09.02.14
Deutschland uber Uber
Ausgezeichnet!
A German court in the city of Frankfurt banned Uber’s crowd-sourced amateur taxi service, at least for a year until a government decision can be made on how to regulate it.
This follows an earlier ban levied against Uber in Berlin.
That nationwide ban allows for substantial fines on Uber for every violation — $330,000 or six months of jail for its employees. The only catch is outside groups, in this case a taxi cab agency, have to bring individual complaints to the court which would then instruct the police to administer the punishments.
Uber, as it always does when faced with unfavorable rulings, immediately responded by vowing to continue operations in Germany.
Uber is uber the law. One almost has admiration for its libertarian 17 billion-dollar backed belligerence.
If Travis Kalanick thought he could have his lawyers appeal or tie up the judgment, he’d probably command some “employees” to start running over enemies under the reasoning that they’re hindering the future.
From the New York Times, a German assessment:
Dieter Schlenker, the chairman of Taxi Deutschland, referred to Uber’s business model as a “locust??? and took aim at the company’s investors, which include Google’s venture capital unit.
“Uber operates with billions of cash from Goldman Sachs and Google, wraps itself up to look like a start-up and sells itself as the savior of the new economy,??? Mr. Schlenker said.
Germany has regulation by government. Even a country with no functioning government, like Belgium, can still deal with Uber. The city of Brussels banned the service.
The United States has no actually effective government. As a consequence, along with a perverse national attitude of anything Silicon Valley over everything else no matter the social cost, there has been only spotty regional regulation of Uber.
At Salon, Andrew Leonhard declaims: Uber must be stopped.
That would be cool. However, I’m still the cynic. Nothing in the US except the size of the country and the company’s overweening ambition and capacity for self-delusion will stop it.
My impression is that Los Angeles has been too big a pill for Uber to swallow. It’s reviews are those of what you’d expect about a upper middle class snob’s amateur taxi company.
Uber benefits from fictions the US media regularly prints about it.
Like this, from the New Yorker, back in June:
Startups like Uber argue that technology can transform the casual driver into a professional. With G.P.S., anyone can navigate efficiently. Real-time passenger feedback means that drivers who consistently receive low ratings can be dropped from the service. “Tech tools have changed the whole environment,??? Josh Mohrer, the general manager of Uber’s New York office, told me. The upstarts can provide a range of ride options at different price points, improve driver efficiency by matching drivers with rides more quickly, and weed out bad drivers.
Empty claims and now bog standard US tech industry bullshit. And if you read pieces on the German situation, it’s fairly obvious the courts regard it that way, too. And the benefit of this kind of business’ mythology may not be enduring when put against the company’s growing reputation as a predator generating urban social headaches faster than service that cannot be furnished by anyone else.
Los Angeles is a big place. Uber’s fortunes probably wax and wane on how beloved it is on the west side on any given weekend.
Uber is not the kind of business in which you’ll see its independent operators choosing to service the vast expanses of poor in the city 24/7.
And just how loyal are Uber’s smartphone cabbies when it sinks in its skinflint libertarian payment system doesn’t do much to fix the wear on their vehicles? And they’re not getting small bribes to poach and jam a competitor’s business?
The company’s business model would seem to be banking on being able to succeed with the turnover of a minimum-wage retail store outlet.