[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.