←back to thread

256 points reubensutton | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.227s | 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. vertex-four ◴[] No.21630377[source]
It's possible that the team dedicated to ensuring that Uber met the requirements in London was doing their best, but were hampered by a lack of resources and a higher policy of "regulation is negotiable" which has worked for them in the US - i.e. a feeling of "if we can't meet the requirements, we're hardly going to get kicked out of the city".