[ryanwaggoner]

all of the innovations and improvements you bring up ... come from areas that few, if any, regulators take issue with

They don't issue with them, but still no one in the regulated industry bothers doing them. And why? Because thanks to the government distortions in the market, you don't need to do any of that stuff to compete.

And that's what government interventions in markets almost always ends up doing: protecting a group of entrenched companies at the expense of consumers.

Good for Uber for trying to fuck over an industry that's been fucking over their customers for decades, with the full faith and protection of the governments those customers pay for.

[anulman]

I believed this point too when we first started our company, and were more Uber-clone-y than we are now. However, after spending a year working in the industry, I've learned that it's more "catchy idea" than reality.

It turns out that the taxi industry is a little different: the fleets have wanted to innovate for years now, but have little idea how. The regulations clearly permit innovation. In cities where taxis aren't run by the municipal government (i.e. "in cities that aren't New York"), there is healthy competition between taxi providers, in spite of their commoditization (regulated pricing, supply, etc.).

IMO, the existing taxi technology players are the ones who are stifling innovation (and/or "protecting a group of entrenched companies at the expense of consumers"). 2 of the big 3 dispatch technology providers charge hefty fees just to open access to their APIs for new entrants, if they'll even grant you access in the first place. And, due to the long-term, hardware-heavy, dispatch-focused nature of their contracts, they rarely have any incentive to innovate for the passengers; one of them once told me that they have nobody on staff who understands the web or web technologies!

Working with the existing dispatch companies, while not a necessary evil (take Hailo or GetTaxi, for example), is the best way to ensure scale and distribution -- the amount of cash consumer-focused players must spend in this industry in the hopes of curbing cab booking behaviours is enormous. Our research showed that, when calling for a pre-arranged cab, 95% of taxi passengers chose their fleet because it was first to mind, or the fleet they always called. In other words: only 5% of consumers chose what TaxiCo to call for any rational reason. Having an existing brand identity, and a number of cars on the street constantly hocking your wares, goes a long way in this industry.

But even before Uber came along, a wave of new dispatch companies had started cropping up, most of which are relying on a healthy partner ecosystem in order to make it in the first place. But, since dispatch technology contracts have typically been signed as 10-year license agreements, evolution naturally trends to a slow change: a lot of forward-thinking fleets I've met with renewed their contracts in the last year or two, since they didn't feel the new technology was mature enough yet (and, in most cases/for their needs, rightly so).

All this to say: I'm not yet sure what the best way to spark the necessary change is (FWIW: currently leaning towards "open standards", but I'm not 100% sure how that would look yet... ); figuring it out will likely be a huge benefit to my company. But I firmly believe, based on facts and experience, that it's not a regulatory issue.

(edit: formatting)

[ryanwaggoner]

You don't seem to be understanding. The regulations themselves don't stop innovation directly, but the fact that it's very difficult and expensive to get a medallion, plus the fact that once you cross that barrier, you'll be protected by law from much new competition, means that it's harder for new players to enter the market and compete.

The medallion system is stupid and should be done away with. It's purely anti-competitive.

[anulman]

Again, you're right on the fact, but not on the interpretation. The medallion system used by most cities restricts the number of cars on the road in a city. However:

1) Most taxi fleets -- especially the larger ones -- collect monthly rent from car owners, rather than own a ton of medallions themselves. The medallion system benefits owners of medallions, not fleets. This distinction, while invisible to the masses, is incredibly important.

2) It's definitely not rare for new fleets to pop up. We talk with plenty of folks who own fleets that are only one or two years old. All you need is a subset of drivers (and/or owners!), a couple of regular clients, and a little gumption. New fleets are popping up, and trying to innovate as best they can. The new, lower-priced, often mobile-based dispatch systems I mentioned in a previous comment have really been a boon to this segment.

3) In most cities, black car licenses are similarly restricted to medallions. The limits may not be posted, but they exist. In fact, a great article about Uber in The Atlantic exposed this issue in DC back in May[1].

4) Again, fleets working with us are achieving similar results; companies like Hailo and GetTaxi (who seem to be trying to work within the system) are as well.

In short: the medallion system is a red herring when it comes to stifling innovation. It is definitely an issue, one that tends to marginalize drivers and unnecessarily restrict supply for passengers. But every one of the companies you and I have mentioned abide by the restrictions it imposes, so your point is moot.

Going back to my original issue: I have no problem with challenging rules, conventions, and decisions (I'm an entrepreneur, posting on HN... do you really expect me to disagree here?). My issue lies in Uber's underhanded approach, where they both flout actually sensible laws and arguably force governments to send C&Ds by refusing to engage with them when initially approached.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-...