[DebtDeflation]

The reason there was no political will to punish Airbnb and Uber for violating the law was that initially they were subsidized with VC money and so were able to undercut traditional hotels and taxis on price. In the world of tradable goods, pricing below cost with the intent of putting competition out of business so you can raise prices later is known as "dumping" and is itself illegal.

[johnebgd]

I rooted for Uber to smash the Taxi cartels. Let us not forget that Taxi Cartels were also insidious beasts. Taxi drivers abused their walled garden with their price gouging by taking longer routes, refusal to take a credit card, and extremely poorly maintained fleets of vehicles. I have had mostly good experiences with Uber, whereas I had experiences that mostly bordered on general condescension toward me whenever I took a ride in a Taxi. I am glad the political will to block Uber never materialized.

[burningion]

This argument ignores the fact that there were other alternatives to Uber at the time, ones that didn't break the law! Believe it or not, there were multiple ride hailing apps on the iPhone, but none were as great at accumulating capital or breaking the law without recourse.

[AnthonyMouse]

The laws they allegedly broke were the taxi medallion cartel laws, which were the things keeping taxis terrible by limiting supply and competition. And those laws in general apply to the drivers rather than the ride hailing service. There is also a lot of ambiguity there, e.g. if you have a ride sharing service where people go on the app to find people to carpool with on a trip they'd be making anyway and then contribute gas money, is that a taxi service?

But the taxi services obviously hated the competition and waged a continuing media campaign to paint the renegades as the villains.

[burningion]

No, these are not only the laws they allegedly broke.

They created a project named Greyball to identify law enforcement and mislead them.

They created a kill switch for the event of a government raid to gather evidence.

They ordered and then canceled rides on competitor apps.

They tracked journalists and politicians...

The list goes on and on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber

[ok_dad]

The best thing to ever happen to corpo scum was that social media took over most of the news. Now there’s no trusted journalists to write a big article about this kind of stuff, instead folks just defend the corpo scum’s actions and spread lies for them, while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

[rbanffy]

It would have worked if we didn’t find out the hard way a lot of social media and alternative news outlets weren’t even scummier.

We need good journalism courses with heavy emphasis on ethics and the importance of journalism to democracy.

We also need a way to punish entertainment that passes as journalism (maybe fewer legal protections) and to incentive actual journalism (and find a decent way to distinguish between the two).

[AnthonyMouse]

Several of those things aren't even necessarily illegal and are the sort of things they shouldn't have had have any reason to do unless they were being targeted by a media campaign or captured government. There is also some dispute about whether some of those even happened or are just mischaracterizations from the media campaign.

It's like saying "well, they weren't only violating the taxi medallion cartel laws, they were also violating laws against evading enforcement of the taxi medallion cartel laws". There is a central cause here.

[ok_dad]

Move the goalposts any more and they’re going to be outside the stadium. What laws matter to you? I agree there are shit laws but why can uber break them with impunity but individuals are jailed for smoking some fun lettuce?

[WorldMaker]

Taxi Medallion laws were also a Reputation Engine that was publicly queryable, subject to FOIA laws and generally had easy to search public databases for them, with detailed notes. Sure Uber/Lyft boil that into a "friendly" 5-star UI, but do you have any idea what data contributed to that star rating? Do you always trust the algorithms that compute them from a bucket of metrics you can't directly request?

Sure, Medallion laws had problems, and got Regulatory Captured in some cities to also become terrible Trusts controlling prices that needed busting. But the answer to "fix the Regulation" isn't always "break the Regulation", and the Regulation had a lot of good intent of having public accessible information about drivers and that data not just owned by a single company and locked in their opaque algorithms. It might have been nicer to fix the Regulatory Capture and Bust the Trusts.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Taxi Medallion laws were also a Reputation Engine that was publicly queryable, subject to FOIA laws and generally had easy to search public databases for them, with detailed notes.

You just landed at the airport and need a cab. You fax your FOIA requests for each of the hundred cab companies in the area, which they're required to provide within 20 business days. Your return flight is in 3 days and it would be nice to leave the airport before then.

> Sure Uber/Lyft boil that into a "friendly" 5-star UI, but do you have any idea what data contributed to that star rating? Do you always trust the algorithms that compute them from a bucket of metrics you can't directly request?

So compete with them instead of banning them. Fund an open source ride hailing app with open data. Don't require anyone to use it. If it's better, they will. If it's not better, why should they be forced to?

[WorldMaker]

> You just landed at the airport and need a cab. You fax your FOIA requests for each of the hundred cab companies in the area, which they're required to provide within 20 business days. Your return flight is in 3 days and it would be nice to leave the airport before then.

If you just landed at the airport, you rely on police enforcement keeping bad actors from having medallions. The medallion itself is the primary "this person is a reputable cab driver". That's also entirely why the Regulatory Capture in some cities was so effective in controlling supply of medallions, because it was city police enforced.

Many cities required taxis to have their medallion number painted on the outside, and there were phone numbers you could quickly call (in the days of payphones even) to get quick information about a medallion or to report a complaint/problem with one.

Today a few cities have updated that external paint requirement (and inside the car medallion papers) to include QR codes for even quicker lookup on modern phones or to even use an app to do nice things like pay for the Taxi without needing to broker/negotiate it. Those kind of technological improvements have kind of gotten lost in the wash of the speed of which Uber/Lyft moved fast and broke things, but were always possible.

> So compete with them instead of banning them. Fund an open source ride hailing app with open data. Don't require anyone to use it. If it's better, they will. If it's not better, why should they be forced to?

The history of taxi companies say that they are only as open as they are forced to be. I never said anything about banning Uber/Lyft. Competition is not the problem; destroying public safety regulations in the name of competition is the problem. I said that Uber/Lyft should have been required to do the same or similar paperwork that medallions represent, that both of their data should be open under the previously existing laws, as a public good. Break the artificial scarcity, sure, give Uber/Lyft a license to "print medallions" if that breaks existing Trusts. But get that data open and available to the public (and enforceable by the public's law enforcement). Neither would want to do that because their rating systems are secret sauce and "competitive advantage", they would need to be coerced by regulations. That's what regulations are for, the public good that competition doesn't care about/can't care about/needs to keep "secret sauce" for advantages.

[averageRoyalty]

You understand they're a global company and broke many laws in many countries, right?

[mikepurvis]

The only alternative I remember is "black car" services, eg airport limos and the like. But there was very little automation around it; you had to speak on the phone with someone to book, and it was always like 24+ hours out rather than "go to the place now" the way a cab is.

[kmoser]

Most taxi services will send a car to your address immediately, no reservation required. Problem is, you have to know the exact address where you want to be picked up, which can sometimes be difficult to determine if you're new in town and/or standing on a street with no obvious sign or address, e.g. on the edge of a large university campus. That's where GPS-driven apps really shine, plus the ability to see the car's location in near real-time, and why I will never be sad at the demise of traditional way of having to call a cab.

[mikepurvis]

Indeed, but I was referring specifically to the charge that taxi alternatives (eg, outside the medallion system) existed pre-Uber. And I think, they did, but only in very limited use cases like airport shuttles, and not with fleets anywhere near large enough to have a car five minutes from anywhere at all times— hence the need to book those things ahead.

[wand3r]

> This argument ignores the fact that there were other alternatives to Uber at the time, ones that didn't break the law!

Yes, and they owe their current existence to Uber paving the way for them.

[thatcat]

Political will shouldn't be required to enforce existing law. If i started a 1 man illegal taxi service it would be shut down even though it has little effect on the community, but saudi vc funded startup wasn't shut down even though it violated laws in every major city. That is a weird asymmetry as a us citizen.

[AnthonyMouse]

What's really happening here is that the laws are supposed to reflect the political will, i.e. the will of the people, but in many cases they don't, because the lawmakers have been captured by incumbents.

Then if a little guy comes in and tries to challenge them, they don't have the resources to resist the incumbents' pocket government officials and get destroyed. But if a big fish does it, people actually notice if the government tries to enforce stupid laws against them, and then government officials are afraid to do it because the public would not only not like it but actually notice the unreasonableness of the law.

But the problem here isn't that the law isn't being enforced against a well-heeled challenger, it's that those laws exist to be enforced against the little guy, when they should instead be repealed.

[thatcat]

i will simply disagree that the dominant social dynamic leading to this favoring of foriegn capital over us law is not systemic corruption.

[AnthonyMouse]

So there are two different categories of things here. One is, they ban cannabis and put individuals in prison for it, but then if you pay thousands a year for overpriced health insurance and the insurance pays thousands of dollars for a doctor to ask you some cursory questions and a pharma company to manufacture the drug, you can get a prescription for opioids, which are way more dangerous. But that isn't the big guys violating the law, it's them following a law that they bought and paid for. That's bad in a different way.

The relevant thing here would be that they pass excessive copyright laws, but then Meta violates them and maybe gets away with it because they're doing it in a sympathetic way and the government doesn't want to hamstring emerging industries in their country, whereas if an individual would be sued into oblivion even if the thing they were doing was equally sympathetic.

Because it's not just about the public noticing it, it's about the public noticing it in time to do something about it. If an individual gets sued or arrested, they're immediately screwed and will be under pressure to settle or plea bargain before they're bankrupted by legal fees. But once they do, the case is over. Whereas large companies can fight, or pay lawyers to stall while they wage a media campaign to counter the usual imperious press releases from the prosecution, or use their money to lobby the government while public opinion is in their favor.

[thatcat]

I mean there are examples in the same category as well: how many years was it illegally exported from dispensaties between states? New state legalizes? day one the corporate dispensary is stocked which is curious since it takes several months to grow. Also, lots of foriegn capital involved in the industry.

Not just meta, Open AI, spotify, youtube...its become a routine exception and can now be relied upon.

I agree that the legal fees could be a big factor, but it seems cases aren't even filed.

[slashdev]

Uber definitely improved things.

When traveling it’s also so much safer than taxis.

My brother was robbed at gunpoint in a taxi. My wife had to jump from more than one moving taxi to escape. My ex girlfriend too. My Swiss friend had his camera and wallet stolen.

You can have issues with Uber too, but not as frequently because there’s a digital audit trail, you can report them to the platform and the police. The threat of those consequences lead to better behavior.

[kmoser]

Were these acts committed by the drivers or somebody else?

[slashdev]

Drivers

[cookie_monsta]

Here's another data point: I have taken literally thousands of taxis on 5 continents and none of this has ever happened to me

[leshow]

It didn't improve things for the drivers

[slashdev]

That’s not universally true

[walrus01]

What's interesting is that in many cities now, Uber and Lyft are in fact more expensive than taxis. And the experience is equally mediocre. The pendulum has swung back the other way. The only thing they have going for them now is the app based convenience, which is eroding as more "yellow cab" type traditional taxis band together and get set up with their own sort of city-specific app.

[phil21]

> What's interesting is that in many cities now, Uber and Lyft are in fact more expensive than taxis.

Sure, agreed.

> And the experience is equally mediocre.

Absolutely not. I regret using a taxi nearly every time I opt for the cheaper option. It's only the "better" choice if you happen to be standing right in front of one. This experience is nearly universal no matter where I travel.

I think people really forget how utterly terrible Taxis were pre-Uber. I have no idea about competing apps these days, maybe they are similar to Uber, but the typical Taxi experience is nearly as awful as it's always been at least in the US.

Uber/Lyft certainly has gotten worse - but at least I can fairly reliably get a car when I need it with reasonable reliability. The rest of the "soft" product or pricing I really care far, far, less about than that simple fact.

[haswell]

> the typical Taxi experience is nearly as awful as it's always been at least in the US

It seems impossible/problematic to generalize the taxi experience to “The US”.

If you’re in a city center, cabs can be far easier. The number of times I’ve ordered an Uber or Lyft and regretted it while watching taxi after taxi drive by has been increasing. But I expect the Chicago loop experience to be quite different from say, the suburbs.

[mrguyorama]

> quite different from say, the suburbs.

My small rural town of 9000 people had multiple taxi services that poorer people relied on to do even their grocery shopping. We didn't need "disruption"

Tech bros generalizing a negative experience from NYC or SV to the entire US has been so stupid.

[tmnvdb]

If you didn't need disruption, why did people choose to use the new service?

[Supermancho]

> Uber and Lyft are in fact more expensive than taxis.

I doubt that.

I double checked, just to be sure since I paid for taxis for years for a specific trip, each way. Uber is still cheaper TODAY than taxis were when I switched 10 years ago. One way 5 minute trip, Friday 6pm in orange county, ca still under 20$ today.

20$ was a good deal (or ripoff, depending on your attitude) for a taxi in 2015, for the same distance and a variable waiting time. Let's just say it's about equal for sake of discussion. There was no app, but there was a dispatcher you could call. There was no incentive to improve, until then.

Companies have had to adapt and prices have come down. It would no doubt be 30$+ today for taxis, if not for rideshare companies.

[gardnr]

I remember calling a taxi 3 hours before my flight to get to SFO. After an hour and four different phone calls to the taxi company, I took BART and barely made it before the counter closed.

The feedback system incentivizes drivers and riders to behave.

[GuB-42]

This is getting off-topic, but I am curious, why didn't you go with BART in the first place? If you had an hour to call the taxi company and still arrive in time, presumably, you had more than enough time.

I know there are reasons for not going with public transport, but preferring to take a taxi/uber when a train line can get you there in time maybe has more to say about public transport than about taxis. Well functioning rail is typically one of the most effective and reliable way of getting to an airport, and often much cheaper than taxis.

[godot]

Not OP but many many reasons. If you have the money and you prefer comfort (and/or have kids along) taking a taxi/uber/etc. is much more preferable than dragging several (probably heavy) luggages up and down platforms (elevators may or may not work), walking long paths, etc. especially when you consider the alternative is simply putting luggages in a trunk, sit down and relax, and most likely get there faster. And all of this is before we even talk about any safety issues with BART.

[rangestransform]

I refuse to take public transit with a checked bag until the NYC subway has 99.9% escalator uptime and escalators at every station, realistically possible with redundant escalators. We will never have nice things as long as we let the trade unions bend us over

[ryandrake]

I’ve waited an hour for a Lyft while driver after driver accepted then canceled the ride. Ridesharing does not have great reliability either.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's not really that surprising when the cities are passing laws to try to turn Uber back into the taxi cartel by e.g. making it harder for them to use part-time and on-demand contract drivers. The way you get the price down is by reducing friction, increasing flexibility and supply and taking advantage of efficiencies like people willing to do a dozen rides a week during surge pricing without making it a full-time job. Pass bad laws that make things more rigid and they get more expensive.

[immibis]

You think that workers having certainty of their work hours is a bad law? What are your work hours?

[AnthonyMouse]

Forcing them to have certainty? Yeah, that's a bad law that screws over the workers. There are people who are at home doing chores or making stuff for Etsy or doing some other contract work who would like to leave the app open and then accept a fare whenever there is one, or would like to open the app to see if anyone else would pay them for a trip they were going to make themselves anyway, regardless of whether the app can guarantee back to back fares.

Instead, laws like that cause Uber to set their hours and then they can't switch on and off whenever they please and have to work miserable graveyard shifts or split shifts if that's what they're assigned.

Meanwhile there is nothing stopping anyone from taking a job with contractually guaranteed hours if that's what they want. There are plenty of jobs like that, you don't have to mandate all jobs be like that and screw over anyone who wants something different.

[rangestransform]

Last time I used curb, the cabbie told me that the curb payment wasn’t working and I had to Zelle him, ended up needing to report the driver to Curb to get my money back. Shoulda taken an uber!

[oremolten]

It does always seem like a race to the bottom.

[potato3732842]

The price people are willing to pay sets how nice a cab fleet can be while still turning a profit.

Same reason you don't see landscaping crews filled out with stellar employees.

[cratermoon]

> What's interesting is that in many cities now, Uber and Lyft are in fact more expensive than taxis. And the experience is equally mediocre.

That, of course, was the plan all along. Such august figures as JP Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller,and Andrew Carnegie all made their fortune by undercutting the competition, putting them out of business through means legal and otherwise, and finally monopolizing the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

[rzz3]

You should look at what’s going on in Cancun Mexico with Uber and the taxis right now. Your description in the first sentence is quite accurate.

Your comment also points out the power that regulation has to enforce and protect monopolies. I’m not saying all regulation is bad obviously, but I think we can see exactly what effect it had on the taxi industry, and I’m sure glad that Uber managed to disrupt it.

[consteval]

The problem with Uber is that it's a lose-lose-lose money pit scenario.

Customers pay significantly more, drivers make significantly less, and Uber is still running hundreds of millions in the red. Turns out hiring thousands of devs and dumping absurd capital into... driving people around... doesn't really work.

[arp242]

It really screwed over a lot of regular working-class people. In some European cities getting a taxi license was a serious monetary investment. People took our huge loans for this. This was now suddenly worthless. It's like being told your very expensive university education is no longer accredited, but the student loan still exists. kthxbye.

I'm not saying the existing systems were always good (they weren't), but you need to be willing to overlook a lot of real-world suffering to be "rooting for Uber". Phrases like "taxi cartels" sound nice, but they're hardly neutral phrasings that simplify things to the point of being useless phrases.

And "I'm just going to willingly and knowingly ignore laws I don't like for personal profit" is not a great take-away either. This isn't Aaron Swartz breaking a law as a matter of "civil disobedience" – it's just a plain "how can we make money?"

And where does that leave competitors who are NOT willing to break the law? It's an unlevel playing field; there can be no free market if some people don't need to follow the same set of rules. Uber's actions are fundamentally anti-capitalist and anti-free market.

[6510]

I always tell the story of this restaurant 18 km from my house. If I order their cheapest 6 euro hamburger they deliver it for free within 30 minutes. If I take a taxi to the restaurant I may have to wait for an hour and it costs about 100 euro and another 100 to get back.

[arp242]

I took a ~20 minute 12km taxi ride just last Monday, and it was about €22. That's in Ireland. Considering fuel, the drive back for the driver, and that taxis have a lot of downtime, that seems like a reasonable price.

You live in Netherlands according to a recent comment; I can't believe taxis are almost 4x more expensive, unless you're stuck in traffic for a long time, but then your burger can't arrive in 30 mins?

And free delivery on €6 food item is almost certainly netting them a loss.

[decimalenough]

There is no way anybody is making a profit on driving 36 km to deliver a hamburger for 6 euros, and it's a matter of time until whatever faucet of VC money subsidizing this runs dry.

In much of the world the price of food delivery has risen to the level needed to make it profitable, and it's not cheap. I paid around $10 in fees plus Uber's 30-50% markups on the food itself to get a couple of burritos yesterday from a shop a mile down the road.

[6510]

A 30 min drive would be 7 euro and 3 cent in minimum wage. Then you need a car and you have to fuel or charge it.

The only solution to the riddle I can think of is that (like postal services) they can cleverly combine orders and rarely lose money on delivery. The fast delivery would have to be luck or perhaps the burger preserves poorly?

That the food is absolutely fantastic might also have something to do with it. If they can get food into your mouth repetition is almost guaranteed.

[twelve40]

> getting a taxi license was a serious monetary investment. People took our huge loans for this

it was a terrible system that sucked for everyone involved. For all of Uber's flaws, would you rather go back to that today? really??

[arp242]

> would you rather go back to that today? really??

I absolutely said said no such thing. There are good ways to change things and bad ways to change things. Allowing a private entity reap huge profits by blatantly breaking rules and screwing people is not a good way to change things.

[CamperBob2]

There was no other way to change things on less than a generational timescale.

If governments don't like it, well, bummer. They were supposed to serve the people, not the incumbent taxi cartels. They failed, so "we the people" routed around them.

[Forgeties79]

Unfortunately now Ubers are exactly the same experience but more expensive/unpredictable. It’s only nicer if you spend more on black and such, which makes it easily double a standard cab fare.

[brisky]

It is possible that digitization and improvement of taxi services was inevitable anyway

[rangestransform]

They still haven’t properly digitized, curb sucks ass, I had to report a driver to curb when he made me Zelle him because “curb payment wasn’t working”

[clarkmoody]

Possible, yes. Probable?

[ToucanLoucan]

Not only was it inevitable, if we were so inclined and willing to use the regulatory pen, we could've simply written into law that for Taxi's to operate, they must be well maintained and must accept all major forms of payment. And yeah, the Taxi industry would've fought it because every company ever has fought every regulation ever no matter how much it stands to benefit both their customers and they them-fucking-selves but companies having a say in how they are regulated is both how a Taxi company would fight this, and how Uber, AirBnb, OpenAI, Meta, etc. blatantly and flagrantly violate the law and instead of consequences, they get fines, and court hearings. So maybe we just shouldn't be allowing that?

It drives me up the goddamn wall how people will say shit like "the Taxi industry needed to be upended" when like... I mean, maybe? But on balance, given all the negative externalities associated with these companies, are they really a gain? Or are they just a different set of overlords, equally disinterested in providing a good service once they reach the scale where they no longer are required to give a shit?

Just... regulate the fuckers. Are you sick of filthy Taxis that break down? Put a regulation down that says if a cab breaks down during a trip, they owe the customer a free ride and five thousand dollars. You bet your ASS those cabs will be serviced as soon as humanly possible. This isn't rocket science y'all. Make whatever consequence the government is going to dispense immeasurably, clearly worse than whatever the business is trying to weasel out of doing, and boom. Solved.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Not only was it inevitable, if we were so inclined and willing to use the regulatory pen, we could've simply written into law that for Taxi's to operate, they must be well maintained and must accept all major forms of payment.

That was frequently already the case. They were required to accept credit cards but then the card reader would be "broken" and it wasn't worth anybody's time to dispute it instead of just paying in cash.

You also... don't really want laws like that. They're required to accept "all payment methods", which ones? Do they have to take American Express, even though the fees are much higher? Do they have to take PayPal if the customer has funds in a PayPal account? What about niche card networks like store cards accepted at more than one merchant? If not those and just Visa and Mastercard, you now have a law entrenching that duopoly in the law.

> Are you sick of filthy Taxis that break down? Put a regulation down that says if a cab breaks down during a trip, they owe the customer a free ride and five thousand dollars. You bet your ASS those cabs will be serviced as soon as humanly possible. This isn't rocket science y'all.

It's not rocket science, it's trade offs.

Is there a $5000 fine for a breakdown? You just made cab service much more expensive, because they're either going to have to pay the fines as a cost of doing business and then pass them on, or propylactically do excessive maintenance like doing full engine rebuilds every year because it costs less than getting caught out once, and then passing on the cost of that. And even then, there is no such thing as perfect. The cabbie paid to have the whole engine rebuilt by the dealership just yesterday and the dealer under-tightened one of the bolts when putting it back in, so there's a coolant leak? Normally that's just re-tightening the bolt and $20 worth of coolant, but now it's a $5000 fine on top of the $4000 engine rebuild.

The way you actually want to solve this is with competition, not rigid rules and onerous fines. If someone is always having breakdowns then they get bad rating, customers can see that when choosing and then opt for a different driver that costs slightly more -- but only if the cost is worth the difference to them. Maybe it's worth $2 for the difference between two stars and five but it isn't worth $50 for the difference between 4.7 and 4.8. Either way you shouldn't be deciding for people, you should be giving them the choice.

[vdqtp3]

> That was frequently already the case. ...the card reader would be "broken"

I traveled a lot to a smallish town for work before Uber got there and ran into this several times. After the second or third time, I started just saying "well that sucks for you" and starting to leave. Suddenly it would work.

Yes it sucked, but it didn't really impact much.

[drdaeman]

> Just... regulate the fuckers.

That's true, however we must also keep in mind that Uber (and alikes) happened because regular institutions failed to do this for some reason or another. I won't try to speculate why, because I have no idea (and of course it looks obvious in the hindsight).

There was a demand for safer and more reliable taxis. There was not enough supply for that. Government haven't paid enough attention to the sector. So, naturally, someone came and used that whole situation to provide supply for this demand.

Of course it's not this simple, and there were a lot of other things going on. But if we narrow the scope down to just this, then we can see that the core problem here wasn't Uber, it was that that governments were too slow to react in time.

[rangestransform]

I would rather ruin the taxi livelihood than have to argue with my driver about turning on the meter again

[mschuster91]

The solution to that would not have been rabid capitalism just bulldozing over laws because the laws suck and further entrenching that "laws only matter for the poor".

The solution to the pre-Uber state of the taxi industry would be to actually have the regulations authorities enforce the regulation. But it seems across the Western world that having regulations authorities do their job and regulate is like the devil and holy water.

Additionally, in some cases the regulations themselves were crap.

[Domenic_S]

Let's not pretend that the taxi situation was hunkey-dory before big-bad-tech came onto the scene. There's no regulation that says if I call dispatch to request a taxi one has to show up, and "we'll pick you up when we pick you up" was (and is still) a common mode of operation.

In NYC, it was (is?) against the law to hail a black car on the street, even if they were sitting there ready willing and able to drive you, because the taxi cartel got _regulations_ to make it that way.

[mschuster91]

> In NYC, it was (is?) against the law to hail a black car on the street, even if they were sitting there ready willing and able to drive you, because the taxi cartel got _regulations_ to make it that way.

That's precisely what I meant with "in some cases the regulations themselves were crap". But that doesn't imply the idea of regulation is bad - it is saying that maybe voters should make their voice clear to lawmakers and parties to get stuff changed. Regulation can only be as good or bad as the voters allow it to be.

[buran77]

The reason is that everyone who was supposed to do something about it was "subsidized with VC money".

[grepfru_it]

Or in Ubers case, used to actively hinder those doing the investigation

[_heimdall]

Speed had a lot to do with this as well.

VC funding allowed them to move quickly enough that they got to a scale where they could afford legal and lobbying protection when challenges eventually happened.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The reason there was no political will to punish Airbnb and Uber for violating the law was that initially they were subsidized with VC money and so were able to undercut traditional hotels and taxis on price.

That's just a trope. They were initially losing money because they had high fixed costs (developing a platform, spending enough on advertising to get a critical mass of people using it), which are long-term investments. If you only spread the cost of the long-term investment over the short-term sales, they were "losing money" in the early years, but that's how all long-term investments work.

Dumping is when you sell below the unit cost, e.g. paying drivers more than you charge customers, which isn't what they were doing in general. And as long as they weren't doing that, the incumbents could have responded by lowering their own prices (and therefore margins) without themselves losing money on each sale, which is competition working as intended. Unless the competition is too hidebound to accept a reduction in profits in order to stay competitive or otherwise insists on using a less efficient method of operating, in which case they go under.

[lupusreal]

Part of the reason Airbnb got a pass must be how profitable it was to people who own many properties, despite the harm it does to the communities of people who only own one property.

[harrison_clarke]

shouldn't there be a lot of political will from the traditional hotels and taxis, and their lawyers? i can see that the answer is "no", but i don't know why

especially with hotels, i would have expected there to be small enough oligopoly to overcome the freerider problem (taxis are more regional, so i don't expect them to be able to fight an (inter)national company very easily)

plus the president owning a hotel chain

[rangestransform]

> shouldn't there be a lot of political will from the traditional hotels and taxis, and their lawyers?

Yes there is, I am reminded of this every time I take an uber by the yellow cab medallion buyout fee that I’m charged because of the lobbying power of the TLC lobby in NYC

[lupusreal]

There are a lot more people who own a few properties as investments than there are hotel owners. Even if these people don't plan to rent through Airbnb, the way Airbnb distorts the housing market is still beneficial for their investments. Also, by the time Trump became president Airbnb was already entrenched for years.

[hylaride]

The traditional taxi industry was rife with corruption, bad experiences, and poor service in many jurisdictions before uber/lyft. As terrible of a human being that I think Travis Kalanick is, it was only going to take lawbreaking to overcome such a tainted system.

Medallion systems often prevented any competition, sometimes to absurd effect. The number of licenced taxis often didn't keep pace with population growth, sometimes even staying flat. Many drivers didn't own their own medallians then had to rent from owners, often making little money. In my city (Toronto) cabs were often dirty, broken, refused short distance fares (illegal) and smelled of cigarette smoke that was obviously from the driver.

Examples (paywalls, but you get the idea):

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/26/nyregion/amid-a-heritage-...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/adventure/red-li...

[nayuki]

Moreover, I believe Uber fundamentally solved two problems with taxis:

The driver can't scam the passenger. The driver can't set the meter wrong, drive an unnecessarily long route, or just be an outright unlicensed taxi. Instead, the driver maintains a relationship with Uber, and the passenger can preview the fare before committing.

The passenger can't scam the driver. In a traditional taxi, you could theoretically just walk out ("dine and dash" style). The passenger can also make a call to dispatch and not show up for the ride. Instead, the passenger maintains a relationship with Uber, and the driver doesn't need to handle any payments.

> Medallion systems often prevented any competition, sometimes to absurd effect. The number of licenced taxis often didn't keep pace with population growth, sometimes even staying flat.

And thus medallion owners collect economic rent on their artificially scarce resource, distorting the free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

[andrewaylett]

Meanwhile, in places with sensible rules about taxis and private hire, the only thing that Uber did was make it easier for people to break the rules. And rack up an enormous tax bill that they somehow believed they'd be able to get out of paying.

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/uber-loses-appeal-a...

[cratermoon]

> The driver can't scam the passenger

> The passenger can't scam the driver.

Progress! Uber scams both passenger and driver. Hooray for Free Markets™!

[nayuki]

> Uber scams both passenger and driver.

Then why do people keep using it? It seems like a pretty transactional relationship to me. If drivers aren't getting paid as much as they wanted, they should find another job with a higher price. If passengers are paying more than they wanted, then they should find another way to call a taxi with a lower price.

[cratermoon]

> they should find another way to call a taxi with a lower price.

like what? Uber's business plan was always about eliminating competition. The company successfully did so by undercutting prices, only to jack them up when they had the market to themselves. There is no Free Market Fairy way to fix that.

[umanwizard]

Under what definition of “scam” is that the case?

[cratermoon]

https://locusmag.com/2024/05/cory-doctorow-no-one-is-the-ens...

[TeMPOraL]

It sucked, but not everywhere equally. Meanwhile, Uber rode their one-trick pony (an app), which everyone quickly replicated, all the way to upending taxi businesses worldwide, thanks to their infinite money supply letting them survive long enough in any new market to get the public behind them, which took away support from local regulators trying to keep the market from being gutted by what at this point was a multinational corporation (and technically a criminal enterprise).

Sure, taxi services aren't usually known to be paragons of virtue, but then they weren't that bad everywhere; Uber is just another case of an US org trying to address an US-specific problem and then bludgeoning the entire world with their solution, whether the rest of the planet has such problems or not.

[ChadNauseam]

That seems a little dramatic. They never forced anyone to take an uber right? If taxis were so amazing in other countries why would anyone be interested in switching to uber?

[mrguyorama]

Uber was able to subsidize prices, that's why.

[theshackleford]

> It sucked, but not everywhere equally.

Ok, but “everywhere” isn’t my problem. They sucked everywhere I had to use one which is my problem.

> they weren’t that bad everywhere

They were beyond a joke where I am from, which is not the US. Even today, they remain a worse option.

> US specific problem

There was nothing US specific about it.

[slices]

I've never been a huge user of either, but my worst Uber ride was much better than my best taxi ride.

[ses1984]

The last time I dragged my family into a taxi because of my anti Uber ideology, the driver stank to hell of body odor, asked me to input directions on his phone covered with dried snot from him sneezing with his mouth open, he drove dangerously under the speed limit on the freeway, and it took twice as long to get home as normal.

But at least I didn’t give Uber any money…

[derektank]

I'm immediately reminded of the Slavoj Zizek quote,

"I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology"

[jamespo]

Strange, my last Uber driver had BO. Normally they are fine however.

[harrison_clarke]

in my experience, taxi quality varies wildly depending on where you are

in bay area, it absolutely makes sense to invent uber, because the taxis were awful. and in vancouver (canada), they're also awful, and deserve the disruption: they would often tell you it'd be a 40 minute wait, and then just not show up

taxis in new york were and continue to be totally fine. you just stand outside and get in ~20 seconds later, with no hassles or apps. i've been in an uber/lyft a handful of times in nyc, but they're just worse (possibly cheaper, but the subway also gives them stiff competition, and i don't care that much if i'm in enough of a hurry to take a cab)

[selectodude]

>taxis in new york were and continue to be totally fine. you just stand outside and get in ~20 seconds later, with no hassles or apps

Unless you weren't white, or you wanted to leave Manhattan (or even go north of 96th street). Otherwise, yeah I guess they were okay.

[avidiax]

Vancouver was a great example of the corruption inherent in monopolies. Vancouver had neither Lyft nor Uber until 2020. I heard (internally, when I used to work for Uber) that the reason is that some politicians there had a personal stake in the taxis, so they got a $50 minimum fare passed for all booked rides.

The thing that Uber and Lyft really provided was a surveillance economy to keep both the drivers and riders somewhat in-line. Without it, every ride is an almost anonymous one-shot transaction with almost no recourse on one side, so the game theory suggests that service only has to be good enough that the police aren't called.

https://www.urbanyvr.com/uber-lyft-vancouver-launches/

[umanwizard]

> taxis in new york were and continue to be totally fine. you just stand outside and get in ~20 seconds later, with no hassles or apps.

This is only true in a small subset of New York.

[dboreham]

When it's not raining.

[AlexCoventry]

Uber is still undercutting taxis in Boston, FWIW. I looked up a ride on Curb (a taxi app) and Uber today, and the prices were $17 and $12, respectively.

[umanwizard]

Taxis and hotels suck compared to Airbnb and uber even at the same price, so I find it hard to be upset.

[elzbardico]

Every time we talk about VC money in the last 20 years, we’re really talking about a wealth transfer from workers and the middle class to the rich via the Cantillon Effect. Cheap money enters the system through banks, funds, and corporations, not through wages. The people who get access to it first (asset holders, investors, VCs) deploy it into equities, real estate, and startups before inflation devalues the currency for everyone else.

Post-2008, ZIRP and QE pumped trillions into financial markets, making capital nearly free for those who could borrow at scale. That money didn’t go into raising wages; it went into inflating asset prices. If you owned stocks or real estate, you got richer. If you earned a paycheck, you watched housing and living costs go up while your wages stagnated.

VC was one of the biggest beneficiaries. With bonds yielding nothing, institutional investors had to chase returns, flooding venture funds with capital. That’s how we got an era of insane startup valuations, SoftBank-style mega-funds, and entire sectors built on free money. Growth-at-all-costs became the norm because the cost of capital was effectively zero.

Then COVID hit, and the Fed doubled down—more QE, more stimulus, even lower rates. Another massive wealth transfer. Money printer go brrr, asset prices moon, and suddenly we have SPACs, meme stocks, and a startup funding frenzy. Meanwhile, workers got a couple of stimulus checks, and by the time the dust settled, everything from rent to food to cars was way more expensive.

Now AI companies are running the same playbook that cloud megascalers ran before them—monetizing open-source work while locking out the people who actually built it. Cloud providers took open-source databases, infrastructure, and developer tools, turned them into managed services, and extracted billions in profit without meaningfully compensating the people who did the work. AI companies are now doing the same thing—scraping open-source repositories, academic papers, and public datasets, building models upon it then slapping on proprietary fine-tuning and charging for API access all the while blatantly raising capital by promising to make the same workers they stole from obsolte. All of it built on the backs of researchers, engineers, and artists who never see a dime, but also on the backs of everyone else via the cantillon effect.

Now rates go up, the bubble deflates, and who gets left holding the bag? Not the VCs who cashed out early. Not the bankers who took their fees. It’s the workers, the middle class, the open-source devs, and the late-stage startup employees who thought they had something real. The cycle repeats.

[mapt]

Is it? Really?

Or is it just "illegal" for an overseas competitor to a domestic industry, in trade disputes?

What is the fine? How many days in jail does the company spend? What portion is its stock diluted by?

We remember the tale of Jeff Bezouis the Wise, who tragically lost his company when he decided he didn't want to buy diapers.com at the offered price, and instead wanted to dump 200 million dollars into selling diapers well below cost until their site folded.

[hammock]

You're right. Dumping refers to international trade. I believe parent commenter was thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing