My opinion is unpopular but I disagree. There are a lot of bad regulations and sometimes it's nice to see people get around them. Mainly when the parties involved are doing it voluntarily and not hurting anyone else. How could anyone be upset over a victimless crime?
On the front page there is an article on an anonymous drug market. Somehow it's not full of hateful comments ranting at the users and creators or the Tor project. A few even support it, some claim to have used them, some giving ideas on how to improve or use them safely, etc.
Is it the Uber app/office or Uber drivers that will continue to work despite the ban? They can say what they want in the press releases, but it's the drivers that are at risk and will be making the decision.
(or did I misunderstand and it's actually the company that will get fined?)
The injunction is against Uber B.V., the netherland company that "services" Germany.
It forbids Uber B.V. to use the "Uber" and the "UberPop" app to provide drivers to customers unless drivers have a license or the total revenue made is less than the driver's operating costs (ie. it's non-commercial ride sharing)
What exactly do I gain by using Uber? I see it's all the rage on the internet, but I still fail to grasp what exactly it is that I'm gaining through its usage. I'm from a medium-sized city (500k-1m) in Central (or Eastern?) Europe and I can use either public transportation or get a cab literally wherever I may be.
Why would I want to have a non-registered driver who does not adhere to taxi-standards pick me up and pay provision to a multi-billion dollar company that's trying to set itself up as a monopoly?
What niche is Uber filling in that I'm unaware of? Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?
In the US especially, automobiles are a symbol of economic status. I have not driven for the majority of my adult life and when people discover this they often think I am poor, lower class or lost my license due to drinking and driving etc. This extends to the usage of public transit and taxis. Uber, because it requires an expensive smart phone, balances that because the smart phone is also symbol of economic status. Launching as a premium product before UberX helped as well.
So using Uber is seen as "choosing" not to drive where as using public transit or a taxi is seen as "no being capable" of driving.
Its not that its any better(or worse) than a taxi or a private car you can call in most cities.
> Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?
The iPod was much more than a cool sounding mp3 player. The big failing of the mp3 players at the time was terrible software for ripping, managing, and syncing music. iPod provided a hardware and software combination that worked infinitely better than the hardware and software combination provided out of the box by the competition.
I use Uber in London simply because I don't carry cash (who does any more?) If I hail a taxi off the street it more than likely won't take cards. So I take Uber instead, as I know they do.
Taxis in america (especially San Francisco, where Uber is from) are horrible and downright dangerous. Even the shittiest Uber drivers are better than the average taxi driver. And even if you wanted to hail a cab, your best bet is to try to hail one on the street, because if you call, there's a 50+% chance your taxi won't even show up.
And let's not even get into the joke that we call public transportation here.
This is the problem it solves. A problem that is not nearly as pronounced in Europe.
In short, the "niche" service Uber provides fills a huge gap in the progress of ride sharing and the transportation industry across the U.S. When you take that into consideration, it is no longer a niche, but a big step forward to opening a conversation about technology in these industries.
There's nothing else Uber could have done. If they withdrew from Germany, even only temporarily, it'd be seen as a way to restrict Uber's business in every country they operate in. It'd pretty much be an admission that they don't know if they're operating legally.
While the German government are threatening to fine drivers Uber are still ok. If the government actually fines someone successfully, I imagine Uber will be in big trouble.
How about... complying with the regulation? I.e. requiring their drivers buy commercial insurance?
In any case, I love this development. I can't wait either an US company getting fined (or the CEO jailed) for not understanding EU culture, or Germany losing face when trying to beat a US company into submission.
When Uber re-launched quasi-legally in Austin, TX, some drivers there told me Uber promised to pay any fines they incurred. Whether the German government fines Uber and/or the drivers, maybe they're just hoping to throw money at the problem.
If Uber loses its appeal on this, and then continues to ignore the court's ruling, then I think this will be a story. Until then, I'd say that Uber will continue to operate and the court won't do much about it, while the appeal is pending.
It's not the courts decision to do or not do anything about it. This as a civil case based on the laws on unfair competition, so it's their competitors [1] choice to enforce or not. IANAL, but as far as I know an appeal will not delay this time. Uber might bully the competitor into not enforcing as they did with the taxi company that won a similar case in Berlin, but it's much less likely since this time it's not a small business running 10 cabs like last time.
[1] roughly the equivalent of the german taxi company union
It's that high because Uber did not comply to earlier requests. Early fines were 1k a pop, this is the repeat offender bonus. (still, it's up to 250k).
[+] [-] lispm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shapov|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ASquare|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForHackernews|11 years ago|reply
Here's hoping Germany seizes all their accounts with German banks.
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|11 years ago|reply
You do get to disobey the courts. It's called civil disobedience. You disobey them. You take your licks. It's a cornerstone of progress.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral or a threat to society. That's an entirely separate judgment we must make.
[+] [-] Houshalter|11 years ago|reply
On the front page there is an article on an anonymous drug market. Somehow it's not full of hateful comments ranting at the users and creators or the Tor project. A few even support it, some claim to have used them, some giving ideas on how to improve or use them safely, etc.
[+] [-] chasing|11 years ago|reply
Is the plan to also ignore the massive fines that are likely to result?
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _up|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viraptor|11 years ago|reply
(or did I misunderstand and it's actually the company that will get fined?)
[+] [-] pgeorgi|11 years ago|reply
It forbids Uber B.V. to use the "Uber" and the "UberPop" app to provide drivers to customers unless drivers have a license or the total revenue made is less than the driver's operating costs (ie. it's non-commercial ride sharing)
[+] [-] gerbal|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xa180|11 years ago|reply
Why would I want to have a non-registered driver who does not adhere to taxi-standards pick me up and pay provision to a multi-billion dollar company that's trying to set itself up as a monopoly?
What niche is Uber filling in that I'm unaware of? Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?
[+] [-] burgers|11 years ago|reply
So using Uber is seen as "choosing" not to drive where as using public transit or a taxi is seen as "no being capable" of driving.
Its not that its any better(or worse) than a taxi or a private car you can call in most cities.
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
The iPod was much more than a cool sounding mp3 player. The big failing of the mp3 players at the time was terrible software for ripping, managing, and syncing music. iPod provided a hardware and software combination that worked infinitely better than the hardware and software combination provided out of the box by the competition.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SeoxyS|11 years ago|reply
And let's not even get into the joke that we call public transportation here.
This is the problem it solves. A problem that is not nearly as pronounced in Europe.
[+] [-] avelis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|11 years ago|reply
While the German government are threatening to fine drivers Uber are still ok. If the government actually fines someone successfully, I imagine Uber will be in big trouble.
[+] [-] tomp|11 years ago|reply
How about... complying with the regulation? I.e. requiring their drivers buy commercial insurance?
In any case, I love this development. I can't wait either an US company getting fined (or the CEO jailed) for not understanding EU culture, or Germany losing face when trying to beat a US company into submission.
[+] [-] dbroockman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xylakant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bud|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xylakant|11 years ago|reply
[1] roughly the equivalent of the german taxi company union
[+] [-] Kequc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xylakant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xylakant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCoelacanth|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Afforess|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|11 years ago|reply