[Bsharp]

Really enjoyed this article - seemed to give a pretty objective look at what happened then and parallels to now.

What I liked most though was the author's honest assessment of what happens if Uber and others win. Most people seem to imagine this utopia of competition between the ride share companies, but given that Uber is already engaging in immortal practices to eliminate competition and hiring people to schmooze regulators, I doubt that's the direction we're headed. If they get their way, we'll be complaining about them in 20 years when they are established, another company comes along, and Uber tries to regulate them away.

[jacquesm]

Ubers model (and AirBnb) are comparable to the models employed by sites like 'justeat'. First you are a convenience, you move into an empty field and supply a service that the public loves and suppliers become dependant on.

Then, once you've achieved market dominance you start the squeeze, slowly capturing more of the revenue stream. Because a huge amount of the customers now comes to the suppliers through you if a supplier balks they get cut off and that bit of the revenue stream gets redistributed over the ones that remain. Those will soon learn 'not to mess with you'.

It's very clever and it works over and over again, there are quite a few industries that have suddenly found themselves in this situation. I call them 'the new middlemen', where the www was initially thought to allow us to cut the middlemen out a new generation of middlemen has stepped up and has exploited the opportunity and has in the process gotten rid of the old middlemen.

[xnull]

These middlemen are a kind of legal pimp that exist all over the United States.

Salons are middlemen for hairstylists. Hollywood middlemen for movie directors. Labels are middlemen for musical artists. Google is a middleman for advertizers/people's private information. At a larger scale, credit card processing companies are a middlemen between EVERYTHING.

The pimp/middleman taxes what would normally be a direct market transaction between two willing parties. Presumably in a free market (we're getting crazy here and granting classical market analysis some of its claims), two parties will undergo a transaction only if it benefits both parties. This is one of the fundamental justifications for market systems of wealth distribution and social organization. (It ignores whether the transaction hurts third parties to that exchange - externalities - but that's a side discussion).

What a pimp does is take some of the value from the transaction for himself in return for organizing the transaction. In cases where the pimp hasn't actually added any value (he wasn't really required for the exchange) he is said to be "rent seeking" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking). The classical example of this is chaining over a public river system and charging people to run their boat down it. In this case no value has been added to the river by the chaining, in fact value was extracted and concentrated into private hands.

The situation is less clear when the pimp does add some value. In the case of prostitution a pimp provides security and a first check that the 'John' isn't law enforcement. In the case of credit card companies, they facilitate the exchange of dollars over wires and track down fraudulent transactions (security). In the case of Uber, they provide checks on customers and checks on renters (security). Security is popular. But it isn't always the case. Some pimps provide an upfront investment in machinery, such as mirrors/air conditioning/shampoos. Other times the pimp takes a financial risk.

It isn't always clear when a middleman is a good deal. When is your pimp robbing you as an employee? As a customer? As a service provider? Many small and medium businesses struggle with credit card processing fees as the charges cut into what are usually small profit margins to begin with. Having built the infrastructure once and not having improved on it, do credit card processing companies deserve 3% (I don't know what it is) of every monetary transaction? That's half of most sales taxes, but it goes into private hands. Is the value of providing that infrastructure enough to justify the costs? After how many years does an infrastructure have be in place before it is considered a public good?

The internet was supposed to be democratizing in that it would facilitate direct transactions where there weren't any before. People with information could get it to those that needed it without having news organizations filtering it. Musicians could release without labels taking their cut. Coders could sell programs without coordinating with software stores. But today there are appstores and there are wire transfer services and there are online banks and online social filter systems. Google, Paypal, Comcast, smartphone and device manufacturers and carriers, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Apple store, etc all take their slice.

When is it okay to put a chain across a river? What if the river is first dug deeper, or if someone puts up signs? And how long is it okay to leave the chain up?

[karmelapple]

How do I find that band I've never heard of?

[_sh]

Through a co-op, not a middleman: http://noisetrade.com/info/about

[vertex-four]

NoiseTrade isn't a co-op, and in fact is a third-party middleman (a "pimp") once again. They make their money off of tips - when a fan decides to tip an artist through the platform, NoiseTrade skims 20% plus processing fees.

The various types of co-op are fairly well-defined in general, but likely the best system here would be that the member artists would have control over the running of the site (likely through a voting system or consensus system), and therefore have control over how it's funded.

This would mean that there isn't a middleman who can skim more money than is necessary for the operation of the site, because the artists own it. Even if they decide to outsource the running of it, they can still decide to fire the outsourced company/individual and have someone else run it instead, without losing their data or their network effects.

They can't do that in a situation like NoiseTrade, where the artists are customers just as much as the fans are, and have no ownership over the system; everyone's stuck there due to network effects, until NoiseTrade do something extremely egregious.

[xnull]

Here are ways to do it besides a co-op, although that's interesting too.

* Word of mouth

* Expert advice

* Music discussion forums

* Going to see shows/concerts. (Bands you like often have openers you might like.)

* A locally run algorithm that samples music released online to find suggestions (a local Pandora/Spotify rather than a service)

[bane]

If you've ever been in a country with a completely unregulated taxi "system", Uber's success should absolutely terrify anybody.

Trying to make sure you aren't part of an "express kidnapping" or "millionaire tour" is a real problem in many places.

[natrius]

Ha. The problem in such places isn't transportation regulation, it's basic rule of law. Kidnapping is already against the law, as is charging more for a service than you advertise.

[bane]

But in places with regulated taxi service, you won't generally be getting into the back of a random car claiming it's a taxi either. All the taxi livery, car #, driver info, etc. in a regulated taxi industry is polite-speak for "won't kidnap you can sell your body parts off to the highest bidder" and this is ensured because somebody(s) will get in trouble for doing this.

It doesn't appear to be a problem with Uber or Lyft since they have some kind of QC, but what happens when the market is deregulated for anybody to open up whatever kind of taxi service they want? It's the next next guys that worry me.

Random cars pulling up to people hailing taxis and offering a ride is basically the kind of stuff we were all taught to avoid as children because you shouldn't talk to strangers.

[Nacraile]

All of that livery, car #, driver info, etc is security theatre. So are background checks. If you get in a taxi with serious malicious intent, you're in trouble, full stop. Whatever limited protection they do yield is basically redundant with the license plate number.

You're confusing correlation with causation in declaring that unregulated taxi service leads to dangerous taxi service.

[bane]

Well everything is security theater then. We can always come up with some absurd scenario where no amount of safety precautions will keep you safe. The difference with a regulated service is that if you do disappear into some warehouse somewhere to be sold off for parts. There's at least a chance somebody in dispatch, or your relatives, or a witness can provide a lead. Jump in a random beater and you're gone forever.

So I guess go on being proud of assuming idiotic risks the next time you hop in a beat up Toyota Tercel in Mexico City or wherever because some random guy offers to give you ride for cheap. You don't really need both of your kidneys.

I won't argue statistics with you, but the incidents of people disappearing into some Central American jungle are far higher when morons on holiday jump in the back of unmarked "taxis" vs. taking a regulated service.

I mean, it was only the #2 method for the FARC to finance their operations for a few decades, and they weren't doing it with vehicles from the regulated taxi system. Which is one of the reasons it was so hard to put a stop to. But we'll just discount that.

When James Watson was killed in Bogota, you know what brilliant method was used to track down the perpetrators? Video showing the livery on the cab he took.

But no, go on. Prove me wrong. Please. Go ahead. You show me. Run with those scissors. Play with that fire. Drink that sewer water. Spin that revolver barrel.

There's absolutely no reason the state department issues explicit guidelines on taxi usage for certain countries, and those guidelines are almost always "use a taxi from a well regulated taxi service"

It's all just theater.

[aianus]

That has nothing to do with taxi regulations and everything to do with a complete lack of law and order in the countries you mentioned. Even if it's just 1% easier to kidnap a foreigner because they got into the wrong taxi than just to point a gun at them and grab them off the street, you're going to see it become the dominant form of kidnapping. Doesn't mean taxi regulations would do anything to solve it.

[vacri]

Laws against murder and rape are security theatre. If you are approached by a murderer or rapist with serious malicious intent, you're in trouble, full stop.

This kind of argument is silly, that the mere simple existence of criminality is more important than the frequency of it.

[jacquesm]

In Colombia that wasn't any guarantee when I was there, not sure how it is today but you were very strongly advised to never hail a cab, always call them in advance and get the taxi id from the dispatcher.

[icebraining]

Go ask the victims of Gurmeet Singh, Eric Chung, etc how ensured they feel. If the driver isn't deterred by a criminal conviction with years of prison, losing the taxi license certainly won't work either.

[bane]

The difference is that because these guys were part of a regulated system. It made tracking them down much easier. Yeah shit happens and it sucks. But it's at least there's some kind of formal thread of responsibility.

How was Singh caught? He was asked to come to the Taxi and Limo Commission.

Chung was caught because the victim called 911 who tracked him through his dispatch records.

The livery and identification of their jobs significantly narrowed down the search from "person with car" to "cab #xxxx".

I bet if you hunt down crime statistics on kidnappings etc. on regulated taxis vs. unregulated taxis the percentage of global incidents on unregulated taxis will far outstrip those of regulated systems.

Here's the security guidelines for taxis in Mexico

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=151...

""Libre" taxi cabs are poorly regulated and often criminally-linked enterprises, which pick up fares on the street after being hailed by customers. "Sitio" or radio dispatched base station taxis are far safer, more reliable, and are worth the added expense. "Sitio" or radio dispatched base station taxis cannot be hailed off the street and must be ordered by phone or met at a designated taxi stand. Twenty-four hour radio taxi service is available at 5516-6020 and 3626-9800 to 30. “Sitio” taxis in Mexico City are most often metered and registered by the government. “Sitio” taxis from Benito Juarez International Airport are paid in advance in the terminal (at the “Sitio” stands) and are well regulated.

For Kenya http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarn...

"U.S. citizens should use commonsense precautions at all times, to include the following practices: avoid crowded transportation venues; visit only legitimate businesses and tourist areas only during daylight hours; use well-marked taxis and be sure to lock vehicle doors and keep windows up..."

Ecuador http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/country/ec...

"When in Ecuador, you should call to order a taxi by phone or use a service affiliated with major hotels. If you must hail a taxi on the street, seek out those that are officially registered and in good condition."

Brazil

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=150...

"Avoid city buses and other public transportation. Taxis and private vehicles should be used when moving within the city of São Paulo. Only use taxis at taxi stands, or have your hotel call one for you directly."

Here's general advice for expats

http://www.expatify.com/south-america/how-to-avoid-an-expres...

"Avoid illegal taxis...sometimes the car has irregular markings. The best bet is to use one of the recommended taxi companies."

Here's the Catholic Church's official guidance

http://www.pilotbulletins.net/weeklymailing/RiskMgmt_Kidnapp...

"Taxis - Only take taxis clearly identified with official markings. Beware of unmarked cabs. Never accept an offer to share a taxi with strangers."

There's very good reasons why these guidelines are the way they are. What do you suppose those reasons are?

[aianus]

> The livery and identification of their jobs significantly narrowed down the search from "person with car" to "cab #xxxx".

Uber knows exactly where each of its on-duty vehicles are down to the meter and maintain well-organized logs -- better than any Taxi company.

> I bet if you hunt down crime statistics on kidnappings etc. on regulated taxis vs. unregulated taxis the percentage of global incidents on unregulated taxis will far outstrip those of regulated systems.

Correlation does not imply causation. Obviously well-developed countries with overpowering legal systems capable of implementing and enforcing taxi regulations are going to have less crime in general.

[icebraining]

How was Singh caught? He was asked to come to the Taxi and Limo Commission.

You could probably have called him to come to the DMV and get the same result. If the man wasn't afraid to come to the Commission, I'm pretty sure he wasn't that difficult to find.

Chung was caught because the victim called 911 who tracked him through his dispatch records.

I don't know where you read that, because the company said he wasn't working for them anymore.

The livery and identification of their jobs significantly narrowed down the search from "person with car" to "cab #xxxx".

It's called a license plate, every car has one, taxi or not.

There's very good reasons why these guidelines are the way they are. What do you suppose those reasons are?

Well, duh. Obviously when you have a mixed of regulated and unregulated taxis, criminals will prefer the second system.

But the reasoning error you're committing is that you're taking the assumptions of the regulated system - that every taxi should be treated the same - to the unregulated system, which is specious.

In an unregulated system, people would have to stop relying on this implicit assumption and make better judgment calls. Instead of entering on random cars that happened to be painted with the right colors and marks, which is a terrible authentication system¹, they'd need other - better - systems, like using an app that can verify the driver status in real time and record the client's location - possibly even during the ride.

¹ see Chung's case, which wasn't even an employed driver at the time, and "should" have removed the markings, for how well that work.

[mseebach]

The focus on safety is a straw man. If the only purpose of regulations was safety, there would be no need at all to limit the supply. Uber wouldn't be opposed to require drivers to obtain a proper hire-car licence, the beef is with the artificial limiting of supply that prevents competition.

Source: in London, regulation allows unlimited numbers of "minicabs" which predates Uber but which Uber operates under.

[makomk]

There's no such limit in (for example) Germany but that hasn't stopped Uber from ignoring the regulations there.

[mseebach]

The regulation is different in Germany, private hire cars have to operate out of a registered address, and return to that address between hires. Obviously has no relevance to safety. But Uber is playing by these rules for "regular" black car Uber, the effort that was shut down was Uber Pop, which was meant to compete in the carpooling space.

[Zarkonnen]

And minicabs are somewhat infamous for being unsafe. The minicab rapist is something of a stock character in London.

[mseebach]

Yes, that's a story eagerly pushed by none other than the incumbent black cab industry.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2qqmy7sldbax6xk/20140426_232545.jp...

And here's the article belonging to the headline: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/exclusive-i-fought-off-...

She was in an unlicensed minicab.

[phreanix]

Yup, in Manila Uber and similar services like grab taxi are becoming really popular because of the dangers in riding regular cabs.

[at-fates-hands]

Many places around the world are pretty scary:

Iranian Taxi Ride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBVAeAJVtmY

I remember watching a documentary about Iran and the host was talking about how much safer the "unregulated" taxi services are. Of course he qualified by saying "safer" was a pretty kind word as they almost crashed several times during filming.

[pimlottc]

That's crazy? Compared to the western world, sure, but seems pretty uneventful based on what I've seen in India.

[phreanix]

The danger I meant were passengers getting robbed, raped, etc.

[anon4]

What's crazy about that? He drove perfectly fine for a taxi.

[kristofferR]

That didn't seem scary at all.

[jmckib]

> engaging in immortal practices to eliminate competition

Since when is poaching employees considered immoral?

[HeXetic]

He's referring to the accusation that Uber employees are deliberately ordering and then, shortly afterwards, cancelling rides with competitors' services in order to screw with the dispatch system and waste the drivers' time.

[viscanti]

This has been throughly debunked. Those cancellations were apparently by Lyft drivers who also drove for Uber, and they were trying to recruit more people to drive for Uber. But the 5k cancellations end up being less than one cancellation for every 5 days per Lyft city (in other words a non-factor). Lyft asked Uber to acquire them (presumably because Lyft is burning cash and is on the way out), Uber balked so Lyft started slinging mud. What's more, Lyft has apparently been engagaged in the exact same tactics. http://www.vox.com/2014/8/27/6074919/the-uber-recruitment-sc...

[HeXetic]

> immortal practices

Heh.