SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After a period of consideration, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided that Uber is a transport service, just like any other taxi company. There is lot to say about Uber's use of untrained, non-professional drivers and other abusive practices.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) Declares Uber a Transport Service
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 62 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cum tacent, clamant. When they are silent, they shout. -Cicero
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:26PM (19 children)
Do you think this ruling is limited to just Uber/Lyft-type of services, or does it have much broader significance for the "we're just middlemen bring people together" type of "new economy" business model?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:50PM (18 children)
Under the court ruling just given, it is only applicable to companies such as Lyft and Uber. But conceivably, anyone trying to skirt around existing legislation by claiming to be a 'technology company' when it is obvious to everyone that their profit does not come from the technology itself but from those paying for transport, will have to face the equivalent laws. If Uber and Lyft merely sold their software then perhaps their claim of being a technology company would be accepted, but that is clearly not the case in this instance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:58PM (16 children)
Uber's model wouldn't be viable without extensive automation. Just look at the New York City case. They can have many thousands of drivers on the road at the same time. Their technology allows a computer to match passengers to nearby drivers in real time without requiring a huge human-based system. That makes it a technology company. And what equivalent laws are there? The protectionist schemes for tax companies?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:16PM (11 children)
Nope. They get paid by the people they custom-carry around.
The fact that robot Marvin is better at getting you matched to a ride than human Greta is not relevant. They don't sell that algorithm to other companies, they sell transportation to people.
Taxi companies didn't become tech companies when they started taking calls or using a spreadsheet to schedule their drivers' shifts.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:18PM (10 children)
The fact that robot Marvin is required in order for the model to pull a profit is relevant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:28PM (2 children)
> The fact that robot Marvin is required in order for the model to pull a profit is relevant.
Not. at. all.
If Greta got all the street intersections of customers and got them all a ride, or if Marvin was completely incompetent and people cancelled in droves, causing the company to lose even more billions than they currently do ... the income would still be 100% coming from customers paying for custom transportation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:06AM (1 child)
No, there wouldn't be a company to lose so many billions.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:13AM
Yup, they'd be a dead transportation company, with a useless an irrelevant app.
Sadly, the assets would still be worth billions, because of all the personal data they've been siphoning off their user's phones and usage patterns.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:09AM (6 children)
No, the fact that the drivers make us of internal combustion engines makes it a tech company.
Actually, the fact that they use round wheels on their vehicles makes it a tech company.
No, no - speech. The ability to communicate makes it a tech company.
You say, "Argumentum absurdium" or something like that. I say, a taxi service is not a tech company. Tech companies tend to create new technology, and find new ways to use technology. Uber and Lyft are just taxi services. They aren't creating or selling technology, they are merely USING technology. Just like every other taxi company in the world.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:22AM
I know this because most coders write In-House apps.
For example a friend of mine once wrote COBOL for Chase Manhattan. His department employed a great many coders.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:51AM (4 children)
We are done here. That's what Uber just did. So it fits your definition of a technology company.
Uber is not a taxi service. You are missing a huge part of what it does with that mistaken observation. Uber drivers have no obligation to drive until they accept passengers.
You already established that novel technology use qualified.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 21 2017, @10:50AM (3 children)
1. Uber has merely improved on an ages old dispatching system
2. Limo of taxi company, either way, they are performing an ages old service - moving customers from point A to point B, for a fee. Also, the concept of casual labor is as old as the hills - Uber's drivers are doing nothing new, or different.
3. Nothing novel about a central dispatch system. A patent identical to an existing patent with "on a computer" is an invalid patent. Uber is mildly innovative, I'll grant that. But, as a carpenter, If I should find some innovative way of cutting my rafters to fit the top plate on top of the walls that makes the finished structure a little bit stronger, would that make me a "tech company"? Not only no, but HELL NO!
Better example for carpentry. Oklahoma has had some devastating tornadoes in recent years. The state did a study. They observed that many homes had simply been blown away, leaving nothing but the concrete slab behind. They wanted to know why one home was sheared off flush with the slab, and others had not. The simple fact that many homes had the top and bottom plates TOE-nailed into the studs made the difference. Nailing the plates straight into the studs allowed each individual nail to be pulled with a minimal force. Toe nailing two nails in opposite directions increased the force necessary to pull those nails back out by some huge factor. Multiply that force by however many dozens of studs are in the walls enabled many homes to remain in place, while their neighbors blew away.
Are those construction companies that used toe nailing "technology" companies?
Google is a technology company. As much as I hate to say it, Microsoft is a tech company. Uber, not so much. They only exploit technology that real tech companies create.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @02:44PM (2 children)
Novel application of technology, check.
So is any application of technology. Ignore what is actually done, then it doesn't actually do that much.
When again was toe-nailing developed? Why do you consider it novel technology now? Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] nails go back to ancient Egypt (3400 BC). And you could do toe-nailing from then to now.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 21 2017, @03:11PM (1 child)
So, you're hung on that term, "novel". Tell me - if Uber's dipatch system is so novel, then how does the competition compete? Oh - maybe it's not so very novel, ehhh?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @03:19PM
With their own novel systems. There's a number of systems out there (including several in Europe). Lyft isn't the only competitor with some interesting new tricks.
(Score: 1) by nnet on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:29AM (1 child)
New York isn't in Europe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @08:19AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:44AM (1 child)
Ford's model wouldn't be viable without extensive automation. Just look at their factories. They can have many thousands of cars on the assembly line at the same time. Their technology allows a computer to match robotic arms to nearby car parts in real time without requiring a huge human-based system. That makes it a technology company. And what equivalent laws are there? The protectionist schemes for horse chariot companies?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @08:02AM
Indeed. I'm not sure why you were trying for sarcasm there.
There are many such laws. For example, the laws on labor unions throughout most of the developed world that give them an undue negotiation advantage once they become established in a business. Or the laws and high liability that follow from a product which is so natural dangerous. Some are helpful, some merely help create the current oligopoly situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @02:18AM
Uber isn't making a profit. Uber subsidizes most trips.
Uber smells more like a legalized pyramid scheme. The "profit" comes from investor money. The earlier investors make money from Uber by selling their shares to later investors. The whole thing looks great only as long as more investors keep pumping in money.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-leaked-finances-accounts-revenues-profits-2017-2/?IR=T [businessinsider.com]