dylanjermiah

At the expense of the citizens. Why not let companies compete?

He didn't say anything about women

Regulations imposed to protect incumbents. Evidence on the insurance fees? Evidence on licenses? Evidence on price? Anecdotally in my city they're 300% cheaper than taxi's. Evidence on paying drivers 'badly'?

Investing in growth > short term profitability (which they could do of they wanted to miss future markets)

What nefarious use of the data will be beneficial to Google?

HERE has proprietary data whic Google doesn't have, not sure on the specifics.

I don't believe so. When someone says 'shifting risk to x and profit to management' they clearly are not suggesting what you're suggesting. No where do I see a general statement at all. You cannot be exempt from providing evidence when you make a claim like that.

Again, do you have evidence for your claims? I have no way of knowing if that's true.

Commercially licensed !instantly= good pilot. And vice versa.

Musk has said Tesla didn't need the government money, it was just used as a cash buffer (which of course was repaid early with interest). As for SpaceX, they've been profitable for 7+ years and NASA is a client so not sure. As for Solar City unsure, but government money doesn't make a business succeed. No matter how much. (Solyndra) c

The private flight business is worth more than the public flight business.

Yep. Travis (CEO) had already said, if a particular space relates to Uber's core competency than chances are they'll do it. I don't think they'll do air travel in this sense.

Do you have any conclusive evidence that the laws 'protected' both sides in a superior manner than Uber does? Edit: If you'd like to down vote fine, but please also provide evidence for/against their/my claims. To be against data, or the asking of evidence is to be ignorant.

Glad it's not me who finds 95% of TED talks pointless.

I don't agree with all of his/her points, but if s/he saw nothing positive in the posts, why say anything positive? I'd much prefer an unaltered view.

Until Snowden claims were dismissed as false and crazy.

Pre-Snowden

I've also been asking exactly why it's a 'winner take all market' and have yet to receive a definitive answer. I'd like there to be a #2 even #3. Although I think Uber might be akin to Google in terms of market share, sitting at mid to high 60%.

You can purchase a Kindle, but not the books.

May seem like that now, but you were once labeled a 'crazy conspiracy theorist' for even suggesting that governments have secret spying agencies.

Not mobile optimized? Has to be HN :-)

And serve international customers.

I apologise, it was 87%. http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202731784422/Lawyer-Uber-Driv...

Disappointing. Really wanted more choice and competition in the areas where Uber is the only 'on demand' transportation service.

I did not tell anyone what to do. I recommended a suggestion. I do not find 'hahaha fuck off' to be a good instigation of productive conversation.

They're so doing 2bn overall and with their 20%+ish cut it becomes 450m.

I'd recommend you start your post in a more serious manner, if you'd like it to gain serious readership.

Agree on Seattle. I think you can't 'create' a SV. It happens bottom up as opposed to top down. For example, what if Leland Stanford Jr didn't die prematurely at age 15 in 1884 -- and his parents didn't build a University in his honour? Chances are SV would not be SV.

Legislation has nothing to do with 'human rights'. Especially in the transportation space. Regulation only existed, to the extent that it did, because the taxi cartel bought politicians and than they outlawed competition. The rhetoric of consumer safety, 'fairness', congestion etc. is just that, rhetoric.

A survey of the drivers found that 70%+ didn't want to be employees. But no, you should decide for them right?

2014 was 450. On target for 6x this year and 3x next year. Also, most of the early markets are profitable. Investing in growth > profitability at this point.