

Uber ordered to halt transportation services in Germany - sschueller
http://www.dw.de/smartphone-app-uber-ordered-to-halt-transportation-services-in-germany/a-17894286
Google translated article: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;translate?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwirtschaft%2Funternehmen%2Fuber-gericht-stoppt-taxidienst-in-ganz-deutschland-a-989332.html
======
ulfw
I know I won't be popular with this comment and most likely downvoted, because
Uber is so beloved (especially in Bay Area circles). But here it comes: Why do
people support a single company (like in this case Uber) taking over the
business of thousands and thousands of existing companies and hence
monopolizing an industry?

In most European cities, taxi companies are small, almost mom-and-pop entities
with anywhere between one and say twenty taxis. In fact where I am living now
I can call 4-5 different ones all in my vicinity. If there was an app that
consolidated the booking process for those - awesome!

But why would there have to be a company that owns the market globally - from
Karachi to Karlsruhe, from Amsterdam to New York, taking 20%, killing
competition by it's pure überstrong market presence, brand and financial
backing.

The same people that hate Comcast for oligolopolizing it's market (and hence
using it's almost-monopoly powers for their benefit) yet somehow wish Uber
would succeed and take over the market around the world. Why? Because it's a
hip SF 'startup' (if you can still call an entity with $1,500,000,000 in
funding a startup)?

~~~
lnanek2
Taxis are nearly worthless in SF. I've called them many times and they only
show up half the time, and that's if they are open and serving your area.
There's no penalty for them if they pickup someone else on the way to pick you
up. I had to call 4 different numbers on a trip to Redwood city once.
Sometimes they don't answer and sometimes they have no one in the area. I've
never managed to hail one off the street as I do in NYC.

I'm happy if all the Taxi companies die because they aren't providing good
service. Uber and clones let you tap a couple times on an app, know instantly
without asking anyone if there are cars in the area because you see them on
the map, and then watch the cab come to you on the map. If the driver has
trouble finding you they call you. Then at the end payment is all automatic,
you just get out.

~~~
ulfw
I very much agree - having lived in SF for years myself. But you contradict
your own point a bit by admitting that in NYC you easily can hail a cab off
the street. So it's really not a global problem (as we are discussing Germany
here) at all. It's a problem in some localities, especially in San Francisco.

And Uber solved that problem. For it's local market. The thing is - why would
it have to 'disrupt' markets that don't really need disruption or solve
problems in markets where those don't really exist? Yet with it's enormous
funding and hence market power it can take over markets around the globe,
where the dude trying to make a living with his 5-cab taxi company or the
student driving his one cab on his own can never even remotely compete.

~~~
oh_sigh
You can only street hail a cab in NYC if you are in certain select portions of
manhattan, and it isn't cab rush hour or cab switch over hour. Good luck
hailing a cab in the middle of queens at any time of the day.

~~~
modfodder
I've hailed cabs in Queens. I live in Greenpoint and there are times that
hailing a cab is quicker than waiting for an UberX, especially now that the
green cabs are becoming ubiquitous.

Cab switch over hour sucks, but I've also been in a busy parts of Manhattan
with plenty of Uber cars showing on the app yet can't get an Uber car to my
location.

I've also noticed a drastic decline in the state of UberX vehicles in the past
few months (I assumer from their aggressive recruiting effort). Used to be
every UberX that picked me up was very clean and typically nicer cars
(occasionally getting picked up by Range Rovers or Town Cars). Now quite a few
of the cars are messier/dirtier than any cab I've ever been in.

I'll continue to use Uber and UberX when convenient, but I've cut back quite a
bit because the drop in quality.

------
noelwelsh
Against my better judgement I'm going to attempt to contribute to this thread.
There are good arguments on both sides but most people are talking past one
another. As I see it, it comes down to this:

Uber says there is a surplus, people driving cars with empty seats, and they
attempt to capture that surplus. From an economic point-of-view that is a good
argument. The surplus undeniably exists, and it would be beneficial to reduce
it.

The argument on the other side is that this is an issue of public policy.
Various countries have decided it is beneficial to legislate people driving
strangers in exchange for money. The general arguments are ones of safety, but
quality of service also comes into it. Again this is a reasonable argument.
There is an information asymmetry when hiring a taxi (I don't know what kind
of driver I'm going to get) so legislation reduces that.

The main point seems to be who gets to decide public policy? Uber and "Silicon
Valley" types believe that private individuals and companies should be allowed
to set public policy. Most others reject this.

The next argument is whether current legislation is appropriate and whether
Uber has sufficient features to make existing legislation unnecessary. E.g.
are ratings and ubiquitous GPS sufficient to reduce information asymmetry. If
Uber wants to engage in this argument it should use the usual methods of
setting public policy. I don't know if Uber has started any court cases but I
expect they will be involved in some soon if not already, and this is one way
to effect public policy.

~~~
pgeorgi
In that case they should claim that UberPool is not a taxi business, since
they don't intend to do it full-time (requirement as of PBefG §13(5)1), and as
such they want a temporary license (up to 4 years) as per PBefG §2(7) for this
new mode of transportation. (IANAL, no legal advice, yada yada)

What doesn't work is to pretend that laws don't exist, and pissing off
regulators. That will also make hacks like the above much less likely to work
for Uber because that requires some minimum amount of goodwill (given that it
is a hack)...

We have laws for everything (as Xylakant succintly stated), but they usually
also come with way to thread in new ideas. However, screaming "DISRUPTION!!!1"
all the time just isn't good enough here.

~~~
tim333
>What doesn't work is to pretend that laws don't exist, and pissing off
regulators

That actually seems to have worked OK to a large extent for the likes of Uber
and Airbnb. If they had complied with every existing regulation out there they
never would have got off the ground. Whereas going ahead and just launching it
is hard for regulators to stop the whole thing if it has wide spread adoption
and is popular.

~~~
DasIch
Both Uber and Airbnb are currently in the process of being killed of in
Germany. If they started here, they definitely wouldn't have gotten of the
ground.

~~~
tim333
Yeah, Germany may be a bit unusual in terms of sticking to their regulations.

~~~
junto
As a foreigner living here in Germany, I have been continually surprised by
the level of regulation that is in place here.

I am often doubly surprised when I realise that nearly every single piece of
legislation I've come across actually seems to make sense, when someone takes
the time to explain it to me.

I personally think that the regulation of public transport is a good thing.
The fact that people are insured when they transport me around in a 1 tonne
potential deathtrap is a good thing.

The last thing I want to hear when I wake up in hospital gravely injured is
"sorry sir, you'll have to sign here to accept liability because the driver of
your unlicensed taxi wasn't insured to transport paying passengers".

------
jacquesm
The court order is here:

[http://docs.dpaq.de/7814-beschluss-landgericht-ffm_uber-
taxi...](http://docs.dpaq.de/7814-beschluss-landgericht-ffm_uber-taxi-
deutschland_2014-09-01.pdf)

It's (obviously) in German.

The fines are 250K per violation, Uber has already announced they will fight
this.

Uber is looking for a communications lead in Germany:
[https://www.uber.com/jobs/18835](https://www.uber.com/jobs/18835) , they'll
definitely be needing that and more.

Deutsche Welle has it here (in English):

[http://www.dw.de/smartphone-app-uber-ordered-to-halt-
transpo...](http://www.dw.de/smartphone-app-uber-ordered-to-halt-
transportation-services-in-germany/a-17894286)

edit: thanks!

~~~
Smrchy
I live in Germany and i am happy that some things are more regulated here.

I like that Taxi companies need to have extra insurance and the cars _and_
drivers are checked on a regular basis. Just like the TÜV (a mandatory checkup
every two years for every vehicle) makes sure all vehicles have functioning
lights, brakes, proper tires etc.

This ruling only makes sure Uber follows those same rules other transportation
businesses follow as well. There is competition in the transportation business
here but there is no room for people sidestepping completely sane rules
everybody should agree on.

I am in no way affiliated with the taxi business and i like lower fares too.
But not at the cost of safety and less checks for cars and drivers.

Once Uber agrees to comply i am happy to use their app and their drivers. I
doubt they will be able to operate much cheaper though - i am fine with that.

~~~
jnardiello
Genuine question: Is Uber really cheaper than taxi? Honestly: in Italy it's
not. It's hell expensive, probably a bit more expensive than usual cabs -
which are incredibly expensive by definition. So yeah, this "We are a
startup", "Silicon Valley" thing is just a horrible excuse to avoid complying
with regulations.

If regulations in Silicon Valley (or wherever else) allow Uber business model
to be sustainable, good for them. This isn't something obvious when you go
international and it is part of the challenge. Simply not giving a fuck is
just mediocre and you deserve to cease operations. Period.

~~~
richthegeek
In Manchester, UK they absolutely are. Especially at night: what would be a
£20 ride in a hackney and a £15 fare for a pre-booked company is about £10
with Uber. That's for 5 miles in 20 minutes.

Add onto that the ease-of-use and some level of assurance that if your cabbie
takes you round the houses you can get a refund and it's a no brainer round
here.

~~~
GotAnyMegadeth
Wow, that's a lot. In Bristol UK I can get a taxi from a taxi rank to home,
which is just over 5 miles and takes about 20 mins, at 4am, for £10 max. Not
tried Uber

------
PaulRobinson
Uber are lying liars who lie in many markets.

This is demonstrated by the fact that in London, they simply went out and got
the PHV license, and made sure the vehicles comply (checks every 6 months,
public liability insurance, etc.) - if they did this in every other market, no
problem.

The issue is that isn't a very sexy business. It's not "disruptive" like car
pooling.

And in some markets, the cost of complying with the regulations is extremely
high.

Even in London, it's been argued that the app in the car is a meter, and
therefore breaches legislation relating to metered trips: only black cab
drivers are allowed to meter, and the regulation bar there is much, much
higher in part because those drivers are free to just pick people up off the
street without pre-booking.

It seems to me that they should either focus on ride-sharing and get out of
the private hire business, or they should focus on the private hire business
and do it properly.

The regulations around private hire are not some idiot state actors nannying
around: in London they have evolved over centuries. Literally. They are
constantly reviewed, and London has an incredibly diverse and active PHV
market with many innovators (Addison Lee, Hailo, Kabbee, etc.) improving
things in regards to customer choice.

------
einrealist
I use Taxis several times a week (in Germany). A lot of the drivers are
already complaining about their income. Most of them are below the minimum
wage, which will come in 2015. And a lot expect their company to shut down
business. When I ask them about their opinion about Uber, many of the drivers
speak positively about such an alternative. It would allow them to work
without the need of a concession and to keep more money of the margin. But
they also demand the same standards for such an alternative.

I prefer the Taxi (and my employer would not allow Uber in the first place),
because of insurance and other minimum standards demanded by regulation
(federal, country and town (via concessions)).

So I see a conflict, that is not just about Uber, but about the working
conditions and the income in general. If Uber is allowed to work at lower
limitations than the Taxi businesses, it will be a distortion of competition.
It would make more Taxi companies to go out of business, which already
struggle to keep their business and to pay their employes wages above the
minimum (today and 2015).

So yes! Uber drivers must maintain the same standards as Taxi businesses, if
they offer a commercial service.

~~~
gioele
> If Uber is allowed to work at lower limitations than the Taxi businesses, it
> will be a distortion of competition.

Let's stop talking about "competition". The issue here is "the regulations".
Are they too broad? Or too narrow? Or ineffective? Or inadequate? Or just
fine?

It Uber is allowed to work at lower limitations than the Taxi businesses, then
either the Taxi business is too regulated (then some regulations should be
dropped) or Uber is taking shortcuts somewhere damaging the costumers or the
workers (the reason why the regulations exist in the first place).

I think that, if the current regulations are justified (and this is to be seen
place by place), then there is no other outcome other than Uber becoming
simply yet another Taxi company, maybe the one with the nicest website.

~~~
einrealist
Its both - competition and regulation. If one company does not follow them,
but others do, then you have a distortion of competition. The difficulty is in
to tell whether Uber is operating like a Taxi company or not. They certainly
operate on a different model than the usual Taxi business. So that's why Uber
ignored the laws until someone cried foul.

Btw. I think the business is regulated fairly. The income is not. Most
difficulties are with the concessions and the natural oligopols around them.

------
Xylakant
> Uber plans to appeal the decision and said it would continue offering its
> services until a final ruling has been made.

I'm curious how they'll do that. They already said that in the Hamburg and
Berlin case, but those were administrative decisions where an appeal blocks
the injunction until a court decides. This time it's a preliminary injunction
from a court, where an appeal has no delaying effect. The injunction can be
enforced. The fines are also much much higher - in Hamburg it was a measly
1000 EUR per violation, this time it's 250 kEUR per violation or up to 6 month
in prison for the CEO.

------
ChuckFrank
The irony of this, with regards to their brand name, is delicious.

~~~
oska
Deutschland: Uber 0, Alles 1

~~~
darklajid
Not sure if you intended that, but I'm reasonably sure you did: I found your
comment offensive.

Not a reference I like to see and not related to the topic at hand. Certainly
not funny.

Yay, downvotes. For the people that "Don't Get It": That funny guy is
basically referring to the first line of the 'Deutschlandlied' \- the source
of the German national anthem. Thing is, while we kept the third (and just the
third) verse as our national anthem, the reference above and the complete
first verse, is really just associated with Nazi idiots (it was the only verse
used THEN and is still part of their propaganda, plus it's the most silly line
ever - even without that heritage it would be something utterly ridiculous to
say, write, sing or whatnot). While it's use is not illegal over here, singing
(or using) that line makes you a potentially dangerous moron and is generally
considered highly offensive.

For this particular German he's basically singing a Nazi song.

~~~
ryanx435
are you also offended by the phrase "grammar nazis"?

do you believe that all "Hitler cat" memes should be removed from the
internet?

maybe we should just ban all references to anything related to nazis. maybe
burn all copies of "mein kampf" so no one gets offended?

or maybe we should round up everyone who posts a joke on the Internet and
throw them in concentration camp because their beliefs are different than
yours.

calm down buddy.

------
crapshoot101
Interesting, took an uber in Berlin about 3 days ago. The options here are
much more limited (its UberPop, instead of UberX), and the driver coverage is
smaller (my friend recognized the driver as being the same one he had seen a
month ago). Cabs are relatively easy to get here and so cheap, haven't felt
the need to really fire up Uber much at all for the most part - ie, it was
raining last night, and found a cab in 1 min.

------
jfoster
"Violations of the injunction will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000
euros ($328,108) per ride. Uber plans to appeal the decision and said it would
continue offering its services until a final ruling has been made."

Is that an error in judgement on Uber's part? Perhaps they'll settle or get
the fine reduced if they remain unsuccessful, but with a fine like that per
ride, there is a slim possibility that defying the order could send them out
of business, isn't there?

~~~
exDM69
Not sure about German laws, but in many places a court order is not put into
effect before the appeals have been dealt with. If and when the appeals are
declined, I'm sure they have to shut down business with that kind of fines.

~~~
Xylakant
In this case, since it's a court-granted injunction ("Einstweilige Verfügung")
an appeal has no delaying effect. The preliminary injunction gets only granted
if the court feels that the risk associated with the action in question is
sufficiently high to warrant immediate action. IANAL, but from what I know
this injunction can be enforced until it's overturned in an appeal.

That's different from the last two bans (Hamburg and Berlin) where Uber was
banned by administrative action (Verwaltungsakt). In that case, an appeal has
delaying effect until the case gets heard in court.

------
steilpass
Has someone looked at the scope of the German law?

[http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pbefg/__1.html](http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/pbefg/__1.html)

>Diesem Gesetz unterliegen nicht Beförderungen 1. mit Personenkraftwagen, wenn
diese unentgeltlich sind oder das Gesamtentgelt die Betriebskosten der Fahrt
nicht übersteigt;

=> As long as the total fare is below the actual costs the law is not
applicable.

It seems if Uber operates at a loss they are fine. ;-)

~~~
_up
I think the drivers themself would have to operate at a loss. But they also
have an exemption for ambulances. Maybe they can offer medical services for
their clients. ;)

------
cromwellian
I really wonder how much of this is protectionism for Taxis, and how much of
it is protectionism against foreign companies. I don't have any particular
love for Uber (the way they waste Lyft resources makes them d-bags in my
book), but I don't buy the 'safety' excuse being given.

It reminds me of the bullshit safety concerns used to continue Oregon's ban on
pumping your own gas at gas stations:
[http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/06/its_for_...](http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/06/its_for_the_children_and_other.html)

The reality is, it's a form of protectionism for gas station attendant jobs,
just as this German decision smells like regulatory capture. My guess is that
if Uber changed policy to actually meet whatever requirements safety they're
asking, they'd devise a new set of excuses for the ban, because this is
ultimately about preserving the status quo.

~~~
pgeorgi
The "excuse" is the Personenbeförderungsgesetz (law on [commercially]
transporting people). Taxis have to implement it (and they do), and so they
can complain in court about competitors who don't (as a remedy to state
intervention: regulation has to apply to everyone). That's what happened here,
nothing more, nothing less.

If the court hadn't stopped Uber, we'd actually see some special treatment
(that is, protectionism) in Uber's favor.

------
jasonisalive
Banning Uber (or upholding laws that restrict market-entrants such as Uber) is
just another example of banning "Walmart Scotch."

Recommended: [http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-
the...](http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/)

~~~
billynomates1
This is a safety thing, not a competition thing.

~~~
jasonisalive
Sorry I'm not getting it. Feel free to correct me at any stage if I'm wrong.

1) You can drive a car in Germany if you meet some basic legislative
requirements (Führerschein etc.)

2) You can carry a friend as a passenger - perfectly legal.

3) You could carry a stranger who asked you for a ride - perfectly legal.

4) That stranger could give you gas money - perfectly legal.

5) But if you use your smartphone to find strangers willing to pay you for a
ride at this point your activity becomes so unsafe that you need to jump
through a whole bucketload of extra hoops? Why is that exactly?

~~~
svankmajer
5) The difference is that if you're doing it for profit, there are laws that
govern that activities and you must follow them. It is really simple.

~~~
mike_hearn
I think you all missed his point. Yes he knows there are laws. He's
questioning why the laws exist. There's clearly a lot of confusion about this
because up thread we have people saying it's not about safety, and then we
have lots of other people saying it is about safety.

To me having insurance valid for commercial use seems reasonable, but you
don't need special licenses or laws to enforce that. Just have a law that says
"you must have insurance valid for the kind of driving you do" (which I
suspect Germany already has).

The basic point being made here is there is no technical or medical reason why
the amount of money being charged suddenly makes driving fundamentally
different. You're driving the same car on the same roads with the same driver.
So why have governments made it so complicated?

~~~
kuschku
There is a difference: Regular insurances do NOT cover commercial activities –
so if you want to drive for uber, you need to get a commercial insurance.

This is everything the court asked for: Appropriate insurance and regular
checkups (yearly instead of biyearly).

------
oskarth
I live in Berlin and this is extremely disappointing. I'm beginning to doubt
European cities in general have any clue what makes startups in US work.
Here's what pg tweeted when there were protests in London:

 _Lots of cities say they want to be the Silicon Valley of Europe. Uber tests
whether they mean it._
([https://twitter.com/paulg/status/477428094530121728](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/477428094530121728))

Talk all you want about Uber being evil, predatory and not really the One True
Sharing Economy - this right here is why Europe won't catch up to US in terms
of startups, despite all the nice talk about being friendly to them.

~~~
Xylakant
I live in Berlin and this is extremely satisfying. I'm beginning to doubt that
Silicon Valley startups have any clue how European cities work. We germans in
general are weary of evil, predatory enterprises that start a spiral to the
bottom.

Jest aside: This is just not how things work here, for good or bad. I think
there's also not that much room for disruption in the Uber case, at least in
Germany. The market for cabs is very much unlike the market in the US -
there's not a single huge company owning all the cabs in Berlin and a
medallion does not cost a million EUR. Service has been pretty ok for me so
far and I use a lot of cabs, so I actually don't see much of an upside but I
do see a lot of potential downsides, not that much for me who could easily
afford a surge pricing but for people that maybe can't and have to rely on
regular cabs.

~~~
smsm42
>>> I think there's also not that much room for disruption in the Uber case,
at least in Germany

I suspect there is, otherwise there would be no need to ban it.

~~~
dagw
They haven't banned Uber, just required that they follow the laws and
regulations that everybody else has to follow. Once Uber does that then
they're free to operate in Germany.

~~~
smsm42
"A court in Frankfurt has ordered the smartphone application 'Uber' to stop
its transportation services in Germany"

Is this not a ban? Are you saying Uber drivers weren't following the
regulations every other driver in Germany has to follow - they were not
obeying traffic laws, not holding driving licenses, etc.? No, they didn't
follow _additional_ regulations that _not everybody_ has to follow.

~~~
zeeed
Ride sharing is completely legal in Germany, the court order makes the
difference between ride sharing (which is unregulated) and ride sharing FOR
PROFIT, which, in Germany, is a regulated market.

So no, it's not a ban. It's the requirement to make business akin to getting
your business registered.

~~~
smsm42
Wait, so it's OK for one person to give a ride to another person, on the same
vehicle, on the same road, at the same time, but it's not OK to give the same
ride if after the ride one person gives money to another person - and the
reason is that is the second case the driver and the vehicle (the same driver
and the same vehicle!) is _less safe_? How that even makes any sense?

~~~
Xylakant
This case is not about safety. It's an unfair competition case.

Transporting people for money is heavily regulated in Germany on various
grounds, one being safety, others are that Taxis count as public transport in
germany and must fulfill certain obligations ranging from mandatory service
for anyone at the same rate to transporting disabled people to the doctor
(yes, that's done by Taxis as long as those people can still enter a Taxi).
Uber is avoiding the regulations in an attempt to save money and be more
profitable. This has been judged as an unfair business practice and so Uber
faces two options: Stop offering UberPop or comply with the regulations.

The fact that private insurances don't cover commercial rides has a multitude
of reasons, one of them is that statistically speaking it's more likely that a
commercial driver has an accident since he's more likely to get a
significantly higher mileage and more likely to drive at night. But that's a
deal between the insurance company and the driver, the law only cares that you
own a valid insurance, not about the exact terms.

------
johlindenbaum
I liked UberX while I was in the city. Awesome ridesharing. Great.

I don't understand why Uber, in a regulated taxi eco system like London or
Berlin, wouldn't just start with UberTAXI? Why not start the process gently by
being able to hail a cab and pay through the app. This is the most problematic
issue for me as a user. Getting a dedicated cab to show up to my location,
just for me.

While living in the Bay Area, I talked to several (yellow) cab drivers that
love Uber because it guarantees a fair that their dispatch service can't.

Why does Uber not enter new markets by making booking Taxis easier first, then
introduce X at a later point when their brand is better known in a new market?

------
kenster07
This is not about evaluating what is objectively better for the consumer.
There is much less tolerance for the "ask for forgiveness, not permission"
mentality in Germany than America, and this ruling proves that. If a
competitor like Lyft goes into Germany now, plays by the rules, and shows
respect to the existing order, I would not be surprised to see them welcomed
and take a huge lead in Europe.

------
sschueller
Google Translate:
[http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwirtschaft%2Funternehmen%2Fuber-
gericht-stoppt-taxidienst-in-ganz-deutschland-a-989332.html)

------
blackdogie
Just checked Munich, and no black cars are displaying but Uber Pop's are. I
wonder how much notice you would get about such an action.

image :
[https://twitter.com/paulsavage/status/506714057609867264](https://twitter.com/paulsavage/status/506714057609867264)

------
diminoten
They're not "banned" entirely, just UberX. The black car service is still
allowed.

What I just don't get about that is the fact that the black car service is the
thing that's most "analogous" to a taxi service, isn't it?

Maybe I'm not understanding something here.

------
domrdy
Black cars have all vanished from the map while 'pop' seems to be operating
just fine, at least I can see several cars in my area (Munich).

~~~
Xylakant
Interesting effect, since the ban affects "Pop" and not "Black" which is
basically a limo-for-hire service and (mostly) complies with the legal
requirements.

------
wellboy
Anyone knows why Uber has to pay 250k fines and all the other German taxi
apps, such as MyTaxi that have raised $10M, don't?

~~~
zenbit
MyTaxi targets commercial drivers that adhere to legislation whereas Uber
targets non-professional drivers and does neither check nor care whether they
follow regulations (proper license, permits, insurance, etc.)

~~~
wellboy
Ah got it, so Germany doesn´t like the "Lyft-part" about Uber, right?

------
Roritharr
Living in Frankfurt, I still see Uber Pop Drivers in the Uber App. Doesn't
know what that means tho.

------
charlie_vill
'Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride'. I don't think this is accurate.

~~~
Xylakant
It is. Alternative: Up to 6 month of jail for the CEO.

------
throwawayaway
Deutschland uber Uber!

------
duncan_bayne
To quote Rand:

"There is no way to legislate competition; there are no standards by which one
could define who should compete with whom, how many competitors should exist
in any given field, what should be their relative strength or their so-called
“relevant markets,” what prices they should charge, what methods of
competition are “fair” or “unfair.” None of these can be answered, because
these precisely are the questions that can be answered only by the mechanism
of a free market."

~~~
digitalengineer
Careful now. It's daytime in Europe, so the more Laisser faire (US-free-
market-style) arguments have a higher change of getting down voted. This will
correct a bit in about 6 hours when the East Coast wakes up. I'm not judging
it, it's just the way us europeans are 'wired'. The taxi market is one ripe
thats ripe for disruption. There's lots of demand and low, all-the-same
companies offering a low quality/high cost service. It's also one thats build
a lot of rules around it, some for the clients protection and a lot to prevent
competition. Large established companies always prefer more rules because it
absolutely kills new companies trying to enter a market.

~~~
jacquesm
The taxi market is absolutely ripe for disruption. But GP did not provide any
reasons why Uber should be the way to do it. Taxi companies are regulated for
a variety of reasons, not _just_ to keep out the competition and as far as I
know nothing stops Uber drivers from getting the same certifications as
regular taxis. If they do that _and_ they are still blocked or if they are
denied certification then you have a genuine case of unfair competition. Until
then Uber is tilting the playing field in their direction by offering a
product that competes unfairly with the regulated drivers.

Maybe this is the only way in which such a regulation effort can be challenged
but I'm not convinced of that.

As for the 'careful now' and so on bits, anybody quoting Ayn Rand verbatim
without adding much to the conversation is probably going to get downvoted,
it's not as if she's an authority in the field of economics, and most of her
writing displays a shockingly bad understanding of the field.

~~~
digitalengineer
Thank you for the insights. A quick reply: >Taxi companies are regulated for a
variety of reasons Correct. But mostly because they made a mess of their nr1
job: transporting people Today we have new and far better ways t regulate a
driver's behavior. Payment in advance, navigation to check the route and a
easy way to judge the driver afterwards. That takes care of most of the
complaints.

~~~
Xylakant
>Taxi companies are regulated for a variety of reasons Correct. But mostly
because they made a mess of their nr1 job: transporting people

This is not how I feel about it in Germany. Whenever I needed a cab, I got
one, for a fair, reasonable price. Might be a little longer if I'm out in the
fields or when a thunderstorm hit Berlin and there's no public transport, but
sooner or later, I was picked up. Taxis are treated as part of the public
transport system here, they have obligations (must transport everyone for the
same price, must provide basic service at any time, regulated rates, ...) and
in return receive benefits - effectively a monopoly on the taxi market.

Now, if we decide to repeal the benefits and allow UberPop, how are we going
to make sure we fulfill the obligations? No, surge pricing is not a solution.
There's probably a solution, but I'm very much not convinced that Uber is the
solution, so until someone presents a genuinely better system, I'll stick with
what we have. It's not perfect, but good enough.

~~~
aianus
Is there a law forcing Taxi drivers to go to work during a hurricane or New
Year's Eve or something? If not, how is the current system of not being able
to find a ride better than Uber's system of making you pay a fair market price
for it?

~~~
Xylakant
Yes, at least in Germany, there is. Taxi companies are obliged to provide a
minimum level of service or loose the license. The administration can even
order a license holder to expand his business if there's public need.
([http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pbefg/__21.html](http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/pbefg/__21.html))

~~~
aianus
I can't read German, do you mind telling me the details of the minimum level
of service? If it's per week or per month it doesn't solve the problem when
there's inclement weather or a holiday or a conference, etc.

~~~
Xylakant
The law itself does not specify the level, it grant the authority do decide to
the relevant authorities. (For example the administration in Berlin), so
things will vary depending on where you are.

Generally speaking I haven't had any problem finding a cab in Berlin. The
longest wait was after a thunderstorm took out most of the public transport a
couple of years ago and that took like 20 minutes somewhere in the outskirts.
I usually either flag one down on the road or use the smartphone app.

