[JonFish85]

I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but when Uber itself is a business that seems to exist on the border of legality, this type of stuff isn't that much of a surprise to me. Uber et al. specifically skirt around regulations that cab companies have to abide by, which, at least in my opinion, sets the tone at the top that legality and ethics are somewhat secondary to the mission of the company.

IMPORTANT: I've used Uber, and the experience has been great. All I'm saying is that I don't love the cavalier attitude towards city regulations on taxis, and that I think that attitude flows down the chain.

[ajju]

I think it is important to draw a distinction between challenging local regulations like million dollar medallions that hurt both drivers and riders and laws that prevent companies from hurting their competitors to steal their supply, the way it happened here.

There are many companies challenging the first kind of regulation that wouldn't indulge in the breaking the second kind of law. Disclaimer: I started one of them - InstantCab, which competes directly with Uber and Gett.

[aestra]

>million dollar medallions

As far as I understand, the only thing that medallions offer as an advantage in New York City (where they cost a million dollars) is the ability to pick up people who hail a cab off the street. Other car services exist for prearranged rides, and are called car services, not taxis.

[theorique]

That's the way startups work - you have to move fast, break stuff, work on the edge of the rules, and disrupt the stagnant markets, man.