Hacker News Reader

Comment by conanbatt | Hacker News Reader

Its noticeable for me how visceral the reaction to disobeying government is for lots of people. But i think its important to have actors that do it.

Argentina had an Uber-copy cat that played very nice with regulators: from day one they were working with officials and lawyers and were totally legal. They started to pick up demand and the gov. suddently passed a law specifically banning a way to ask cabs that only affected that company. They were crushed by the state one day to another, when they played as nice as they could have.

AFter that I realize that Uber's strategy is necessary. The guys that played nice got their assess kicked.

View on HN

There's different degrees to disobeying government. There's disobeying regulation that protects rent-seeking entrenched dinosaur industries. And there's disobeying rules that protect pedestrians from being run over by red-light speeding autonomous vehicles.

I can choose whether uber is a suitable replacement for a regular cab for myself. But I can't choose whether I would or would not like to share a crosswalk with one of their self-driving cars.

I cant choose to ban cars completely off the streets, even though they pose a real danger to me and an economic cost.

Paying $150 and getting a piece of paper doesn't do anything to protect pedestrians.

You're right. If anything, the DMV needs to put greater oversight on Uber, especially after the red light speeding accident. Paying $150 and submitting itself into the permit application process is only the beginning.

Necessary for what? What is the end-game of Uber and does that really align with the best interests of their drivers and/or riders?

Uber is revenue unsustainable and driving for a monopoly status on delivery/taxi.

I don't think the ends justify the means here... especially if there's literally casualties involved.

I'd say reckless disregard for traffic laws is pretty universal - go read up comments on a story about texting while driving - 90% are screeds against those who text while driving, recklessly endangering others on the road.

> Necessary for what?

For many kinds of changes and progress. Disobedience is one of those things that ends up measured by results.

> What is the end-game of Uber and does that really align with the best interests of their drivers and/or riders?

What do you mean? Uber literally makes all their money by providing a service that people willingly consume. They are really providing lots of value.

> Uber is revenue unsustainable and driving for a monopoly status on delivery/taxi.

Maybe, but does it matter? An Uber monopoly is a lot easier to fight than a state monopoly. To the very least, there are several companies competing in the space already. And if Uber goes bust, the only losers are the shareholders.

> Uber literally makes all their money by providing a service that people willingly consume. They are really providing lots of value.

Uber is not making money. They are burning through investor cash in excess of $2B per year in the false hope of breaking the backs of the incumbents so Uber can achieve monopolistic rents far in excess of status quo.

Riders "willingly consume" Uber because of this investor subsidy which conceals the true cost of carriage. When the easy money dries up, it's game over for Uber unless they can go full autonomous sans driver.

Uber is running out of runway and they know it. That's why they're flaunting the DMV in the rushed hopes of getting this Hail Mary to market.

> Its noticeable for me how visceral the reaction to disobeying government is for lots of people. But i think its important to have actors that do it.

True. What about Bitcoin entrepreneurs? A cavalier attitudes towards laws isn't something inherently bad, or "immoral".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com