[shp0ngle]

...uber is successful in Europe. There are cities that banned it, but there are as many that didn't.

Conversely, Uber is not very successful in South-East Asia, but not for the abundance of regulation but for the lack of it - Grab, a local copy-paste of Uber, has become so dominant that Uber had to leave most of the markets there

[Sharlin]

And indeed Uber has been a catalyst in several EU countries for taxi deregulation. They had to leave Finland because it was illegal to be an Uber driver without having a ”traditional” taxi license; a legislation change will come into effect this summer that greatly deregulates the taxi industry. So I guess they succeeded in being disruptive, but I agree with the other commenter that Uber is probably not the best example from corporate ethics point of view.

[ptero]

> uber is successful in Europe.

But Europe was an expansion market for them, after they spent a while working out early kinks in the US. I think the post you are commenting on meant success as a startup, which is very different from successfully expanding there.

[hmd_imputer]

yeap, the ones who didn't ban are the ones who didn't apply all these useless strict regulations.

In Germany, it is still not possible to take an Uber ride, for example. Besides, if it started in Europe as a small start-up it would be killed right away with tons of regulations anyways. So the only reason that you have Uber in Europe is that it has become a giant company in the US, due fertile environment, and thus could afford all these legal battles to enter the market.

South-East Asia is a different story. It has nothing to do with regulations at all. It is just a completely different mindset there. The fact is though, businesses in those countries can easily flourish as well.

[131012]

And they make a lot of direct lobbying toward local government to make sure they don't enforce existing taxi laws.

[hmd_imputer]

which they should, don't you think? sometimes being disruptive is the only way to go.

[s73v3r_]

No, because they're just trying to get an exemption for themselves. If they were advocating for a change for all, that'd be better.

[hmd_imputer]

you cannot advocate for a change for all if you are the only company in that field. Uber was literally a revolution of transportation. However, as a side effect, the changes you advocate sets a precedence, thus also affects everyone, which was the case in the US. There were a few other companies who also benefited from the changes, such as Lift.

[s73v3r_]

"you cannot advocate for a change for all if you are the only company in that field."

But they're not. They're a taxi company. There are tons of those around.