←back to thread

256 points reubensutton | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.293s | source
Show context
omarhaneef ◴[] No.21628397[source]
Something about this doesn't make sense to me.

I take it for granted that the staff at Uber would do anything not to lose the license. I am sure that, for 17 months, they've been investing heavily in security systems, ID verification etc. They must have followed up on every complaint. If I were them, I would have just manually followed everything that the Cabs do till I had a technology in place.

It also seems that the city is making some effort to give them space to improve: 15 months, then 2 months.

So then why didn't the gap close in time? Is this because the technology platform was so massive that turning it just took more time? Or is there something about the details that I can't see?

Edit: I start with the assumption that both Uber and the City are trying to do their best, and don't ascribe nefarious intent to anyone.

replies(7): >>21628454 #>>21628457 #>>21628477 #>>21628557 #>>21628714 #>>21630377 #>>21632071 #
1. brazzy ◴[] No.21628477[source]
From everything I've seen (and admittedly, that's all hearsay), Uber isn't really interested in "doing their best". Their fundamental philosophy from the get go has been to be "disruptive" by simply ignoring regulations and aim at becoming "too popular to ban".

I would not be surprised one bit to learn that they did very little or even nothing at all to address the concerns.