, in less Uber dense neighborhoods in NYC (i.e. anything that's not Manhattan) Uber VIP is a worse option for getting a quick ride. For me, when I'm in the outer boroughs I opt for regular uber x, but when I'm in Manhattan I do Uber VIP.

[CamperBob2]

If I had to design a campaign to ensure Uber loses the vote, that is how I would designed the PR.

Is it possible that's exactly what Uber's opposition did?

[pc86]

It's possible Uber is run by lizardmen and the Illuminati. But without any evidence actually pointing to that it doesn't really make sense to just throw accusations out into the air.

[CamperBob2]

This isn't a random idea I made up just to dissipate some extra karma on Hacker News, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job

Edit: Also, who's accusing anyone of anything (besides you)? I'm just asking questions here.

[joeblau]

Thanks for the summary of what's going on. I remember when the news broke, but I haven't seen much about what's going on since then.

[jellicle]

What jobs? Uber insists they don't employ anyone.

[Cookingboy]

Self-employed jobs are still jobs.

[hawkice]

I know we are pretty far through the looking glass as far as the semantics here, but surely if someone is self-employed, they would be the business entity that created their job? "Job creation" is kinda a nonsense thing to brag about, so I have no idea what the standards are, but just linguistically speaking I'd assume self-employed=self-job-created.

[snowwrestler]

Any given job has many parents.

Yes, it takes someone to sign the contract to do the work (for self-employed), or post the opening and hire someone (for an employee).

But it also takes investment. Many self-employed jobs sit on a platform that someone else is investing in. For example many construction workers are self-employed, but there needs to be a construction project for them to work on. Many folks in the film industry are self-employed, but there need to be movies for them to work on.

And in the case of Uber and Lyft, even if we call the drivers self-employed, they can't employ themselves in that particular way without the platforms that Uber and Lyft provide. The software is a big part of it, but so is the customer base (an asset in its own right), and the marketing that keeps and grows the customer base.

That's the extent to which Uber and Lyft can claim to create jobs. It's more like they create an environment or platform that enables other people to create their own jobs, but that is hard to fit into a soundbite.

[Sacho]

So they're investing in local businesses!

[ufo]

What message were they using before the vote?

[theli0nheart]

Their big message was that fingerprinting does a worse job of filtering out dangerous drivers than Uber or Lyft's internally-used background checks.

[vkou]

What background checks? [1] [2]

[1] http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/nenshi-not-very-goo...

[2] http://observer.com/2016/05/uber-driver-charged-with-attempt...

[icebraining]

In your first link the mayor later said “I am not aware of anyone convicted of a sexual offence clearing the background check used by Uber in Calgary. Watching the video, I realize that I did not explain myself clearly at all. I apologize for any confusion that I have caused.”

[dbg31415]

Unfortunately not much.

The people who used Uber are up-in-arms, but the people who voted against it were people who didn't use the service and don't know / care.

Our city council is stocked to the brim with people who hate any form of progress. Those dipshits are the reason we have such horrible traffic here in the first place... for years and years and years their mantra was, "If we don't build it, they won't come." And they purposefully made roads much much smaller than they ought to be -- and continue to make roads much much smaller than they ought to be to accommodate growth.

Uber / Lyft played their hand so poorly. Instead of talking about jobs, and the reduction of drunk driving (a huge issue), they let the city and taxi union play them. The campaign, to suburbanites who probably don't use rideshare services anyway, became about safety and how Uber / Lyft drivers would rape you because there was one guy one time who had statutory raped someone before becoming a driver and Uber / Lyft let him drive anyway... The old mayor came on, drummed up fear in the old folks... so then the nursing home vote thought there were these roving rapists being paid billions of dollars by SF tech companies and driving up their taxes. I wish I was making it up.

Oh, and the ballot language was confusing. So yeah, nobody really knew what they were voting for.

Of course the crazy guy shooting people up north didn't help... but anyway now we're back to being fucked.

Ways we are fucked:

* Taxis... are 2-3x more expensive than Uber, if they even show up at all. When I need a ride to the airport I'm back to asking neighbors since I can't rely on taxis showing up on time.

* Since Taxis don't have to show a GPS of where they are going, they take you round-about ways. It took me a minute but yeah, after getting picked up by the airport, I should have been taken down 71 to Mopac to get to Circle C. The guy literally took me to 35 then across Slaughter... stoplights galore. Intentionally driving slow the whole way... speed limit was 75, he was driving 55.

* Taxis aren't clean. They're filthy in fact. No water either.

* Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go.

Ways we can get unfucked:

* At the moment, unclear. We need a new city government... but because the nursing home / Luddites vote and the tech / younger crowd doesn't... we can't reverse the decision. And Uber and Lyft seem unwilling to pay for the background checks the city now requires. Anything else that pops up... it'll be a temp thing until the city cracks down on it and imposes the same sort of shit they tried to push on Uber / Lyft.

(I fucking hate the "old guard" so much, and all the people who got to vote on rideshares who never even used them... it's such bullshit. Hooray.)

[karmajunkie]

> Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go.

And yet, knowing that its racist, you barrel right on through that social more... Way to let that freak flag fly, man.

I've had quite a few immigrant taxi and lyft drivers. They almost all spoke english very well, they all got me where I was going by the correct route, and they all get a tip from me.

[blisterpeanuts]

One advantage of Uber/Lyft is that you set your destination in the app, and the fare is also pre-set, so there's hardly any verbal communication required, aside from chit-chat and maybe some negotiation regarding alternative routes etc.

[sjs7007]

The rates are preset. The amount you pay at the end includes a time component as well.

[dbg31415]

So look, Austin is a small town, and people are on the whole very friendly. It's very jarring to be treated rudely by someone who doesn't bother hiding the fact that they are trying to milk you for all you're worth to them... however they have to drag the trip out they will. Driving slow, pretending to miss exits, pretending they don't hear you when you ask them to go different routes... it's infuriating.

[karmajunkie]

Yeah dude, I hear ya. That sucks, and I'm as pissed as you probably are that Lyft and Uber pulled out.

But that doesn't mean your statement was any less racist and xenophobic for it.

[Sacho]

What's the principle difference between denying former convicted felons a job as a taxi driver, and denying outsiders because they are "unfriendly, rude, difficult to communicate"? They both make broad assumptions, which might even be generally correct.

[i_don_t_know]

> Taxis... are 2-3x more expensive than Uber, if they even show up at all. When I need a ride to the airport I'm back to asking neighbors since I can't rely on taxis showing up on time.

You can get an airport shuttle. Cheaper than a taxi and so far I haven't had any problems with them going to/from the airport. You have to share your ride with others, so it's slower than a cab, but then you get what you pay for.

[bmm6o]

> Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go.

Is this particular to Austin? I've taken exactly 4 Uber rides, and I think twice the driver was an immigrant. (Not that there's anything wrong with that - just countering this nativist data point)

[sehutson]

Even if your Uber/Lyft driver is new to the area and knows very little of the language or local area, the app tells them where to go and makes sure they're taking you on an efficient route. If anything, it makes recent immigrant/ESL drivers more appealing.

[roldie]

I've had U/L drivers in Austin who had trouble with English or were clearly not from Austin. One time, I used Uber Pool or Lyft Line and the drive asked me to call the next passenger because he couldn't communicate with them. I also had to direct him to where the pickup location was.

The rest of your points are true. Austin has done a good job of trying resist growth by not investing in infrastructure or transit. Then people come here anyway and getting around is a mess. Ridesharing is essential in Austin. The new ridesharing apps that have cropped up have not filled the void.

[pm90]

> The rest of your points are true. Austin has done a good job of trying resist growth by not investing in infrastructure or transit. Then people come here anyway and getting around is a mess. Ridesharing is essential in Austin. The new ridesharing apps that have cropped up have not filled the void.

This isn't deliberate. Austin has experimented with a number of public transportation options. But whenever any plans are put up for a vote, it gets shot down as too expensive.

Also, the city isn't that dense (yet) for most common forms of effective public transportation, like subways. This might change in the future, but currently growth is not focused on Austin city proper (Travis County) but also many of the suburbs around it.

[chiph]

To be fair - the $1 billion bond that was up for a vote the other year was filled with pork. Only about 2/3 of it was transportation-related, and a fair amount of that was for studies, not actual construction (if they don't know where the congestion is, they should monitor Waze to find out)

[enraged_camel]

>>> Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go.

Thank you for pointing out the REAL reason why Uber/Lyft are popular. It has nothing to do with convenience (a lot of taxi companies also have similar apps) and everything to do with the fact that people want to interact with those in the same socioeconomic class as them.

[aianus]

No, it's not, the real reason is that Uber is half the price of a cab and will actually show up when called.

[enraged_camel]

Have there actually been studies that prove Uber is significantly cheaper than cab?

Anecdotally speaking, I've taken Uber quite often in Austin, as well as various cabs, and they always seemed comparable to me. In fact, if you take into account Uber's surge pricing (which cabs don't have, afaik), Uber came out more expensive on average.

[aianus]

> Have there actually been studies that prove Uber is significantly cheaper than cab?

Where I'm from (Toronto) the taxi rates are fixed by law and the Uber rates are publicly available on their website.

Taxi rates: $3.25 + $1.74 per km + $0.50 per minute

UberX rates: $2.50 + $0.80 per km + $0.18 per minute

It's not even close.

[dbg31415]

My house in Circle C to the Airport via Uber... $20-25. Consistently. 20-25 minutes.

My house to the airport via taxi... $45-65. 30-40 minutes.

I fly 2-3x per week, thinking about putting together some expense reports to back this up... but for now you'll have to take my word. (=

[newacct23]

In Atlanta a taxi to the airport can be 40 dollars. An uber is less than 30.

[icebraining]

In Lisbon, it's mixed, since the price per minute is lower (0.10€ vs 0.25€) but the price per km is higher (0.65€ vs 0.47€). Taxis have an higher base fare (3.25€ vs 1€) but on the other hand the first 2 km are free.

[aioprisan]

Downtown Boston to Logan airport taxi: $30-40. Uber: $20.

[EdHominem]

You're comparing Uber's surge price to a Taxi's regular price when what really happens is that the taxi just doesn't come.

That comparison is only helpful if you note how long it took for both to show up.

[jacalata]

It varies by city.

[newacct23]

>a lot of taxi companies also have similar apps

First of all that's not the reason Uber and lyft are popular. Secondly, most taxi company apps suck.

[icebraining]

Maybe in the US. Around here, it's very rare to get someone other than a white male driving a taxi, while I've encountered much more diverse drivers in Uber. The reason I've exclusively switched to it is because they actually treat me like a person - like replying when I greet them.

[dbg31415]

>> Thank you for pointing out the REAL reason why Uber/Lyft are popular. It has nothing to do with convenience (a lot of taxi companies also have similar apps) and everything to do with the fact that people want to interact with those in the same socioeconomic class as them.

Yeah... thinking it through, you're right. That's spot on. I don't think that's bad, the Taxi drivers don't treat me like a human or like their neighbor, and that's more the issue. There's just a polite way that Americans are to one another, especially Texans. Taxi Drivers are extremely transparent that they are just out to make as much money from me as they can. I don't mean it as racist, but it's very jarring to be treated rudely in Texas; people are on the whole very friendly and sociable here. It's very apparent when someone isn't from here, or hasn't lived here long enough to adapt to the local customs.

[mc32]

This is the perfect time for an upstart to provide a service which does conform with city regulation and it or they will be able to swoop in when or if other cities institute similar requirements to the dismay of the incumbents.

[kodablah]

I'm hoping for the opposite. I am hoping that the voters who wanted the extra regulation (or just wanted to spite Uber/Lyft out of anger towards their campaign practices) receive sub par service. As a counterbalance, sometimes it's good that there are consequences to added regulation that makes businesses want to cease operations (regardless of who is "right" here).

[rat87]

I'm hoping that other cities start regulating uber/lyft and they are forced to stop whining, and come back/follow the law because of the money they lose.

sometimes it's good for there to be consequences

[schwap]

> I am hoping that the voters who wanted the extra regulation ... receive sub par service.

Why?

[kodablah]

To encourage compromise in other areas of the country/world where citizens and voters often think there is no downside to adding regulation. So I guess in a precedent-setting way (unfortunately to the detriment of the minority that was against the additional regulations). Too often I feel locales make regulations, even if the majority of the citizens want them, that they feel have very little downside purely because they don't think companies are willing to leave.

As egregiously capitalistic as it may sound, I like that companies have to bend and so do consumers instead of either the company's leverage being too large or the government/citizens' leverage being too large. In the ride sharing space, I believe that Uber and Lyft have bent more than municipalities.

[MikeHolman]

It seems to me that Uber and Lyft have not bent much. From my (maybe ignorant) perspective it looks like their entire practice is to completely ignore all the laws about taxi regulations until a city threatens to kick them out, by which point they have enough leverage to change the laws in their favor.

Only this time they played chicken and lost the battle.

[EdHominem]

Considering that the government wants them to buy taxi medallions at $0.5M each, there isn't a lot of bending they can do.

Everything else is a smoke screen over the issue of losing medallion sales.

What people forget during these discussions is that this is not free money for the city, it's money out of every rider's pocket for an overpriced service, some small percentage of which trickles down to the city.

As for the battle, Uber is busily serving people elsewhere while Austin is stuck with cabs. The people of Austin are the losers in this.

[mc32]

Ok. That's not an issue. Sometimes we vote against our self interest (tax increase, equality, etc.) It's okay.

[wccrawford]

I don't see either of those as being against self-interest. It's just a broader outlook on things.

If you think paying taxes is anti-self, you haven't thought much about what would happen if nobody paid taxes.

If you think equality is anti-self, you haven't thought much about the future when you might very well become a minority.

And that's ignoring the piece of mind you get from knowing you're doing the right and just thing, instead of being selfish.

[mc32]

So... People who pay taxes are being selfish? And people who propose and endorse equality are selfish, really?

Usually people who want to avoid taxes the most are those who have to pay the most.

No, I think people who seek equality are people who are selfless and try to see beyond differences. Same for people willing to pay _more_ than their fair share of the tax burden.

[asquabventured]

Perfect! More bifurcation in the industry due to regulatory overreach. What a great time to be alive!

[mc32]

What? This is like saying requiring iodine created bifurcation in the salt industry? Salt, never the less is a commodity (exceptions for pink Himalayan salt, etc.) Taxi services are similar. Just for context, we used to have thousands of local taxi operations, so it's not like we don't have experience with bifurcation and further, these "platform" taxi services were an additional distinct bifurcation into the traditional industry.

[rodgerd]

So just to be clear you think the ideal outcome is a monopoly by Uber?

[briandear]

Better than the existing taxi monopoly. The taxi monopoly used regulation to support a monopoly. That's wrong. Less regulation means more competition. Re: ISPs.

[mc32]

But taxis are not a monopoly. There are thousands of cab companies. If you mean they were regulated into some kind of uniform service whose results were suboptimal, ok, but that's not what people tend to call a "monopoly".

[PKop]

What do the 995 taxi cab companies existing outside of my local area do for me if I want a ride? What does there existence have to do with the constraints of local supply?

It is a de facto monopoly within the confines of a metro area where competition is absolutely regulated and limited.

[chillacy]

If the laws stay in effect long enough, I wouldn't be surprised if a local startup beats U/L to the punch by better servicing Austin. Same like how there's chinese versions of lots of banned internet services.

[rqebmm]

The problem is no serious competitor wants to try because of the specter of U/L deciding to comply and showing back up.

[WillAbides]

There is no shortage of people and companies trying. The trouble is that none of them have the operational experience to make it work.

[EdHominem]

You can't conform. The goal of the regulations isn't to make ridesharing safer, etc - it's to block competition from the government-backed monopoly.

If you do find a way to comply, expect more rules to be created with your name on them.

[brianbarker]

Arcade City has worked really well via the FB group. You post a ride request, multiple drivers respond. Many link their uber/lyft profiles. Then the client chooses their driver (big key to AC's premise) and a ride is arranged.

AC is also launching an app to replace the FB group and be directly p2p, which will be fascinating to watch.

Also, as of this last weekend, Fare has tons of cars and had cheaper-than-uber prices like Lyft. Very good, very stable app. The RideAustin app also is showing cars, but Fare looks better.

I'd recommend Fare. It sucks that visitors won't know, but maybe Fare can get a sign at the airport?

[sna1l]

I recently visited Austin, and I completely agree with you. Getting around was a nightmare. All the apps felt way jankier than Uber and Lyft.

[abhi3]

Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation?

[caseysoftware]

Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. Look at what Amazon does in order to avoid sales tax in various jurisdictions.

In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number

I detailed more of it here:

https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...

[studentrob]

Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out.

By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan.

This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things.

Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you?

People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves.

Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo

[EdHominem]

The city isn't being bullied, Uber is.

Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber.

> The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse.

No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

[studentrob]

> The city isn't being bullied, Uber is.

I said both are bullying each other.

> The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

"Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.

> The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city

That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.

[EdHominem]

> I said both are bullying each other.

How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer.

> The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.

The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.

> That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money.

Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.

We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.

People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.

> They also need to balance public safety

They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.

[aioprisan]

Who are they supposed to ask for a concensus on regulation? Every city has their own taxi regulations and very powerful lobbies. Is that even feasible given in how many cities Uber operates in?

[studentrob]

10 cities, 10 mayors. Approach each, begin with the relationship, and publicize meeting notes. It can be done.

They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done

PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing.

U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone.

Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10.

Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved.

U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y.

It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.

[SilasX]

>Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best.

But they already comply with fingerprinting requirements (and other variations in laws) for other juridictions, like NYC, which requires Ubers to get a special TLC number, and IIRC Houston and San Antonio, where they fingerprint.

[briandear]

I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?

[CamperBob2]

Better still, ignore the regulation, keep operating, and force the courts to decide.

[studentrob]

Burning through VC money in the process? That's a risky move. Uber follows fingerprinting procedures in NYC and Houston, why not Austin? It seems to me Uber/Lyft are better off coming to the negotiation table to discuss a way forward.

[CamperBob2]

It's a lot riskier for the VCs to allow regulations like this to stand. Fingerprinting might be tolerable by itself, but this isn't really about fingerprinting, of course. Every major city whose regulators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the taxi operators will come up with additional random expensive hoops to jump through, repeating as necessary until the competitor is run out of town. Anyone attempting to confront the incumbents with an innovative new service will suffer the death of a thousand cuts.

(Which, of course, will eventually work to Uber's advantage, just like it did for the taxi companies. At which point the hero has lived long enough to see himself become the proverbial villain.)

No, it's better to take a stand and fight these people head on. It's not OK to force every new business to decide whether it's safer to ask permission first or apologize later.

[studentrob]

U/L's position is not clear. Why operate with different rules in NYC? If they could articulate their desired policy to the public, maybe they'd find more support in Austin.

[bsder]

> If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it.

Except that Uber is using venture capital money to subsidize rides to undercut the price of rides.

That's great, until they drive the properly compliant ride services out of business and become their own monopoly.

Keeping the ridesharing services market share fractured instead of monopoly is what really benefits the consumer.

[studentrob]

You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5.

Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1]

I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber.

I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors.

[1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548

[natrius]

Multiple ridehailing companies have sprung up, but that's not a solution. It's the problem. As long as multiple networks split the market, wait times and prices will always be worse than Uber was. Arcade City has a chance to work around this problem by building a network no one controls. The network effects of decentralization are strong—perhaps strong enough to compete even when Uber returns.

[andrewfromx]

wow you are really calling out https://twitter.com/fitztepper as a reporter. He got the story just completely wrong?