

Uber triumphant  - danso
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2012/12/03/uber-triumphant/

======
Zak
It seems to me that the pattern here (for Uber, AirBnB and others) is:

1\. Create a service that people love, flouting or violating local
regulations.

2\. Rely on user outrage to get the regulations changed.

3\. Profit.

It's frustrating that there's a regulatory model that makes it necessary to do
this in order to innovate, but I'm glad to see it working out for Uber.

~~~
shawn-butler
Isn't that how representative democracies work? It's better than the
alternative in some cultures which involves a lot of underhanded bribery to
get people to look the other way.

I honestly get a little tired of Uber, Airbnb, et al, who found startups
pursuing models that turn their customers into unknowing accomplices in order
to execute and gain traction. And then abuse the rest of the startup community
just to gain press attention. It is profoundly unfair to take advantage of
ethical lapses and should not be rewarded.

Why isn't it the case that part of the proof for VCs for businesses of dubious
legality is the advocacy of regulatory reform early in product development
rather than paying for hot air punditry in media that makes everyone look bad
after the fact? Is it because any advocacy they pay for would only help
competition giving away lead time?

I don't disagree that heavy-handed overregulation is a bad thing, but we are
going to face more of it not less if recent history is any indication. Seems
like some better strategies are needed.

~~~
SilasX
>Isn't that how representative democracies work?

No, the way it's supposed to work, as we're taught in civics, is to adhere to
the laws as they currently exist, and if we want them changed, to get deeply
involved in city council meetings until we can beg the council members, who
have no understanding of the unseen costs and missed opportunities of the
current system, and are typically in league with a local guild, to grant us
special permits to do our innovative activity.

On the way, we're supposed to develop our own political faction, and
eventually get powerful enough to figure we can use the city regulatory
apparatus to hold back our own enemies.

Because we wouldn't want to risk people having a subpar experience from one of
these upstarts, in contrast to the consistently ideal service we get from
city-blessed operators. Or something.

------
2buckchuck
I'm all for democracy, but the government shouldn't even have the right to
regulate markets in such a way that innovation (and competition) can be
stifled by the established players.

Some regulations are necessary. They ensure that we don't usually get feces in
our food, etc. But this is a clear case of legislation directly interfering
with competition.

~~~
nikatwork
There's a noticeable incidence of rape by taxi drivers here in Oz. If the
driver is foreign this usually leads to a media frenzy about government driver
regs.

I'm wondering what the regulatory fallout will be when Uber suffers their
first (unfortunately apparently inevitable) rape incident.

~~~
jrockway
Is the incidence of rape by taxi drivers higher than that of the population at
large? And are the rapes happening in taxicabs, to customers?

It sounds like you've cited something that's technically true without any
context, so it's unclear as to whether there is a trend, or if it's just
hysteria.

~~~
jarek
It doesn't matter if it's just hysteria as long as the media frenzy does
happen. Voter and societal outrage rarely follows logic.

------
rshlo
As far as AirBnB goes, it seems that they didn't predict all the outrage.
Their just using it for their PR.

