[hn_throwaway_99]

This same argument was made when Austin required fingerprinting for drivers and Uber and Lyft left.

What happened? Their was a flourishing of new ride share companies, including a local nonprofit, RideAustin. Yes, at first, these apps were nowhere near the level of Uber/Lyft, but they quickly improved, especially RideAustin. The prices were slightly higher, but it seemed those prices reflected the actual cost of the service without the VC subsidy.

I dread taking a taxi and I'm no friend of the formerly entrenched taxi companies, but this idea that making some sensible regulations that these multibillion dollar VC-subsidized tech companies need to follow is "anti-innovation" is BS.

[jonknee]

You forgot the end of that story. They let Uber and Lyft back in[1] and the apps that had sprouted up instantly got crushed[2].

[1] https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/14/15803138/austin-uber-lyft-t...

[2] https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/06/06/uber-lyft...

[kurthr]

I just read those two articles (from June) and don't get the idea that either was crushed. The drivers just saw the number of rides and disperse to more services, and the $350 promotions etc. RideAustin still seems to have almost 50% of the business, with Fasten, Uber, and Lyft splitting the rest?

This (crappy Buzzfeed) article from July seems confirms what locals say... they're all still there: https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/uber-lyft-austin-t...?

[hn_throwaway_99]

Yep, this happened, but still doesn't change my point that these huge, extremely well VC-funded firms are not so much the giant drivers of innovation the article makes them out to be.

If anything (as mentioned in another HN article I saw today about the slowdown in new business formation), these huge, "winner-take-all" tech companies may be a net negative for innovation in the long run.

[bsder]

Yeah, Uber and Lyft spent VC money to lobby the state government to override what the Austin voters decided.

So much for the will of the consumer, eh?

But, hey, that's what "DISRUPTION!" looks like nowadays, right?

[jonknee]

> So much for the will of the consumer, eh?

I think demand is a better proxy for the will of consumers than any law or legislation. If the citizens of Austin refuse to use Uber or Lyft they will disappear without any legislation.

[qbrass]

The tourists have more sway as consumers than the citizens do. There's more of them, they're more likely to use a ride-sharing service, and they're more likely to choose Uber of Lyft over a local brand just from the name recognition.

[pyronik]

Who's being forced to use uber/lyft? Ironic that you believe state intervention into markets as being the "will of the consumer".

[jakebasile]

The Austin fingerprint law was a voter initiative passed by Austin citizens. The state of Texas overturned it by vote of elected representatives from across the state. I think the latter is much more a "state intervention".

[indubitable]

It's interesting to precisely consider what "a voter initiative passed by Austin citizens" translates to. And to clarify the fingerprint law was not what was actually passed. That law was passed unilaterally by the city council --- whom a cynic might suggest was driven by what we'll call "lobbying", rather than necessity. The vote was a result of ride sharing services collecting the necessary tens of thousands of signatures that required the City Council to either soften the rules or bring the matter to public vote. The council chose to spend the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars necessary to keep the ordinance intact and hold an impromptu election.

These [1] are the results of that election. Austin has a population of 950,000 residents with a voting age population of about 741,000 [2]. In total about 5% of the resident population voted to maintain the fingerprinting law and 4% to soften it. A 1% margin on a voter turnout of less than 12%.

I fully appreciate that that is a 'democratic republic in action.' I'm certain you can understand one might find it distasteful, just as one can easily understand your distaste for state level 'democratic republic in action.' I'm certain our systems made all the sense in the world hundreds of years ago. But these sort of things do not feel right today when we live in a country with counties that now have greater population than the entire country did when these laws and systems were developed.

[1] - http://traviselectionresults.com/enr/contest/display.do?crit...

[2] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/austincitytexas...

[harry8]

This isn't sensible regulation. This is an outright ban, which is a whole different ball of wax.

Is an outright ban "anti-innovation"? You can't do sensible regulation once you've banned entrants in favour of the taxis.

[parent5446]

It's not a ban on ride-sharing. It's a ban on a single specific company: Uber. And the ban is because Uber was routinely violating sensible regulations.

[tigershark]

What other ride-sharing company operates in London? Addison lee, kabbee and the multiple private cab companies can't offer the same service as uber when you need a ride on the moment. They are fine when you can book in advance, otherwise be prepared to wait half an hour or more.

[saurik]

The fact that there is only one barber, butcher, or baker (or candlestick maker... whatever) in town should not dissuade us from putting them out of business if they don't pay attention to safety regulations...

[tigershark]

Then if safety is really the concern why taxis and cabs can operate given that they are way less safe than uber? I would rather use the safer option, but instead I'm forced to use the less safe options.

[parent5446]

Are you saying Uber is the safer option? Did you miss the part where they are violating the safety regulations, and where cab companies are not?

[marcus_holmes]

No. It's presented as an outright ban, but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

Uber is able to continue business while it appeals. As long as the appeal process is continuing (and it may well continue for years to the High Court) Uber can continue business as usual.

Uber can change its processes during the course of the appeal, and if they match what is required, the ban will fail.

This is a high-visibility, high-impact method of regulation that Uber can't ignore. Given Uber's habit of ignoring regulations it doesn't like, it seems entirely appropriate.

One of the largest problems that the UK has had with the EU is that EU-mandated regulations are not implemented by some EU member countries. This is against all the rules of the EU, but there's no enforcement.

In the UK, regulations are implemented and enforced. This is that enforcement in practice. One of the reasons London has flourished as a financial centre is because the regulatory agency doesn't mess around and does its job properly. This gives certainty, stability, and engenders trust in trading partners.

The article is entirely wrong, completely misunderstands what's happening here, and why.

[bassman9000]

VC-subsidized

Private companies don't subsidize. Private companies invest.