
Uber Boston Has Been Served - sudonim
http://blog.uber.com/2012/08/14/uber-boston-has-been-served/
======
tptacek
Two tickets were apparently issued:

(i) For operating an unlicensed livery service

(ii) For using a non-approved mechanism for metering the ride

The C&D at issue here covers (ii). At its heart, the complaint is that Boston
has standardized on a way of metering passengers, and Uber has replaced that
standard with GPS. Presumably, cab drivers in Boston could not simply choose
to replace their meters with GPS monitors, and thus, says Cambridge, neither
should Uber.

(I might be wrong, that's just my read of the complaint).

I'm torn. Uber is pretty neat. Some (maybe most) of cab regulation is rent
seeking. But not all of it is. Municipalities should find a way to make Uber
lawful, but I'm not sure Uber should be able to make that happen by fiat.

~~~
neilk
I was amazed by this sentence in the C&D:

"Massachusetts law does not sanction unapproved devices for use in commercial
transactions."

Does that mean what I think it means? If I use an iPhone app to calculate the
tax, and it's not approved, then I broke the law? Does this apply to Square,
too? I thought that there was an English common law principle that "Everything
which is not forbidden is allowed".

~~~
dsr_
"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed".

Sure. Massachusetts forbids you from operating a commercial service that
charges based on the readings of measuring equipment that does not meet the
standards of the Department of Weights and Measures. Taxi meters do. Standard
car odometers don't. You can calculate with an abacus or an Apple, but your
market fruit scale has a seal indicating that it was inspected and passed.

Your gasoline is measured by pumps similarly inspected. The pump at the dairy
that fills gallon jugs is inspected. You can pay with barter, coins or large
stones, as long as the negotiation is acceptable to both parties -- and when
you pay for eight pounds of foie gras, you'd better be getting it weighed from
an inspected scale.

~~~
jaylevitt
OK, but how does MA decide which equipment is considered a measuring device
used for trade? Are grocer's scales and gas pump meters a special case that's
explicitly regulated, or is anything that (a) takes a measurement while (b) in
the path of a transaction regulated?

My supermarket sells cheddar for $8/pound. When they take some cheese and
price it, the scale that decides it's 8 oz of cheese is a regulated scale.

But my co-worker's friend sells D&D dice for $5/cupful. Is that cup a
measuring device that would technically need to be certified by DWM for trade
use?

And if not, what is the bright-line test for whether the Uber app is a cup or
a scale?

~~~
URSpider94
I think there's some interesting sociology / anthropology tied up in this.

Reading through the MA regs, it looks like they primarily regulate:

\-- Scales of all kinds \-- Volumetric measurements for petroleum products and
dairy products \-- Taxi meters \-- other commerce tools (grocery store
scanners, change machines, bottle/can refund machines, etc)

It's a truism that weight is a much more accurate way to specify products than
volume, which is why even liquids like self-serve soup at the grocery store
are sold by mass, not volume.

However, we are historically used to buying gasoline, milk and ice cream by
the gallon or liter, not the pound or kilo. It's also interesting that milk
and ice cream are the fluids mentioned besides petroleum products in the state
code -- we give dairy products a very special place in our culture. In
Massachusetts, a 1967 law actually makes it illegal for stores to give away
free milk!

------
uuilly
Uber, AirBNB and Food Trucks are interesting for two reasons:

1) They are on a collision course with the regulatory state.

2) Their employees are, by and large, young liberals.

Cab medallions are not much different in concept than wind and solar
subsidies. In both cases, the government is picking a winner.

Our types of companies have been happily immune from the meddling of the
regulatory state. As we crawl out into the real world we are dog-fooding the
polices we voted for. Hopefully we will realize how bad they taste.

~~~
drone
Interesting point. I looked back at the world where no such regulations
existed, and I didn't see a perfect market which quickly and efficiently
eradicated charlatans and thieves. No, instead I saw a world where people were
constantly being preyed upon by the guiled class. I saw a world where the only
people you could really trust were those in your close personal circle, and
every transaction with a 3rd party, new or known, was rife with risk.

The "regulatory state" didn't come about as a predicted social experiment, it
came about by constantly reacting to an endless stream of malfeasance that
constantly stood to wreck any possibility of a functioning free market.

Cities and states regulating measurements and fare mechanisms are generally a
-good- thing, even when it affects some darling company. For every darling
company that wants us to "just trust them to do the right thing, they're good
Silicon Valley-types," there are a dozen would-be scamsters plotting how they
can take advantage of similar models to make free money. The constant "free
market response" is "Oh, well, people will just shop somewhere else." Yes,
after having lost their money (some times many, many people losing their
money) AND their trust in any company like the same.

The world of figuring cab fares doesn't exactly need to be "turned on its
head," it's a well-established practice of livery that's been going back for
hundreds of years (perhaps more - I don't know the complete history). Yes, new
technology can make it more efficient, but how inefficient is the current
system exactly? Is it worth the risk? This is what local communities ask
themselves. Why should one company be granted the permissions to step outside
of the decision process and state they don't want to follow the community
rules?

Every action by a government, and most especially inaction (failure to
regulate) picks winners and losers. Failing to regulate pollution levels, cab
fares, food safety, etc. make winners out of moderately unscrupulous types and
moderately scrupulous types. Certain forms of regulations can make winners out
of either the highly scrupulous, or the highly unscrupulous.

Nothing tastes bad to me about not letting cabs just use their iphones to
automatically calculate fares from unmonitored and unvetted software. It makes
it harder for Uber to make money? Well crap, cry me a river, it's better than
making it easier on the thieves - society has chosen that path over millennia.

~~~
uuilly
So on one hand, the world is rife with thieves and scoundrels and the state is
the only thing standing between what we have now and Mad Max. On the other
hand you're willing to entrust people working for the state with with powers
undreamed of by the thieves and scoundrels.

But what happens if thieves and scoundrels hold positions within the state?
Restaurant owners pay them to make laws against Food Trucks. Cab drivers pay
them to make laws against Uber. Hotel owners pay them to make laws against
AirBnB. In the wrong hands, the regulatory state becomes a weapon. That is
what is happening now.

~~~
drone
Your response appears to assume that I believe that the "State" as we know it
is the only mechanism for creating a well-agreed upon set of rules, or that I
hold any illusions of perfection anywhere humans are involved.

Thieves and scoundrels exist in all strata of society, it's a natural
phenomenon. We create rules about the rule makers - bureaucracy is both a
natural response and outcome. Vested interests infect and corrupt all things,
which is why we provide mechanisms for review and change. These mechanisms may
not be perfect or easy in all situations, but they can be made functional if
we intend to fix them. You seem to not acknowledge the fact that a non-
regulatory state becomes a weapon as well.

I am not impressed with the black and white dichotomy expressed between
"regulatory state," and "free market," - in fact - the choice of "regulatory
state" vs. "state of regulations," speaks volumes as to your intentions. We
have direct experience with both overly-regulated states and under-regulated
states. Neither work particularly well - instead, we strive to constantly re-
balance them and find better ways.

It is for this last reason that I think it is good that they have come under
scrutiny. This provides clear barriers for others waiting to see the rules
made ineffective so that they may (wrongly) capitalize on the weakened system,
and an excellent opportunity for the local population to consider the state of
a rule and a bureaucracy that may have run too long unexamined.

To one last point: unscrupulous actors also pay politicians to remove laws and
regulations for their benefit. The lack of or presence of, a regulation in and
of its self does not predict a positive outcome.

------
fxm4139
This is especially sad considering a recent cab experience I had in Boston. I
lived in Boston for a about 5 years before moving out to Seattle, where I
recently started using Uber. Boston has one of the worst cab situations
especially if you go out late at night. I was back in Boston a few weeks ago,
and ended up running into a few friends and stayed up till 3AM. When it was
time to go home, there were either cabs that had passengers, or ones that just
didn't want to stop despite waiting for 10 minutes. I pull out the Uber app
and get a ride in literally a couple of minutes. My friends hadn't heard of
the service and they were just dumbfounded that something like this existed,
and they all became customers on the spot.

In Seattle, I use Uber only when I have to since cabs are easy to get. I can't
imagine using Uber in Manhattan. But in a city like Boston with a shortage of
cabs, and just generally grumpy cab drivers I can imagine Uber was just
putting a serious dent in the cab business, more so than other cities.

~~~
zacharycohn
(Hello fellow Seattlite!)

I'm with you here. I rarely take cabs here in Seattle (I mostly bike/bus
everywhere), but when I travel it can be indispensable.

I can't tell you the number of times I've had to (look up a local cab service
and) call a cab, wait for it for 10-20 minutes... and not have it show up. Or
schedule a cab to be there to pick me up early in the morning and take me to
the airport and... not have it show up.

Three clicks on my phone and 2 to eight minutes later, there's an Uber.

------
chimi
I don't think being a startup should grant you immunity from the law or
absolve the requirement to follow local regulations and licensing statutes.
Lawyers, doctors, electricians they all have to follow the law too.

Why is Uber a special case?

~~~
tptacek
Two reasons (neither dispositive):

(i) The cities in which Uber operates usually have dysfunctional cab systems.
San Francisco, for instance, is notoriously underserved.

(ii) Much of the regulatory overhead in running a cab/livery service really is
an artifact of top-down market controls from the turn of the last century that
have been exploited to lock the market to a privileged few operators.

~~~
calciphus
Imagine for a moment you got into a taxi and instead of the meter, he had an
hour-glass with tick marks on the side and a bike odometer. Would you feel
secure about what you're being charged?

Most of the Uber drivers use iPhones, which (especially the older models) have
notoriously bad GPS. If it skips off to the wrong street for a few blocks and
adds 1/4 mile to my trip, and I don't notice by staring at his screen, how
would I know? Normally, I trust the cab company because that little meter is
tracked, registered, and supposedly regularly audited.

~~~
mindslight
Phone-based GPS, really?! They probably _should_ be taken to task by weights
and measures.

But why is Uber even metering the trip distance? If they incorporated the
destination address to the booking, they could calculate an exact price based
on time of day/projected congestion/etc. Then they'd have even _better_
consumer protection than a taxi cab (where the driver still has an incentive
to go a more expensive route).

~~~
emmett
They know your start location because you call them there. They use GPS to
determine your end location, to save time.

Uber doesn't really even publish a rate schedule for how much you pay, and it
doesn't have stable prices. They go up during periods of high demand, for
example. So it's unclear why you'd object to the GPS, except to mess with
them; you don't know what you're going to pay in any case.

~~~
mindslight
So make the destination address optional while booking, and if given you'll
get an exact price ahead of time. This doesn't exactly conflict with demand
pricing either - Uber just has to be a bit smarter ahead of time.

The fundamental problem is "you don't know what you're going to pay", and I'm
not surprised they're being called out for that under consumer protection
laws. The point of taxi regulation is to prevent people from being cheated on
the spot. Uber is in a position to do even _better_ than what regulations are
capable of, with market pricing, and they should aim for that.

------
theorique
This hits close to home (literally). I've used Uber in Boston lots of times
and while the service is pricier than conventional taxis, it's a nice way to
guarantee yourself a ride at high-demand times.

This is not competitive with existing taxi service but complementary: if I see
a regular taxi coming, I'll take it; if I need to call for a guaranteed car at
an odd time, I'll use Uber.

I hope this gets resolved in a way that works for us customers. Innovation
should be harnessed, not punished.

------
jfb
Oh, the rent-seeking. What are taxi medallions for if not graft and log-
rolling?

~~~
kungfooguru
Traffic and pricing control...

~~~
kemiller
That is true. But it was much more relevant in an age when the rider was more
or less at the mercy of the driver who picked them up. The internet on your
phone (not to mention the GPS) means you can much more easily tell if you're
being cheated. And the fact that you contact Uber and then they send a car
means that the sketchy kidnapper risk is mitigated.

------
anulman
__TL;DR: Uber is innovative, but their approach (or lack thereof) to dealing
with regulatory hurdles in each city disgusts me. __

It seems like HN has already picked up on the major issues Uber faces in
Boston, as well as pretty much every city: a new style of relationships with
drivers, and "metering" virtually-on-demand livery rides, which are intended
to be both unmetered and pre-arranged.

After seeing this same story repeated too many times now, and the resulting
discussion, I feel the need to throw down. You don't need to trust me (IANAL,
etc.), but based on my experience in the field -- I co-founded HireWinston
(initially a Canadian, corporate-focused Uber competitor; we've since pivoted
to competing indirectly by selling taxi fleets) -- I hope I have something to
add.

First, the relationships with drivers: Uber tends to work directly with
drivers (many, if not all, of whom they hire legally from existing livery
services). In order to boost their chances of availability, they spend some of
their hard-raised cash to book drivers for entire days, taking a steep loss at
first in the hopes of driving enough demand to better satisfy their capacity.

In most cities, there are clear regulations that define a livery service. We
found that, if you work as many commenters understand Uber working -- namely,
as a network that has pre-arranged agreements with drivers or livery services
to shuttle rides in their spare time -- you're in a sufficiently comfortable
area not to get shut down. However, the way Uber works to juice supply
(especially in newer markets) tends to clearly fall under the definition of a
livery service, as they have their own "employees" that they pass rides to.

Second, the meters. This one I'm much more in their favour on: the phones
themselves are not metering devices as the laws define them (i.e. they do not
themselves calculate the price). I haven't personally torn into their source
code, but having heard from an insider _and_ having built this tech myself,
I'm fairly confident their Driver App simply sends GPS data back to the
server, where the calculation takes place according to a pre-defined rate. The
customer either implicitly or explicitly accepts this rate through the TOS
and/or by virtue of using the service (assuming the rates are published
somewhere).

This setup guarantees they have something to show regulators if ever asked.
From our research and testing, the integrity of the data from existing
metering technology is similar enough to that from an iPhone or Android's GPS
(ideally accompanied by accelerometer data). And, since the calculations
happen on a server that records full route information rather than in a black
box that discards it: way easier to share this with regulators. So A+.

Third, and most importantly, is what you don't see: Uber's relationships with
city regulators. In Toronto, the municipal government sent us an official
notice that they were concerned with our business, and that they wanted us to
come talk through our business model and underlying technology with them. They
were genuinely excited that there was innovation happening in the field in
their city, and really just wanted to make sure we weren't doing anything
egregiously wrong.

We sat down, and had an incredibly pleasant meeting. 30 minutes, back-and-
forth Q&A, with some regulators who have spent years in the space. They
appreciated that we knew the laws, had worked to abide by them, and were
comfortable with all but one aspect of our business model (cancellation fees).
No C&Ds were sent out.

At the end of the meeting, they asked us what we thought of Uber. Apparently,
for months, the Uber team was dodging any request for a meeting the office
sent them. While I definitely cannot attest to Uber Boston's actions on this
front, I can't imagine that Uber Toronto was taking their plays from a
different playbook.

In summary: Uber has done a tremendous job pushing the industry forward, and
I'm confident that our approach -- selling the underlying software to existing
taxi fleets, who truly want to better service their customers but have no idea
what to do with technology -- is a more sustainable and dependable iteration
on the model. I'm thankful to them, and I truly love a lot of the folks I know
who work there.

That said, I have no sympathy whatsoever for these C&Ds whenever I read about
them. The company relies on deep pockets and public sympathy for the "underdog
technology company" to change laws, rather than working with the existing
system. And, frankly, normally I'd even be fine with that... if it weren't the
taxi drivers -- the most marginalized members of the entire taxi ecosystem --
who were getting the shortest end of the stick.

 __DISCLAIMER: I do not, and have never, worked for Uber. Most of my knowledge
comes from a mix of an outsider's view and third-party testimony of the
approach that Uber has taken in Toronto and NYC. I'm not sure if Uber Boston
took a different approach than Uber Toronto or Uber NYC, so take all specifics
with a grain of salt. __

(edit: formatting errors)

~~~
ericdykstra
Nice post, and you definitely bring a certain amount of insight with it.

However, the current system is, in many cities, broken. Working to change laws
to fix a broken system will produce a better outcome than trying to work
within the broken system to bring about its maximum potential.

I love and use Uber because it provides a different and better service than
taxis do in San Francisco. I don't even own a car, and instead split my
transportation budget between public transportation and Uber. ZipCar has its
uses for some people and some situations, but for me, Uber is my go-to
reliable transportation system.

Comparing and contrasting Uber with SF taxi service:

\- I've never had a bad experience with an Uber driver, whereas ~30-40% of my
taxi rides were unpleasant in one way or another.

\- It takes all of 30 seconds to call an Uber, and they always come. Calling a
taxi dispatch takes much longer and is extremely unreliable, as many taxi
drivers will pick up anyone that hails them on their way to picking someone
up.

\- Uber takes care of all payments through the app, including tip. My credit
card is charged, and it gets recorded in Mint and added to my transportation
budget for the month. Many SF taxi drivers will harass you if you try to pay
with a credit card.

\- Uber drivers will open your door for you, call you to make sure they pick
you up at the right place, and many offer to help carry bags. Taxi drivers are
usually in a rush, and don't offer anything besides the ride.

These are my experiences in a year in San Francisco. I used taxis exclusively
for a while because they're cheaper, but have since switched to using Uber
nearly exclusively. And with UberX now, the cost difference is negligible. I
see no reason to own a car in SF as long as I'm here, and the reason for that
is Uber. [[I am in no way affiliated with Uber with the exception of being a
customer]]

~~~
anulman
Thanks -- this is a subject that is near and dear to me.

I definitely agree with you that there is a service gap between Uber and
standard taxis. Some of it comes from the app, some of it comes from their
quality control.

(On that note: Uber does a really solid job with quality control, and I've
personally recommended a stronger emphasis on quality control to fleets we
work with. They all seem to want to take us up on it, so I look forward to
reporting back on that one soon!)

That said, the points you bring up aren't actually broken by the current
regulatory system (save one, sort of... see the asterisk), which is why I am
disgusted by Uber's typical reaction to the C&Ds that come their way (and
their preparation for them):

\- Taxi companies today have a very limited, only-opt-in feedback mechanism:
you call and complain if you have a particularly bad or particularly good
ride. I've personally spoken with GMs for companies that do hundreds
(sometimes thousands) of rides per day about this; they rarely break 20
customer service calls per day. Uber's feedback mechanism -- not a new concept
by any means, but new to the industry -- of asking users to rate their ride,
and send in some comments after _every_ ride is relatively frictionless and
undoubtedly leads to more data points, which can then be shared with drivers
to encourage a healthy sense of service. This could and should be adopted by
the rest of the industry.

\- Again, this is a fantastic innovation, but doesn't need to lie outside the
existing regulatory system to succeed; our old business model is proof that
they can co-exist. Rarely do cities take issue with apps. Further, most fleets
use dispatch systems that directly assign a driver, and all drivers know they
will get docked if they take a street hail instead of the passenger they're
assigned.*

\- Yet again, no regulations prevent this... but I've been the recipient of
many a complaining driver myself. While drivers have both legitimate and
illegitimate reasons for trying to avoid credit cards (fleets often tax
drivers an additional point or two above going credit card rates; credit card
transactions must be declared when filing taxes), this again can be solved
with an app that respects the current system. In fact, while running
HireWinston, we showed our driver partners that the guaranteed 15% tip more
than made up for the increased cost they incurred by taking credit cards.

\- See first bullet above re: service again.

To sum up, I hear you on all fronts: riding with Uber offers a superior
experience to virtually any other cab out there. My point above, however,
still stands: all of the innovations and improvements you bring up (which are,
from our customer research, consistently the most salient) come from areas
that few, if any, regulators take issue with (I know from experience). Which
is why, again, I am disgusted by how I've seen Uber deal with regulators.

*I feel for you, though; this situation is at its worst in SF. But on the flip-side, I've heard more "passengers aren't there anymore when our drivers show up" complaints from SF fleets than I have anywhere else in North America. Because of this, it's often more attractive for drivers in the Bay Area to get docked and grab the street hail's certain money than to risk the no-show. IMO, SF taxis and consumers are stuck in this perpetual loop until the supply of taxis increases dramatically.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_all of the innovations and improvements you bring up ... come from areas that
few, if any, regulators take issue with_

They don't issue with them, but still no one in the regulated industry bothers
doing them. And why? Because thanks to the government distortions in the
market, you don't need to do any of that stuff to compete.

And that's what government interventions in markets almost always ends up
doing: protecting a group of entrenched companies at the expense of consumers.

Good for Uber for trying to fuck over an industry that's been fucking over
their customers for decades, with the full faith and protection of the
governments those customers pay for.

~~~
anulman
I believed this point too when we first started our company, and were more
Uber-clone-y than we are now. However, after spending a year working in the
industry, I've learned that it's more "catchy idea" than reality.

It turns out that the taxi industry is a little different: the fleets have
wanted to innovate for years now, but have little idea how. The regulations
clearly permit innovation. In cities where taxis aren't run by the municipal
government (i.e. "in cities that aren't New York"), there is healthy
competition between taxi providers, in spite of their commoditization
(regulated pricing, supply, etc.).

IMO, the existing taxi technology players are the ones who are stifling
innovation (and/or "protecting a group of entrenched companies at the expense
of consumers"). 2 of the big 3 dispatch technology providers charge _hefty_
fees just to open access to their APIs for new entrants, if they'll even grant
you access in the first place. And, due to the long-term, hardware-heavy,
dispatch-focused nature of their contracts, they rarely have any incentive to
innovate for the passengers; one of them once told me that they have _nobody_
on staff who understands the web or web technologies!

Working with the existing dispatch companies, while not a necessary evil (take
Hailo or GetTaxi, for example), is the best way to ensure scale and
distribution -- the amount of cash consumer-focused players must spend in this
industry in the hopes of curbing cab booking behaviours is enormous. Our
research showed that, when calling for a pre-arranged cab, 95% of taxi
passengers chose their fleet because it was first to mind, or the fleet they
always called. In other words: only 5% of consumers chose what TaxiCo to call
for any rational reason. Having an existing brand identity, and a number of
cars on the street constantly hocking your wares, goes a _long_ way in this
industry.

But even before Uber came along, a wave of new dispatch companies had started
cropping up, most of which are relying on a healthy partner ecosystem in order
to make it in the first place. But, since dispatch technology contracts have
typically been signed as 10-year license agreements, evolution naturally
trends to a slow change: a lot of forward-thinking fleets I've met with
renewed their contracts in the last year or two, since they didn't feel the
new technology was mature enough yet (and, in most cases/for their needs,
rightly so).

All this to say: I'm not yet sure what the best way to spark the necessary
change is (FWIW: currently leaning towards "open standards", but I'm not 100%
sure how that would look yet... ); figuring it out will likely be a huge
benefit to my company. But I firmly believe, based on facts and experience,
that it's not a regulatory issue.

 _(edit: formatting)_

~~~
ryanwaggoner
You don't seem to be understanding. The regulations themselves don't stop
innovation directly, but the fact that it's very difficult and expensive to
get a medallion, plus the fact that once you cross that barrier, you'll be
protected by law from much new competition, means that it's harder for new
players to enter the market and compete.

The medallion system is stupid and should be done away with. It's purely anti-
competitive.

~~~
anulman
Again, you're right on the fact, but not on the interpretation. The medallion
system used by most cities restricts the number of cars on the road in a city.
However:

1) Most taxi fleets -- _especially_ the larger ones -- collect monthly rent
from car owners, rather than own a ton of medallions themselves. The medallion
system benefits owners of medallions, not fleets. This distinction, while
invisible to the masses, is incredibly important.

2) It's definitely not rare for new fleets to pop up. We talk with plenty of
folks who own fleets that are only one or two years old. All you need is a
subset of drivers (and/or owners!), a couple of regular clients, and a little
gumption. New fleets _are_ popping up, and trying to innovate as best they
can. The new, lower-priced, often mobile-based dispatch systems I mentioned in
a previous comment have really been a boon to this segment.

3) In most cities, black car licenses are similarly restricted to medallions.
The limits may not be posted, but they exist. In fact, a great article about
Uber in The Atlantic exposed this issue in DC back in May[1].

4) Again, fleets working with us are achieving similar results; companies like
Hailo and GetTaxi (who seem to be trying to work within the system) are as
well.

In short: the medallion system is a red herring when it comes to stifling
innovation. It is definitely an issue, one that tends to marginalize drivers
and unnecessarily restrict supply for passengers. But every one of the
companies you and I have mentioned abide by the restrictions it imposes, so
your point is moot.

Going back to my original issue: I have _no_ problem with challenging rules,
conventions, and decisions (I'm an entrepreneur, posting on HN... do you
really expect me to disagree here?). My issue lies in Uber's underhanded
approach, where they both flout actually sensible laws and arguably force
governments to send C&Ds by refusing to engage with them when initially
approached.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-
you-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-
can-8217-t-get-a-taxi/8942/)

------
picklefish
For anyone wondering what uber is: <https://www.uber.com/cities#>

------
marshray
I'm not impressed with Uber. I read the entire article twice and many of the
comments, then went to their home page.

I still have no idea what they do other than it somehow relates to taxicab
service.

~~~
jeffdavis
* Reliable pickup in about 10 minutes by hitting a button on your phone or a text with your address -- no need to call or tell someone the address. If you've ever had the experience of waiting 30-45 minutes for a cab to ride a couple miles, or maybe the phone line is just busy, you'll know why reliability is important.

* Clean car with friendly and helpful driver (who you can rate). Seems minor, but it opens up possibilities. If you're on a date or business meeting, and for whatever reason need a ride somewhere (e.g. after drinking), uber will enhance the experience rather than cheapening it.

* No money changes hands (taken from your card on file at uber, including tip). Receipt with lots of details (including your route on a map) is emailed immediately.

* I'm pretty sure it's cheaper if you are above $15 fare, or about the same maybe.

I don't have any affiliation with uber, but I have had a great experience so
far (only twice, once for me and once for someone else). I plan to use it a
little more often.

I guess, in retrospect, I could probably have been happy using cabs more
instead; but they just always seemed more awkward, unreliable, and just less
pleasant. If I can get this for the same price, why not?

Cabs might still be better for areas where they are easy to get and you're
going short distances, e.g. Manhattan or Las Vegas.

------
localhost3000
i think the uber service is great. that said, we (collectively, the startup
community) can't keep using this "we're an innovative tech company and the
laws we're breaking weren't written with our great innovations in mind"
argument. it doesn't hold water. it just sounds childish and pompous.

------
kine
I love it how they wear it as a badge of pride. It's the first step to
changing the game in Boston.

------
megakwood
How absurd.

------
ktizo
_the Division of Standards is claiming that until the National Institute of
Standards and Technology has guidelines in place for GPS location technology_

Is not as though GPS is some brand new thing that they have never heard of
before. This whole tone of this makes me think of Central Services from the
movie 'Brazil'. Uber should ask the Division of Standards for a 27b/6, just to
keep things official.

~~~
tptacek
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that under MA law, a cab driver
couldn't replace their meter with the "equivalent" GPS system, and so neither
can Uber.

