German court issues nationwide ban on Uber driving services

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/uber-germany-ban-idUSFWN0WJ04W20150318

by sebst • 11 years ago

99 174 11 years ago

1971genocide• 11 years ago

Stuff like this is going to be more and more common as govt doesn't want 25+ % of their population to be unemployed due to nerds churning out code.

andrewpi2• 11 years ago

Any evidence that Uber leads to more unemployment rather than less unemployment?

michaelbuckbee• 11 years ago

Uber have stated that they are developing self driving cars

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/03/technology/innovationnation/...

pluma6• 11 years ago

Calling Uber drivers "employed" is no different from calling temp agency workers "employed".

It's not a solution to unemployment, it's an exploitation of people unable to find a job in societies where not having a job means living in poverty.

They're not entrepreneurs either. They're workers who have the liberty of employees with the legal requirements of entrepreneurs. It's the worst of both worlds.

ptaipale17• 11 years ago

This sounds a bit of a Luddite approach to me. Yeah, all those spinning Jennies make weavers unemployed.

jjoonathan2• 11 years ago

Right, but if you blame the proximal cause of unemployment then you don't have to address the underlying social issues or ask hard questions about the legitimacy of a system that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

onion2k2• 11 years ago

If that's the analogy you're going to use, it's probably worth remembering that the new jobs mechanisation created in the industrial revolution were in horrible conditions where the people using the new technologies died young after being worked to death putting in long hours for minimal wages.

sfk3• 11 years ago

The spinning machines were an actual technological improvement, whereas Uber (and many other valley companies) are just replacing old middlemen with new ones.

jonathanza• 11 years ago

I live in a country with 25% unemployment, South Africa. I've used Uber a few times in the last week or so and my drivers have been:

- A high-school dropout studying towards his Matric and wanting to go into engineering. - An owner of a backpacker lodge looking to do something during the day when his business isn't busy. - A retired person looking to earn some extra income. - A full time Uber driver who was a long-haul truck driver.

IMHO, my country needs more nerds churning out code which will cut through the bureaucracy our government has put in place and create opportunities for our unemployed.

With regards to self-driving cars, that would be awesome. I just don't see that it's something that would be affordable in a developing country in the next few years.

tobltobs• 11 years ago

It is more that govt doesn't like if companies try to avoid social insurances for their workers.

johnsea2• 11 years ago

More like germany doesn't want drivers without proper papers and sloppy serviced cars. Taxis work quite well here with reasonable fares. No need for uber which exploits their employees... well they are not employees but exploitable individuals with very little power. It's good that the government cares for a certain standard. Of course there are regions where this degenerated i to bad burocratie

ShellfishMeme• 11 years ago

Reasonable? For the price it costs to get from Berlin's city center to the airport, you could easily drive your own car to Hamburg - and probably back.

I really don't understand why it has to be so expensive. For inner city trips the gas costs are a negligible part of the total price, and most drivers are being paid minimum wage. (I've actually heard quite a few taxi drivers complain about minimum wage being introduced because their employers claim that it's too expensive for them and they need to cut costs.)

Either there are too many taxis out there so they need higher prices to be able to pay for the time where they just stand around waiting for customers, or somebody is getting rich.

purringmeow4• 11 years ago

How does Uber exploit its employees? Nobody is making drivers sign-up for Uber. Nobody is keeping them signed-up by force.

The whole problem with Uber can be solved if governments deregulate the taxi industry. I absolutely agree that you need an insurance that covers the passengers, but what else except more frequent technical checks? Taxi licenses are an artificial way to control the supply, so I am adamantly against them.

reasonish5• 11 years ago

Don't be ridiculous. Uber isn't cheaper because of code. It's cheaper because they ignore the laws and regulations. Just like airBnB.

Code has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Usu• 11 years ago

I'm wondering whether the ban also applies to uber taxi, they had a big marketing campaign just last week in Berlin where you were able to take a ride for free for a couple of days [1]

[1] http://blog.uber.com/freeubertaxi_berlin_en

bradleyjg• 11 years ago

Just uberpop it looks like. More details in this article: http://www.ft.com/intl/fastft/293403/uber-ride-sharing-banne...

thesimon2• 11 years ago

German article http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/ums... (use Google Translate if needed) says the services for professional drivers are not affected (eg. Uber Black, probably Uber Taxi too)

detaro6• 11 years ago

Since these seem to be licensed taxis, they should be fine.

andrewmutz• 11 years ago

More detail here: http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/german-court-ban-uber/

struppi2• 11 years ago

The main reason (IIUC) for the verdict was (a little bit simplified):

Most of the drivers for uberPOP break german laws because they have no proper license and insurance to be commercial drivers.

The question was if Uber breaks the law ("Personenbeförderungsgesetz") by simply acting as a broker for those drivers - And the judge said yes, they do.

pluma6• 11 years ago

The thing isn't just that Uber may break the law, but that it encourages others to break the law. Call it anti-libertarian, but in Germany a company shares responsibility for the behaviour it is creating. They would have to put controls in place (within reason) to ensure that Uber drivers don't break the law -- but of course they don't because they're well-aware that that would reduce the number of drivers and drive up costs and prices.

Basically, Uber is breaking the law when it comes to passenger transportation the same way Mega was breaking the law when it came to file sharing. It created an environment that promoted illegal activities.

spdustin4• 11 years ago

No oversight. No privacy. No standards.

Can't say I blame them.

Karunamon7• 11 years ago

Because the oversight, privacy, and standards are working ever so well..

[1] http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/taxi-driver-20...

[2] http://coconutgrovegrapevine.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-county...

and so on..

Call me when your "overseen, private, and up to standards" taxi has an immediate rating system that will cause the driver to effectively lose their job if they continue to provide crappy drives.

I do blame them. Bureaucracy sucks, and I can see why people would want to subvert it. Government's just mad they're not getting their vig. That's all this boils down to.

(Fixed link 1)

fijal2• 11 years ago

we're talking about germany here (where oversight and standards are generally running high), not NYC

pdabbadabba3• 11 years ago

Yes! There are two places where there have been issues with taxis. (Though the first link is broken, so I can't tell exactly what the issue is -- judging from the URL it involves a cab driver that raped passengers.) This proves that all regulations everywhere are a waste of time.

More seriously, nobody claims that the existing regulations ensure that there will never be an issue with a taxi. The claim, of course, is that things would be worse (or, if you prefer even worse) without them.

wahsd3• 11 years ago

The problem is that Uber wants all the gain without really taking on any of the responsibility, costs, or consequences beyond the bare minimum for PR and marketing purposes. In essence, they set up a system to parasitize an industry through corrupt practices.

I am all about competition, but they don't want to compete, they want to undercut the market to destroy it and corner it so that they can then implement regulatory capture at a later point.

spdustin4• 11 years ago

Okay... I won't bother quoting stories about ride share drivers stealing, raping and assaulting, or doing unsafe things, because we'd go back for forth forever. I think it's fair to say that drivers can fall through the cracks. It's also fair to say that the cracks are bigger (or, to be generous, an unknown width) with a non-regulated service. But I'll go ahead and take your other bait, because certain things need to be said to ensure that this is an enlightened discussion.

Every taxi I've been in has a number to call, commonly mandated and staffed by a public agency (whose records are therefore public), when you have a problem.

When there's a convention in town, or a major sporting event, or a new taxi service that competes with an existing one, do you know how much my taxi rates go up? I'm approximating here, but (scribbles on napkin)... 0%. Pretty nice.

Here are some more hypotheticals:

If I have accessibility challenges, a quick call to a taxi dispatcher (and disabled folks generally already know these numbers, in my experience), I get the same rate, and the service is required to accommodate my special needs.

If I am engaging in a one night stand, I don't become part of a "ride of glory" dashboard.

My data points are used in predictable ways, and if I pay cash and don't rob the driver, my personal information is known by zero people. I will stipulate that cameras are in most taxis these days and, sure, let's say there's facial recognition there. The city agencies don't have a track record of using that PII in unexpected ways.

If I complain about too many taxi drivers, every other taxi driver will still pick me up.

If I'm in an accident due to some other yahoo driving badly, I know precisely the type of insurance that is carried by the taxi service.

If there's short term construction, or a particular corridor is always busy at an unusual time of day, my driver will already know about it, because there's a good chance he's been driving in this city for years. And if he hasn't, the competition to become a driver is fierce enough that he is highly motivated to be the best taxi driver he can be.

How'd I do?

pgeorgi6• 11 years ago

German county governments provide taxi licenses at what I'd consider to be 'at cost'. Unlikely that this is their main concern, or even 'all this boils down to'.

Also, no government branch sued Uber. The organization of taxi cooperatives did, which is private (as are all its members).

MAGZine• 11 years ago

I think that Uber has done tremendous amounts to modernizing the taxi industry, and maybe even for breaking down some taxi monopolies. These are both good things.

I can't comment on UberX, but regular Uber should absolutely be subject to regular taxi/safety/liability clauses. Which isn't to say that those clauses couldn't be modernized, but IS to say that it should also not be a surprise when a company gets a nationwide ban for violating them. Regular Uber is exactly a taxi system, with a state-of-the-art automated dispatch and billing system.

DasIch4• 11 years ago

I don't see how it has done so at all, at least in Germany. Precisely because the industry is so highly regulated I don't see how Uber offers anything that I don't get with a regular taxi.

anon13853• 11 years ago

You get the thrill of drivers who are uninsured and poorly paid (once you factor in the capital costs of the vehicle and the cost of vehicle maintenance). Welcome to the libertarian paradise.

wyager3• 11 years ago

Precisely because the industry is so highly regulated I don't see how Uber offers anything that I don't get with a regular taxi.

This seems to be a common argument against private competition to government-managed services. "Well, I don't see how a private company could do this better than the government." And yet, Uber is so obviously superior to any regulated taxi service.

ma2rten2• 11 years ago

The situation is a little bit different in the US than in Germany.

In the US (depending on the city) taxis are often difficult to find, overpriced, rude and/or uncomfortable.

buyx• 11 years ago

I can't comment on UberX, but regular Uber should absolutely be subject to regular taxi/safety/liability clauses

Do you mean uberPOP? AFAIK, UberX is like regular Uber, but with smaller cars and lower fares.

fredoliveira2• 11 years ago

UberPop and UberX are similar services.

kitcar• 11 years ago

in Canada, UberX is 100% non-licensed taxis (i.e. just normal people with their personally owned cars picking up passengers using Uber)

fotcorn• 11 years ago

The permit to commercially transport people costs 421 Euro:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...

Far too much for some casual Uber drivers.

struppi2• 11 years ago

AFAIK you also need special insurance and shorter maintenance intervals for your car, so the total cost is probably higher - And recurring!

thesimon2• 11 years ago

It also requires extensive knowledge of the city (know all streets), which is way too much for a casual driver who will simply use a gps.

To commercially transport people you also need a special insurance and need your car checked more frequently.

So it should't be surprising that UberPOP was forbidden.

detaro6• 11 years ago

That is necessary, but not enough. To operate a taxi you also need a taxi license (which sometimes just is a 50 € fee, sometimes has to be taken over from an existing taxi company, all depends on the city) + of course insurance etc.

You can use it to operate a "rental car with driver", like UberBlack does, but that has other limitations to be not too taxi-like (most notably you can't take new passengers or their orders while on the road, you have to return to your home location after every trip)

pluma6• 11 years ago

"Funkmietwagen" (rental cars with a driver you that picks you up and drops you off and can be hired instantly by phone) are actually very common in most parts of Germany I've been to. Many businesses offer you to call one instead if you ask them to call you a taxi (though I think they have to explicitly tell you it's a Funkmietwagen rather than a taxi).

That said, Uber isn't really solving a problem here. There are already call-a-taxi apps (though they don't seem to have been very successful) and the only value add Uber provides is that it encourages an entirely illegal business model (i.e. transporting persons without the required qualifications, no insurance coverage, no guarantees and no reliable pricing).

Sure, UberBlack may be a nice idea if an ordinary taxi is beneath you or socially inappropriate, but other than that Uber simply doesn't offer anything new.

Note that Germany and the EU in general have very strong customer protection laws. The health, safety and protection of the passenger is an actual concern in the local market. Uber (and similar "disruptive" services) gain most of their appeal from entirely disregarding that.

It doesn't matter how appealing your business idea is if it doesn't work within the restrictions of consumer protection.

winter_blue• 11 years ago

For comparison, a taxi permit in New York City costs over $1 million. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/nyregion/1-million-medalli...

Yes, NYC taxi permits are about 2,000 times as expensive.

wahsd3• 11 years ago

I get the sense that you are an advocate of Uber's and that type of approach to business and society.

The problem I have, no matter how much I like the idea and concepts and technical solutions, is that there is a social flaw built in, which is American society. What we, as a culture don't realize is that Uber and it's minions of supporters, just like so many other cultural phenomena in the USA, is a corporate con job race to the bottom.

Just so you have a starting point, Uber is the equivalent to Conservative causes like opposition to universal health care or a social safety net or a minimum wage (expectation of income for work) or job security; or any other of the numerous pernicious memes on the right that are self-harming.

So, go on, blabber on about how much you love Uber; just be aware that you supported the very process that will also lead to you having to scrape by for crumbs just to survive in a saturated market in which you are little more than a commodity, essentially a head of cattle on a ranch.

serve_yay• 11 years ago

Just Uber specifically? So you can just download a different app and order rides again? Why?

fredoliveira2• 11 years ago

Other, competing services to uber, aren't functioning (or at least not as pervasively) in germany.

teekert• 11 years ago

Here in the Netherlands Uber drivers are being driven off the road, threatened and they have their cars marked (http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1038/Rotterdam/article/detail/3911575...)

Its crazy. I for one can't wait until the taxi mob is competed off the market. Taxi drivers here are more often than not complete a-holes that try to scam you every chance they get. I for one welcome uber with open arms. I'm sorry for the nice taxi drivers but your business is deeply ill.

microtonal• 11 years ago

The problem here is unfair competition: in The Netherlands taxis are bound by the 'Wet Personenvervoer' (Law persons transport). Uber can encourage drivers to ignore the law, because it has deep pockets to cover for legal costs of drivers.

I agree that the taxi market is ripe for disruption, but this is only fair if other taxis are not bound by that law as well.

Another question is if we want complete deregulation. E.g. I would personally want to be sure that the driver has proper insurance, etc.

ptaipale17• 11 years ago

Every car should have a proper insurance, right? At least here it's the law.

KJasper• 11 years ago

Uberdrivers aren't driven off the road, because they need to go through the same hoops as every other Taxi. Uberpop drivers on the other hand are illegal in the Netherlands.

lleims• 11 years ago

I don't understand why Uber (not UberPOP, which in theory operates with licensed drivers) has been also banned.

Can anyone explain why?

random3• 11 years ago

Disclaimer: I'm an uber Uber user.

It seem that the German government ensures that everyone gets the same version of the laws. I don't see how that's wrong.

There are generally regulations (and not a few) wrt taxi. Drivers need to pass an exam, get licenses, pay a lot on various taxes, insurance, etc. Most of all, however, there's a limited number of taxi medallions.

Perhaps not all these do make sense, but that's not an excuse not to obey them.

So perhaps a government authority that ensures that it's own policies are respected is not unexpected.

So yes, Uber contributes a lot to the quality of the transportation. That's why I'm using it. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the fact that it's one the verge of the law (good or bad) or even against the law in some cases - which is what the German authorities decided.

I don't think this has anything to do with their self-driving cars or the German government taking care of the unemployment problem. In fact, it's probably helping employment.

Now how did this play out in the US?

minthd• 11 years ago

How is it(removing uber services) helping employment,given we know that uber increases demand for taxi services ?

CaptainZapp• 11 years ago

  given we know that uber increases demand for taxi services ?

Do you have a reliable source for this assertion?

buro9• 11 years ago

How does it increase demand for taxi services?

If your answer is by making it dramatically cheaper by externalising the costs of running a sustainable taxi business... then how does having a greater number of people employed on wages that they cannot afford to live on benefit anyone?

ukigumo• 11 years ago

Are you saying the service by itself is responsible for an increase in the utilization rate for a class of transportation (ie, the car)?

If that's the case, then did people stop ridding bikes? Taking the bus? Or did (many) people start using uber instead of other taxi companies because of the price difference (due to uber not paying for all the licenses and insurances other transport companies are subjected to)?

If the later is the case, then regulation exists to discourage unfair competition.

pdabbadabba3• 11 years ago

Now how did this play out in the US?

Similarly. Though we have few relevant national regulations, so we continue to read headlines about Uber being banned or unbanned in seemingly random states and cities, for basically the same reason as Germany's decision.

1ris• 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure the number of taxi licenses are not limited in germany.

rbehrends• 11 years ago

Most of all, however, there's a limited number of taxi medallions.

This is not generally true; it depends on the municipality.

Berlin, for example, does not limit the number of taxi licenses it hands out.

In any event, the specific service that Uber offers is regulated as a kind of limo-for-hire service and not subject to medallion quotas anywhere in Germany. As long as your drivers qualify (properly insured and licensed), you're good to go. Of course, there are existing services that already do that, and they're none to happy that Uber tries to skirt the regulations that they are subject to.

And because these regulations mostly just exist to ensure the safety of passengers (having a license, physical and mental fitness, insurance, cars being roadworthy) and basic quality (knowledge test), lots of Germans aren't particularly sympathetic towards Uber, as the only way they can be cheaper than companies that have been offering the exact same service for decades is by skimping on safety or quality. Taxi apps existed in Germany before Uber. And, as I explained above, it's not to avoid a quota, either, because there is no such quota for this kind of service.

tessierashpool• 11 years ago

The caveat with disruption: Sometimes an industry which is very tightly regulated, or which has a lot of middlemen, has these obstructions for a reason.

A taxi service holds enormous opportunities for kidnappers or rapists. I'm a man, which basically disappears the rape risk, but there are many Central and South American countries where getting in a taxi could be quite risky for me, and could involve me disappearing. even some parts of Mexico.

Recent related stories make Uber look really bad:

http://boingboing.net/2014/11/19/uber-can-track-your-one-nig... http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-dig... http://www.buzzfeed.com/anitabadejo/uber-but-for-real-estate...

Also, just to state the obvious, both Uber drivers and regular taxi drivers have logical incentives for driving unsafely.

In this context, I have no problem with governments wanting to regulate Uber literally to death, at least outside of California. I understand cabs are completely unacceptable garbage in California, and the HN audience definitely skews Californian, but cabs are gold in Chicago, London, and New York, and probably quite a few other places too. Maybe Germany is one of those places.

Also, although I'm sympathetic to libertarians, disruption doesn't always fix things. The Internet crippled the music industry, but introduced stacks of new middlemen in the process. Ask Zoe Keating how that "democratization" turned out.

http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i...

In music, the corporate middlemen are this pernicious infestation, which just reappears after you thought you'd wiped it out. Artists have to sacrifice a lot to develop their art to a serious level, and a lot of music performance takes place in situations where people are celebrating (i.e., drunk or high, late at night). So somebody has to provide security, as well as business sense. There's a lot of opportunities for middlemen to get their middle on, and disrupting a market, under those conditions, just means shuffling in a new deck of middlemen. It doesn't change the game.

In the same way, my guess is that disrupting a market which is inherently full of criminality risks - incentives to drive unsafely, opportunities for kidnapping and rape - means you just shuffle the deck of regulations.

Yet another criminality risk: taxi services of any kind, whether Uber or not, hold terrific opportunities for armed robbery. In some cities, being a cab driver is very dangerous, for this reason.

So, if Uber kills the entire taxi industry, then governments will have to scrap their taxi regulations and re-build a similarly gigantic regulatory infrastructure around Uber instead.

I think Uber is a really good lesson for entrepreneurs in how a market can look awesome but actually suck.

snitko10• 11 years ago

My, god people. The number of those supporting the useless regulation is so great it astounds me. If you want to regulate something as simple as driving people around, claiming drivers need licences, permissions and passing some sort of exams certifying they are indeed capable of driving cars with passengers, why don't we regulate something much more critical, like software development?

Software runs the world these days, you can't just let people with no licences write shitty code. Politicians and bureaucrats should join their forces and decide whether each individual programmer is of a certain level. If not, he is banned from writing code and should be fined or imprisoned if he ever tries to do that.

Or let's regulate musicians. You know, it would do good. I'm so tired of all these useless crappy bands that write all the same music, thinking they are different. Even though I don't listen to them I also think others shouldn't be listening to them too, as this influences people's tastes in a direction I cannot approve of. So yes, licences for musicians!

anon13853• 11 years ago

So you think people should be able to drive around on the roads without valid insurance?

snitko10• 11 years ago

Yes, I think people should have a choice. If the market wants insured taxis only, you will see that people only use those taxi-services that prove they have it. If not, then some will be using uninsured services at their own risk. No one has the right to tell me what choice am I supposed to make with my own money.

purringmeow4• 11 years ago

They already have an insurance that covers the passengers.

purringmeow4• 11 years ago

Absolutely, I agree with you! It's time to deregulate the taxi industry, because needing a license to drive people around is absurd. Yes, you should need insurance, but in most EU countries, the already required insurance covers all passengers. Each car must also pass an yearly technical review. What more do you need? Someone posted that drivers aren't vetted - there is no better vetting system than the instantaneous feedback from the app. Feedback, given by tens or hundreds of clients.

PinguTS4• 11 years ago

Software runs the world these days, you can't just let people with no licences write shitty code. Politicians and bureaucrats should join their forces and decide whether each individual programmer is of a certain level. If not, he is banned from writing code and should be fined or imprisoned if he ever tries to do that.

For any public related service actually, that is regulated. Any software written for a car, truck, train, bus, airplane is regulated in terms of certification by so-called notified bodies.

snitko10• 11 years ago

Which doesn't mean it's the right way to go.

Bitcoin would've never been possible if a software engineer required a licence to write financial software. And it is a very critical piece of software.

pgeorgi6• 11 years ago

One factor (that may not be obvious given Uber's constant talk about breaking monopolies and cartels) may be that Uber is the bully in this story:

International company valued in the billions ignoring regulations that local (per-county) companies with typically less than 5 cars can't afford to ignore (because they immediately lose their license).

If this is about regulations, Uber could have tried to go the legal route (apply for licenses until they're refused, then go to court over it, unlike our solo drivers they can afford the lawyers). They have the money. Instead they want to decide which laws apply to them.

snitko10• 11 years ago

In this seemingly sad story when a big international company comes over and bullies local businesses out of the market people very often forget the other part of the equation.

Yes, local businesses may suffer. But at the same time, the big bully actually makes it cheaper and more affordable for the consumers of that country to have that service. "Everyone's" got kids and families to feed, so to speak - including taxi passengers. Why is it that I should be more sympathetic to the local taxi drivers and not to the local passengers, who'd be saving money?

jdietrich• 11 years ago

I'm so sick of government interfering in business. Why the hell are there so many pointless regulations governing electrical appliances? If I want to build a toaster with undersized wiring, no safety earth, no thermal cut-offs and no flame retardant plastics, why should the government be able to stop me? Why should I be burdened with the cost of product liability insurance? I can just base my company in the Cayman Islands and dodge the inevitable lawsuit when my product kills someone.

Taxis are regulated for a reason. I want to know that when I get into a taxi, the vehicle is roadworthy. I want to know that the driver is competent and medically fit to drive. I want to know that he isn't a convicted rapist. I want to know that his insurance is still valid when carrying paying passengers. Uber provides none of those guarantees, but intelligent regulation does all of that without creating a significant barrier to entry.

bhayden• 11 years ago

It sounds to like the solution to your problem is to use a service that does verify those things. If you don't like the risks of Uber, don't use it. The reality is the risk is pretty low, most people recognize that, and are fine with it.

snitko10• 11 years ago

Notice how you constantly say "I want". What if I, on the other hand, don't want to know those things and am simply concerned with the price, prepared to take a risk here? What right on earth do you have to tell other people what ratio of risk/reward is acceptable for them? Yet, this is exactly what regulation does: it says "this is in the public interest", yet "public" is very different in its preferences towards prices, comfort, risk and other factors.

If you want a safe taxi, by all means, use the government approved service. I for one couldn't care less, so I'm gonna go with a cheaper service. Everyone should have that choice.

jokoon2• 11 years ago

I just wanted to see if I could search for someone to drive me to some specific grocery store for a specific day, to see how much that would cost me if I would plan in advance.

It's a 15min ride, and the bus service is poor for that particular route. I need to carry a lot of food, and on welfare aldi is a must for me, so I would gladly pay for gas money plus some more instead of taking the bus, especially since I carry frozen food.

I started entering my info. Closed it immediately when it asked for my credit card before I could search for anything.

I'm sorry, but if uber is getting money from rides, I really think it should at least play nice with governments and laws, especially when it has so much value on the stock market. It's a matter of respect, being disruptive doesn't excuse everything.

Building and regulating civilization has a cost, if you want to improve people's lives, don't be so greedy about it. It doesn't require so much money to help people find each other for car rides.

I totally understand that cab licenses are against the libertarian's dream, but when I sense unjustified money behind it, it sets me off immediately. The internet doesn't feel very free, it's just another new land for money makers, and I'm often okay with it, but here, I'm not.

TeMPOraL4• 11 years ago

Building and regulating civilization has a cost, if you want to improve people's lives, don't be so greedy about it.

This. I wish many a company took it to heart. But then again, a lot of companies (and startups) don't care about improving people's lives; some unfortunately use the talk about "improving lives" as a marketing angle.

As for Uber, it's pretty clear now that they don't care about improving anything else than the contents of their wallets - I'm surprised that no one banned them yet for literally being assholes.

jokoon2• 11 years ago

I'm sure they are being pissed on by governments because they're a net loss to society. People just like to use shiny smartphone to order a taxi.

I hate that new libertarian trend of pretending to solve a socio economical problem, while it requires a smartphone and a fast dataplan. The army developped those techs and now it's being used for profits and profits. Oddly there is so little money involved in techs like bittorrent or openstreetmap, etc.

Investors should really think about having a legitimate improvement for society. I mean if I was an investor, I would be so much proud of creating free services. That's the only way honest improvements has ever worked, when it was not so much profit driven.

Tomte6• 11 years ago

Interesting point: Uber is (rightfully) continuing their service, because the ban only goes into effect when the plaintiff pledges a security, to compensate Uber's loss, in case this ban is reversed.

I have no idea if the plaintiff wants to take that risk.

Chichikov• 11 years ago

I haven't bothered to look at Russians' responses to Uber, but the whole idea must seem strange to any Russian. It has been normal in Russia since the fifties to flag down cars (i.e. everyday, private traffic) on the street and pay a driver for a lift. Usually the fare is cheaper than a taxi (I don't remember ever calling a taxi in Russia). The drawback is that not all drivers are headed in your direction, but then again, it's only a matter of time till someone who is comes along (this problem is further ameliorated by drivers who moonlight as gypsy cabs and will take you wherever for the right price).

My point is that the service that Uber provides is viable primarily due to largely baseless social conventions (i.e. middle-class paranoia). If the fare is all that matters to a given consumer, then any car/driver will do. If security matters more than fare, then taxis will do. Uber is operating in a gray area between these extremes and as soon as A) we cease fearing our neighbors (I believe that the decline of suburbia and renewed urbanization will eventually take us there) and B) taxi services will begin offering better technical solutions, Uber's service will become largely obsolete.

German court issues nationwide ban on Uber driving services

Related Stories