1. Uber and Lyft's absence has created a huge void that remains to this day. There are crazy long lines at the airport.

2. There are multiple ridesharing companies that have sprung up in the meantime. Arcade City is just one of them.

3. I'm pretty sure Arcade City will disappear once either (a) U/L return or (b) one of the newer companies (Fare, Fasten, etc.) get more drivers.

Transportation in Austin is terrible right now. Arcade City hasn't changed that fact.

There are multiple efforts going on as a result of the vote. Former U/L drivers are trying to put together a rally. A non-profit group (Ride Austin) has sprung up to replace U/L. Certain council members are trying to fight the rest of the council. The state legislature is consider a bill that would pre-empt city legislation.

Asking for votes is essentially an emotional argument and you need to play on people's emotions just the way Coke sells their soda or Axe sells deodorants. Uber should have shown "we are creating well paying jobs". "We are helping women", "we are helping environment" type of emotional arguments showing babies, blondes, mothers and cats.

Just to give an example how horrible Uber is at PR:

Uber's surge pricing is an excellent feature. But why on earth would you name it "surge pricing"? It is like BMW calling its cars "Overpriced Metal". Both "surge" and "pricing" are bad words and combined they are the worst possible naming for a feature.

The correct naming for surge pricing should have been "Uber Urgent" or "Uber VIP". The way it should have been designed is that: 1. Drivers opt in for Uber Urgent. Whenever there is a surge in demand driver goes into Urgent Only mode. 2. Let the passengers wait for the usual low fares or select Uber Urgent and get their rides quickly. In fact asking passengers to bid in 3-4 levels would make a lot of sense.

Uber Urgent could have been advertised as: 1. Empowers drivers to earn more by helping those in urgent need. 2. Helps people in need get the cars faster 3. Reduces traffic on road during rush hour. 4. Skip the line as if you are VIP. No more waiting.

A name like VIP is bad because it discourages regular use. It sounds like something you use once a year on special occasions.

Or simply don't tell anything about increased prices. Just show the estimated price and let the user decide if he wants it or not.

In fact you can on-board the user into app to simply be blind to price increases up-to 75% or something.

Amusingly, in less Uber dense neighborhoods in NYC (i.e. anything that's not Manhattan) Uber VIP is a worse option for getting a quick ride. For me, when I'm in the outer boroughs I opt for regular uber x, but when I'm in Manhattan I do Uber VIP.

Is it possible that's exactly what Uber's opposition did?

Yes, it takes someone to sign the contract to do the work (for self-employed), or post the opening and hire someone (for an employee).

But it also takes investment. Many self-employed jobs sit on a platform that someone else is investing in. For example many construction workers are self-employed, but there needs to be a construction project for them to work on. Many folks in the film industry are self-employed, but there need to be movies for them to work on.

And in the case of Uber and Lyft, even if we call the drivers self-employed, they can't employ themselves in that particular way without the platforms that Uber and Lyft provide. The software is a big part of it, but so is the customer base (an asset in its own right), and the marketing that keeps and grows the customer base.

That's the extent to which Uber and Lyft can claim to create jobs. It's more like they create an environment or platform that enables other people to create their own jobs, but that is hard to fit into a soundbite.

[1] http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/nenshi-not-very-goo...

[2] http://observer.com/2016/05/uber-driver-charged-with-attempt...

The people who used Uber are up-in-arms, but the people who voted against it were people who didn't use the service and don't know / care.

Our city council is stocked to the brim with people who hate any form of progress. Those dipshits are the reason we have such horrible traffic here in the first place... for years and years and years their mantra was, "If we don't build it, they won't come." And they purposefully made roads much much smaller than they ought to be -- and continue to make roads much much smaller than they ought to be to accommodate growth.

Uber / Lyft played their hand so poorly. Instead of talking about jobs, and the reduction of drunk driving (a huge issue), they let the city and taxi union play them. The campaign, to suburbanites who probably don't use rideshare services anyway, became about safety and how Uber / Lyft drivers would rape you because there was one guy one time who had statutory raped someone before becoming a driver and Uber / Lyft let him drive anyway... The old mayor came on, drummed up fear in the old folks... so then the nursing home vote thought there were these roving rapists being paid billions of dollars by SF tech companies and driving up their taxes. I wish I was making it up.

Oh, and the ballot language was confusing. So yeah, nobody really knew what they were voting for.

Of course the crazy guy shooting people up north didn't help... but anyway now we're back to being fucked.

Ways we are fucked:

* Taxis... are 2-3x more expensive than Uber, if they even show up at all. When I need a ride to the airport I'm back to asking neighbors since I can't rely on taxis showing up on time.

* Since Taxis don't have to show a GPS of where they are going, they take you round-about ways. It took me a minute but yeah, after getting picked up by the airport, I should have been taken down 71 to Mopac to get to Circle C. The guy literally took me to 35 then across Slaughter... stoplights galore. Intentionally driving slow the whole way... speed limit was 75, he was driving 55.

* Taxis aren't clean. They're filthy in fact. No water either.

* Taxi drivers aren't from here. So I get this is racist, but at least with Uber / Lyft we knew it was our neighbors. They spoke like we did. There were no communication issues around where you wanted to go.

Ways we can get unfucked:

* At the moment, unclear. We need a new city government... but because the nursing home / Luddites vote and the tech / younger crowd doesn't... we can't reverse the decision. And Uber and Lyft seem unwilling to pay for the background checks the city now requires. Anything else that pops up... it'll be a temp thing until the city cracks down on it and imposes the same sort of shit they tried to push on Uber / Lyft.

(I fucking hate the "old guard" so much, and all the people who got to vote on rideshares who never even used them... it's such bullshit. Hooray.)

And yet, knowing that its racist, you barrel right on through that social more... Way to let that freak flag fly, man.

I've had quite a few immigrant taxi and lyft drivers. They almost all spoke english very well, they all got me where I was going by the correct route, and they all get a tip from me.

But that doesn't mean your statement was any less racist and xenophobic for it.

The same is not true of "outsiders". It is a racist and xenophobic presumption that an immigrant will be unfriendly, rude, or difficult to communicate with, and that natural-born citizens will not be.

You have in front of you the following information: "outsiders" are not more likely to be unfriendly, rude or difficult to communicate with("unfriendly" from now on). Former felons are also not more likely to be unfriendly. Under your analysis, it's racist and xenophobic to presume that a given outsider will be unfriendly, but it is not a problem to make the same assumption about a felon.

I think slapping the labels "racist" and "xenophobe" belies the actual dynamics of human interaction. Even a "racist" does not hate all members of a race equally - a polite, friendly "outsider" could be treated as separate from the "outsider" group. The only meaningful distinction in this bigotry is that we've decried one as evil, and for the other, we feel justified. The information before us is the same, it's only our feelings that force us to rationalize a distinction.

[1] Keeping in mind that especially for non-violent and non-vehicular convictions I don't buy into the whole "felons are bad, mmmkay" business, nor the argument that felons chose to exclude themselves from civil society by their own actions, but that's not the discussion we're having.

You can get an airport shuttle. Cheaper than a taxi and so far I haven't had any problems with them going to/from the airport. You have to share your ride with others, so it's slower than a cab, but then you get what you pay for.

Is this particular to Austin? I've taken exactly 4 Uber rides, and I think twice the driver was an immigrant. (Not that there's anything wrong with that - just countering this nativist data point)

The rest of your points are true. Austin has done a good job of trying resist growth by not investing in infrastructure or transit. Then people come here anyway and getting around is a mess. Ridesharing is essential in Austin. The new ridesharing apps that have cropped up have not filled the void.

This isn't deliberate. Austin has experimented with a number of public transportation options. But whenever any plans are put up for a vote, it gets shot down as too expensive.

Also, the city isn't that dense (yet) for most common forms of effective public transportation, like subways. This might change in the future, but currently growth is not focused on Austin city proper (Travis County) but also many of the suburbs around it.

Anecdotally speaking, I've taken Uber quite often in Austin, as well as various cabs, and they always seemed comparable to me. In fact, if you take into account Uber's surge pricing (which cabs don't have, afaik), Uber came out more expensive on average.

Where I'm from (Toronto) the taxi rates are fixed by law and the Uber rates are publicly available on their website.

Taxi rates: $3.25 + $1.74 per km + $0.50 per minute

UberX rates: $2.50 + $0.80 per km + $0.18 per minute

It's not even close.

My house to the airport via taxi... $45-65. 30-40 minutes.

I fly 2-3x per week, thinking about putting together some expense reports to back this up... but for now you'll have to take my word. (=

That comparison is only helpful if you note how long it took for both to show up.

First of all that's not the reason Uber and lyft are popular. Secondly, most taxi company apps suck.

sometimes it's good for there to be consequences

Why?

As egregiously capitalistic as it may sound, I like that companies have to bend and so do consumers instead of either the company's leverage being too large or the government/citizens' leverage being too large. In the ride sharing space, I believe that Uber and Lyft have bent more than municipalities.

Only this time they played chicken and lost the battle.

Everything else is a smoke screen over the issue of losing medallion sales.

What people forget during these discussions is that this is not free money for the city, it's money out of every rider's pocket for an overpriced service, some small percentage of which trickles down to the city.

As for the battle, Uber is busily serving people elsewhere while Austin is stuck with cabs. The people of Austin are the losers in this.

If you think paying taxes is anti-self, you haven't thought much about what would happen if nobody paid taxes.

If you think equality is anti-self, you haven't thought much about the future when you might very well become a minority.

And that's ignoring the piece of mind you get from knowing you're doing the right and just thing, instead of being selfish.

Usually people who want to avoid taxes the most are those who have to pay the most.

No, I think people who seek equality are people who are selfless and try to see beyond differences. Same for people willing to pay _more_ than their fair share of the tax burden.

It is a de facto monopoly within the confines of a metro area where competition is absolutely regulated and limited.

But your analogy doesn't make sense to me. There's not political or regulatory reason there exists one coffee shop.

And because of this fact, if they abuse their position as the sole coffee shop (raise prices, provide bad customer service, etc.) they will open themselves up to a challenge from another entrant into the (open and free) market.

This is exactly why taxis are a different beast. They are protected from competition. Explain to me how taxi cartels operate in a free market? Or conversely, if you agree that they don't, explain how coffee shops operate under the same conditions?

"Some cab drivers want the council to issue permits directly to drivers with at least five years of experience — what the drivers call "legacy permits"...

— bypassing Austin's three taxi franchise holders: Yellow Cab, Austin Cab and Lone Star. The change could cost cab companies control of the market — and the thousands of dollars they collect annually from each cabbie after paying the city just $400 for each permit."[0]

"STOA wants to limit the number of cabs on the street in order to increase market share for large operators; with less competition for passengers they would be able to cover their higher overhead costs, and presumably "can charge less per trip." By asking the city to regulate the number of cabs, STOA is asking the city to limit their competition."[1]

[0] http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/taxi-industry-pours...

[1] http://savannahnow.com/column/2009-10-23/toma-cab-owners-see...

Is this how coffee shops, restaurants, bars, etc. are setup in any city you're aware of?

Whereas the city has a monopoly on Taxi services and licenses out to a very limited pool of providers. (And usually a closed group that you couldn't get into even if you could afford a medallion.)

AC is also launching an app to replace the FB group and be directly p2p, which will be fascinating to watch.

Also, as of this last weekend, Fare has tons of cars and had cheaper-than-uber prices like Lyft. Very good, very stable app. The RideAustin app also is showing cars, but Fare looks better.

I'd recommend Fare. It sucks that visitors won't know, but maybe Fare can get a sign at the airport?

In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number

I detailed more of it here:

https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...

By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan.

This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things.

Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you?

People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves.

Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo

Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber.

> The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse.

No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

I said both are bullying each other.

> The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

"Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.

> The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city

That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.

How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer.

> The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.

The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.

> That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money.

Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.

We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.

People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.

> They also need to balance public safety

They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.

Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. It's normal and happens all the time. What I'm suggesting is rather than fighting in the public arena via 3rd party messaging which is saying "I'm right, they're wrong", these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. It's clear that hasn't happened because this has blossomed into a dramatic news story.

The city officials making up nonsense about fingerprinting drivers, for safety, is the bullying. Implying that Uber and Lyft drivers are rapists and the companies don't care. And lying about the ability of fingerprint to save lives, even if.

Given that officials are managing perception, not fact, they are wrong, and deserve to be called out for it. That's not bullying, just the price of making unsupportable claims.

> Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway.

Unless that magically makes them right, it's irrelevant.

> these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table.

How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc?

When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.

I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives.

I understand where you're coming from because I used to believe in hard truths too. This is the main point of our disagreement, and it's not worth discussing the details of the situation in Austin further without first agreeing on this point. I know we'll disagree on Austin because of our disagreement about perception of facts. Perhaps the world's most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger, discusses this frequently, for example here [1], here [2], and here [3]. I think [3] is the best example because it shows when Kissinger changed his point of view on the subject of facts vs. perception. This is a man who opened up China to trading with the rest of the world after 30 years of disconnect. He's not perfect but he knows how to work with people and make things happen.

> How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc?

I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us". You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position, and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did). Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table. One can't wave a magic wand and change public perception to align with what you believe. Politicians will negotiate based on the public's view. The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception. This is why you see some politicians flipping on things like gay marriage. They weren't necessarily ideologically against it in 1990, they just felt they didn't have the strength to change the voters' view on the topic. You can call that weakness but there are tons of issues like this and gauging public opinion is really hard. Politicians spend all their time at it. There's a pretty good podcast from This American Life on the subject [4]. Politicians spend all their time calling people asking for money, which is a way of connecting with people and hearing their views. Barney Frank says,

"If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [4]

[1] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s

[2] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s

[3] https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s

[4] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

We've seen them invent the fear ("You'll be raped") and spend tax money freaking people out with that idea, as well as the thoroughly useless idea to fingerprint drivers. It's a bad solution to a fake problem.

If taxi-rape really was a problem (as opposed to a statistical anomaly) they'd realize that Uber and Lyft are already an order of magnitude better. (They log so much more!)

> I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives.

They both live in the same world, where the same number of people have been abducted and raped. It's ultimately a factual issue.

> and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did).

We know why they believe the public thinks this - they spent time and money creating and advertising it.

The public might also think they have an opinion on the brand of police car, or the type of transformers used in their electrical system, etc, but without relevant data their opinions would be meaningless.

If the politicians spent months lying about one company's transformer as being a "kiddy cooker", do you think the discussion would be meaningful?

> The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception.

Right, the only thing that matters to a politician will be their own propaganda and the money they can make from it. Facts are those thing you use to judge actual effectiveness and if we tried that we'd see there isn't a problem to try to fix.

> Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table.

Right, it's about the graft. The issues are lies and nonsense; you can't meet in the middle because there is no middle. There's common sense and there's a cash grab and there isn't a way to reconcile those.

When you realize you're being railroaded, the best solution is to not play.

If they stayed the best they could accomplish would be paying some graft for some useless services which would then become standard. (Well, if Austin needs that, so do we!) That'd make their service worse for everyone, everywhere.

> Barney Frank says, (paraphrased) ["I've never seen a politician who didn't decide what to say by seeing what would pay the most."]

They see a potential new tax base and jobs they can claim to have invented. (Fingerprinting drivers and checking that. Both require new workers, etc...) And none of the politicians care about the services offered because they already have limo service. There's no downside for them in ruining it for others.

> I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us".

So when they are out to get you, you should be delusional and refuse to admit it?

No, Uber and Lyft did the right thing. They walked away from the scammers.

And Fasten is walking in to work with the scammers, which may make U/L irrelevant in 6 months to a year.

I accept your viewpoint. It is different than mine. Personally I don't think operating based on public perception is as bad as you paint it -- it's merely an acceptance that the people do not all perceive facts in the same way, and an acceptance that they can be educated for better or for worse. Which way is better, and which is worse, is subjective.

> If the politicians spent months lying about one company's transformer as being a "kiddy cooker", do you think the discussion would be meaningful?

I do strongly believe in the effectiveness of discourse, regardless of how much the participants have disagreed, leveled accusations, or made war in the preceding period. Leading figures in opposing countries can and do meet to find common objectives, even during or immediately after wartime. There are many examples of this in history. A PR squabble over taxi regulations is nothing compared to making up after a world war. Japan's economy, for example, had a great recovery following WW II without further conflict, largely thanks to good diplomacy after the war.

> When you realize you're being railroaded, the best solution is to not play.

Isolation is an absolute. Perhaps U/L need a break from dealing with Austin. There is a saying, only a sith deals in absolutes. I expect U/L will come back to the discussion table.

> If they stayed the best they could accomplish would be paying some graft for some useless services which would then become standard. (Well, if Austin needs that, so do we!) That'd make their service worse for everyone, everywhere.

Other ride sharing services like Fasten have filled the gap. Perhaps this is a temporary pill to be swallowed by the tech companies. Fasten is ahead of Uber in Austin because it is putting faith in building a relationship with Austin first. Later, with the good relationship in place, Fasten can still work on lifting the fingerprint requirement. This may hurt U/L, and U/L may wish businesses like Fasten did not exist. Wishing doesn't make them go away. They need to play the cards that are dealt.

> So when they are out to get you, you should be delusional and refuse to admit it?

No, I think in that case you can acknowledge that this is what's happening and still seek some common objective. If the politician truly is better than you at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, welcome to the real world, where you have to deal with people you don't like. Scorched earth politics are no fun. Despite that, you can still find common ground. All you have to do is be aware of the situation as you've described and work from there.

I notice you didn't comment on any of the videos I linked. I found [3] particularly instructive.

Anyway, I don't think either of us has been able to convince the other, so, I suggest we agree to disagree. Thanks again for the chat!

They didn't address the point in question. I never denied that politicians follow the crowd.

In this case they're guilty of leading the crowd first.

> I do strongly believe in the effectiveness of discourse, regardless of how much the participants have disagreed, leveled accusations, or made war in the preceding period.

There's a ton of value for the dishonest person. Literally any settling you do is payout for them. But is there any value in it for the honest person?

You're still presenting this as if the Austin politicians actually think background checks will stop rape, or that there's a rape problem to begin with.

> Leading figures in opposing countries can and do meet to find common objectives, even during or immediately after wartime.

Sure, but there they've presumably got real metrics (people dying). And they can't just walk away.

> A PR squabble over taxi regulations is nothing compared to making up after a world war.

Right, this squabble is literally over a lie to make people buy unneeded services. It's nothing like a real issue such as an armistice.

> And Fasten is walking in to work with the scammers, which may make U/L irrelevant in 6 months to a year.

Not to the residents who are denied the better service, and who are forced to pay more for worthless measures.

> Fasten is ahead of Uber in Austin because it is putting faith in building a relationship with Austin first. Later, with the good relationship in place, Fasten can still work on lifting the fingerprint requirement.

You don't honestly believe that. A requirement to pay for city services is never going to go away. Especially because it wasn't enacted with metrics in mind so there's no way to prove that it's not helping anything.

Meanwhile, Austin residents suffer stupid, demeaning, and expensive requirements for them to get work.

> No, I think in that case you can acknowledge that this is what's happening and still seek some common objective. If the politician truly is better than you at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, welcome to the real world, where you have to deal with people you don't like.

That they left shows that you don't have to. Now the only people who are stuck dealing with the politicians are the residents.

> Scorched earth politics are no fun.

Except when you're a politician and have nothing to lose. Then they're par for the course. Their favorite super-weapon, the ban-hammer.

But that's a total mischaracterization on your part. Uber and Lyft simply walked away from a crazy market. You're trying to make it seem like they burned the town down on their way out.

> There is a saying, only a sith deals in absolutes.

Ahh yes, because only Hitler doesn't like being railroaded. Astute political observation.

By using the words honest and dishonest you're saying you believe in an objective morality. I already mentioned I don't believe in that.

The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter. You can always find somewhere to agree, even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing. U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city. Maybe invite a 3rd party negotiator. Ultimately, U/L may not agree with the city. At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

> You're still presenting this as if the Austin politicians actually think background checks will stop rape, or that there's a rape problem to begin with.

I do think successful politicians need to be as hard on security as can reasonably be expected on issues like this. It only takes one incident to destroy his or her political career. For example, let's say there's a hole in the road and I tell the city. Then, they don't fix it in a reasonable amount of time. Then, someone gets into an accident. The city is liable. In the case of U/L fingerprint checks, the politician won't be held liable for failure to clamp down on security in a court of law. However, he may be held liable in the court of public opinion. All it takes is one crime committed by a person who would've been filtered by the fingerprint background checks, but wasn't filtered by the private checks.

I'm not sure you appreciate how much people value their security, and how much Americans are willing to press for getting the best care possible. Once someone suggests that fingerprints are the best way to manage security going forward, it's difficult to backtrack and convince the public that's not necessary. Doing so is a risk for the politician, and since people don't like flip flops, once he or she speaks out in support of fingerprint checks, they'd also have difficulty going back on it, so it's full steam ahead until new information comes in.

Negotiation with U/L might help the city official find their way back towards a way to lead people to feel that fingerprint checks aren't necessary. The ball is in U/L's court and it isn't the mayor's job to convince people that he or she was wrong. That's U/L's job, and U/L can get there by making the mayor look good. Just like making your boss look good in the office, the same can be said of businesses and city officials. If U/L isn't willing to go there, it seems Fasten is.

We haven't talked about Fasten much. What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable? Or Austin will become upset with itself before other ride-sharing apps can fill the void left by U/L?

> Sure, but there they've presumably got real metrics (people dying). And they can't just walk away.

China walked away for ~20 years from 1949 to the 1970s. They had pulled back their diplomats from overseas and nobody was allowed in or out. 1 billion people were locked in. A lot of people died. Their heads of state didn't approach anyone. The US approached them, very carefully, because although they didn't want to completely turn their backs on Taiwan, they did want to have economic relations with China. China wanted to have relations with the US too. Neither party was certain where they could find common ground. Through a series of meetings, they found a way to work together, despite China being communist and America being anti-communist. I don't know of any more diametrically opposed ideologies working together than those two, and if they can do it, anyone can.

> Not to the residents who are denied the better service, and who are forced to pay more for worthless measures.

Something is better than nothing, no? The vote happened, and now Austin has Fasten instead of U/L. U/L doesn't seem like an option to riders at the moment.

> A requirement to pay for city services is never going to go away

Maybe you're right. Maybe Fasten disappears and is unsustainable. My guess is, if they were in dire straits, the city would work with them to lower costs, lest the city appear to be pushing away all ride sharing service providers. I'd guess that is 6 months or a year down the road, if ever. Austin could elect a mayor who thinks differently, and, by that time Fasten or someone else may be well established.

Maybe U/L weighed all the risks and decided Austin isn't worth it. But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same. In the public's eyes it's about security and that's all that counts. Leaving the negotiating table in Austin could backfire on U/L. If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public. Politicians are elected the same way products are sold. It's all about perception. The materials in different Apple watch bands all cost the same. Companies sell products for what people are willing to pay, etc etc.

> But that's a total mischaracterization on your part. Uber and Lyft simply walked away from a crazy market. You're trying to make it seem like they burned the town down on their way out.

I don't mean to say that. I mean to say they have many options in front of them. Stay away, come back, talk more in the media, approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship (legally! ;-) ), or any number of other things. They have many options.

I'm referring to facts, which you also said you don't believe in.

I agree that there is subjectivity in everything - is it an elephant, or a tree, etc.. But if you think tree and say tiger, you're lying.

> The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter.

Uh, yes it does. An upfront person should never negotiate with someone they feel is duplicitous. They'll take every olive branch from and offer you nothing real in return.

> You can always find somewhere to agree

Not with someone playing a game, you won't. They won't give you the time of day unless they can manipulate it.

> even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing.

Obviously it doesn't. And even if it did, it's not Uber or Lyft's job to provide it if it's not also in their best interests.

> U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city.

They don't at all. There's no middle-ground in the fundamental issues at all.

There's probably a low enough price where it wouldn't be worth arguing, but there's a world full of other cities so that price is pretty low.

> At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

> We haven't talked about Fasten much.

Right, it's almost irrelevant. The issue is the dishonest city driving out businesses that won't pay graft.

> What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable?

Because of this interference? No. They'll pass the costs on to the consumers. Consumers will be paying for worthless security measures designed to mitigate imaginary risks.

Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

> But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same.

And it'll still be worthless when others did it, but yes I imagine they'd be emboldened to try. There's literally no downside for the politicians to try to take everything they can.

That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

> If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public.

Your only carrot is less stick. Talk to us now or talk to us when after a year of being trashed in the media.

It would be a scary threat except that this is the only reception they get.

> Politicians are elected the same way products are sold.

No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

> approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship

Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

> They have many options.

Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

> Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

> That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

Yes. I don't know how you perceive the world. In my view, it's mostly good.

> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

There was a vote..

> The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

People make up their own minds. Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information. At the end of the day, people decide for themselves. In America we're lucky to have the freedom to seek out other news sources. As buried as the other side of the story may be, it's better than only being allowed to read one side.

> Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

That's not what I meant. I meant, any negotiation first requires treating the other person like a person. You're a person, I'm a person, we can shake hands and even agree to disagree without even raising voices. We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts, are what drive votes. People interpret facts depending on the context. That's something on which we can agree.

> Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

They had a vote. Some voted for U/L, some voted against it. Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way. Politicians told voters they're intelligent enough to vote, and U/L implies that they're not. Who do you think wins that vote, even before it starts, regardless of the facts? Beginning with the intent to offend people, or thinking that you're smarter than they are, wins zero votes.

Again thanks for the discussion! I'm continuing because you seem cool with it. I'm also fine if you want to drop it, as it's been quite a number of responses and I understand if it is getting tiresome. I won't consider it a forfeit, and I respect your opinion.

I'm surprised you had no comments about the negotiations in China in the 70s. That example may not be the best since it depends on your familiarity with history of that time & place. But if anti-communists and communists working together doesn't convince you that anything's possible, I've no idea what will.

Who do you look up to? Who do you admire?

I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is. Even if a cold medicine's ingredients are the same, people are most likely to buy the one whose package says "guaranteed cure!". That's their perception acting when interpreting facts, or, as you might put it, warping facts. Either way the perception is the driving force.

It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

> You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

I'm saying the decision is wrong because it's a bad strategy predicated on a mistaken risk analysis used because of lies. That's inefficient and will, almost by definition, be the consolation prize. Something designed as a negotiation with taxi companies who were asked "How much competition do you want?"

>> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

> There was a vote..

On a heavily propagandized and scaremongered issue which make it essentially meaningless as an indicator of the people's true feelings.

> Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information.

No, not really.

And the main issue is that they used the taxpayers own money to advertise and justify the city's side - which was actually mostly lies.

> People make up their own minds.

So no, they really don't. Not when the government itself is selling them messages of rape and terrorism.

> Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way.

That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

My contention is that the facts are hidden, and worse, are lies from people they should be able to trust.

You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

> We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

> You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts

In this context (hah), context means additional facts. Yes, a bullet hole, but also IN a person.

> People interpret facts depending on the context.

And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

> I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is.

No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

> Either way the perception is the driving force.

Yes, and in this case the very experts we elect to help us reason about this are lying to us, intentionally shaping these all-important perceptions. Then they're polling us right after the 10-minute hate and using those results to drive decision by consensus.

It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.

Could be!

> It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything.

>> People make up their own minds.

> So no, they really don't.

On this, I cannot agree, unless you want to argue for determinism and against free will, in which case I'd reconsider it. You feel people are puppets. I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.

> That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

Eh, I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument. I'm actually neutral here, and don't favor U/L or the city. Believe it or not, I'm just arguing for what I think constitutes the most effective strategy and methods. I think the city happens to have a better bead on good strategy than U/L in some ways.

> You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

Actually, I don't believe that. All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.

> Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal. I'm not privy to the financials of U/L so I really couldn't say what's reasonable. Plus as you note it's complicated since there could be a ripple effect. Again, I'm just speaking in support of tactics and strategy that I think are likely to be effective. I'm not necessarily siding with the city. I think the ripple effect could happen in either direction, and that by not discussing things with Austin, U/L are allowing that city to create their own version of a ripple. That ripply could go in a direction that U/L likes even less than one in which U/L were more directly involved. U/L could be more a part of the collective stone that's tossed into the water along with the residents and city officials. By disengaging, they lose some of their influence. If they want to come back they'd be best served working on the relationship first, however corrupt the officials are perceived to be, so long as it's legal. City officials cannot compel U/L to break the law.

I don't doubt there's shady stuff happening in Texas in regards to tech companies. The situation with patents there is horrid for many entrepeneurs. That said, it is what it is, and everyone needs to either work with the law as it is written, risk a bit of civil disobedience, campaign for some changes, or walk away from it like you say. In the case of software patents, they're tough to walk away from in the US. Walking away from the US is difficult from an investor perspective. I'd applaud anyone who does so to diversify their efforts. Personally, I'm in Taiwan. I think most people agree that the US is about as good as it gets.

> And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable? What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names? I believe that's considered bad form on HN. Feel free to let the crap fly if you prefer. I'm not offended by any of it. You can call me spiritual, hand wavy, factless, ignorant, or whatever suits you. Names would not change my feeling about how effective campaigns are run. I'll do my best to listen to arguments despite name calling. Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.

> No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

> If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

I agree with that. You've changed my mind here. That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security". Even far right republicans who want small government will spend a boat load on defense. The far-far right want a giant metaphorical wall inside which they can operate freely. In practice, for better or for worse, that doesn't happen in a democratic republic, or any other society I've seen. There are always internal regulations that some people hate and some people love.

> It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.

It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers they're not ideologues. It's tough. Even elected officials can't be certain of supreme court nominees. Nominees' entire lives are examined and it can still take weeks or months for officials to confirm them. I do think, on the whole, our democratic republic is better than the alternatives that exist elsewhere. What do you think?

No, you keep appealing to objective morality, and/or the lack of it. Facts are facts. They're what doesn't go away when you close your eyes. That's all.

It's not an appeal to an objective morality to predict that the coyote will fall when he walks off the cliff.

> On this, I cannot agree, [...] You feel people are puppets.

Oh? People pay for advertising because it doesn't work? That's news.

Ditto propaganda. It plainly works. We decry posting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion not because it's right, but because it doesn't matter if it's right for it to have a very-clear effect in driving violence against innocent people.

Being easily led is the default state and takes constant work to avoid. It's not unreasonable to predict that at any time most everyone involved in a decision is phoning it it - especially in heavily propagandized scenarios.

> I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.

Sure, without electrodes implanted, anything that happens in their head is "their own mind" by definition.

But you won't get a useful answer to anything from a group of people who've already heard a lopsided view of an issue. Not even representative of their broader opinions.

> All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.

And yet you've repeatedly put derogatory words in my mouth for the people of Austin, as if I must believe them to be mindless to think that they've decided wrongly.

You're dehumanizing me, as a way of combatting the dehumanization and disrespect you assume I must have for others. It's funny to watch.

> I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument.

Oh okay.

> Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable?

Ahh yes, you do care.

You're moving the goalposts. The issue is that the city made the wrong decision because the elected officials spent taxpayer money to lie to the people. You suggest that now I'm failing to win the hearts of the voters.

I'm not trying to "win" with the voters. That would take propaganda and lots of money. I'm showing why their decision was wrong, and how it was manipulated, and why people spent time and money (but not their own) to make it happen.

> What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names?

Again, an argument by appeal to offense - and offense that you've gone out of your way to create.

I'm not trying to win you over so I frankly don't care, but I haven't called you or the residents of Austin any names. All the slights are actually yours, that you're suggesting I try out. (Puppets, etc.)

> > Concessions are as good as cash.

> Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal.

Why don't you ask what I feel as opposed to telling me? Does that win you any arguments with friends and family? :P

No, I'm saying that being wrongly forced to concede anything is the same, ultimately, as being forced to make a cash payment. You act as if non-financial concessions wouldn't be damaging to their business, etc. "Oh, it's a non-financial concession, whatever." Like a non-financial concession to fingerprint drivers, for example.

You keep coming back to the fallacy of the middle-ground, implying that the right thing to do is seek consensus with all viewpoints, and that some amount of concessions must always be closer to correct than any starting point.

> By disengaging, they lose some of their influence.

The decision was made in the propaganda phase - a game they could play just as well from outside if they choose to. FWIW, their influence comes from providing a better service in more areas. A lack of Uber is more damning to Austin than a lack of Austin is to Uber, and Uber(/Lyft) makes their best argument for helping Austin simply by providing the best service in SF.

By disengaging they simply refuse to validate the elected officials and waste time in a rigged process.

> Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.

Respect, respect, respect. You sound like Cartman on an authority trip. "Respect Mah Intelligence!" But you don't have any disrespect to point to; it's a demonization tactic not real advice.

You've put words in my mouth, told me what I though, and slighted the people of Austin for me. Please don't.

> That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security".

No, 'easy' is pushing the button you've been told to push by the advertising. It's absolutely unrelated to the actual outcome picked because the point is that the easy solution is to bypass even considering the issues, let alone choosing something.

If security sold then people would have enough smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

> It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers

The "it's always been this way" defense. I don't understand your need to pull that out or what you think it accomplishes.

"But throughout history we've always mugged and killed people, your Honor. I don't see how this is any worse."

It's meaningless when dealing with specifics. It doesn't matter if Nixon wasn't that unusual, he was still a crook... It doesn't matter if many cities have corrupt officials, it matters that we can point them out when it happens without hand-waving and denials.

I suggest distilling it into 4 general areas. Things about which we agree, don't agree, things that bug us, and things we don't know

I believe we agree that,

(1) People make decisions based on how they feel about something

(2) People are influenced by emotion, propaganda, and facts

(3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting

We don't agree on,

(1) Whether facts are facts. You feel this way, I don't. I feel facts aren't meaningful on their own because they're always viewed through a lens, that is, by a person.

(2) Whether I care that U/L is in Austin or not. You feel I do, I feel I don't. I'm interested in this discussion as a means of getting to know how people work, particularly, myself.

Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are,

(1) Putting words in each other's mouths

I don't know,

(1) Why you care about U/L vs. Austin. I've been making the wrong assumptions. Can you describe your interest? Do you care about both the principle of fingerprinting and the money equally? Why? I want to stop putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry if these sound like dumb questions.

Is the above fair to say? How would you define where we agree and disagree? The discussion doesn't need to end, I'm just trying to think of a way to tone it down. I did not set out to dehumanize you. I am sorry for doing that. Obviously you are thoughtful.

The points stand on their own or they don't.

> Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are, (1) Putting words in each other's mouths

You just discovered that?

But seriously, it's more that you're shooting in the dark when you guess that I'm anti so-and-so. You're looking for an easy win. Ditto the "Respect" angle. Since when did emotion make 2+2 = 5? And if you say it does, you're right that I will disrespect you, but falling back on that in an argument is dishonesty.

> (3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting

I must need to write more clearly. The part I care to discuss is that the people who we elect and pay to guide us are knowingly lying, and spending our money to propagandize to us, then claiming a victory at the polls represents the people's broader will.

Fingerprinting is a non-solution. It's like homeopathic medicine or faith healing. Largely irrelevant in theory, but in practice it prevents real solutions from being tried.

What would make people safer? Well, if there was an actual risk, then logging which vehicle was dispatched to each person would. And having the app phone-home GPS data from the vehicle in realtime. And that's all stuff Uber and Lyft already do.

If rape really was a threat in taxis, etc, then the elected officials have decided to keep subjecting their people to this by forcing out the actual safer option.

By denying actual solutions they're increasing the chance of rape. Why? Because they don't have their name on it. Better ten rapes, one of which the mayor is involved in rescuing, than no rapes at all. You can't claim responsibility for there not being any rapes unless you freak everyone out and are seen doing something, loudly.

The only saving grace is that the threat isn't actually real.

This is a really narrow minded view of the role of a politician. Their job depends upon public satisfaction. If the public is not happy with what they do, they risk losing their job.

Elected officials are not making big bucks in overtime dealing with extra paperwork.

> The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.

This makes no sense. The city doesn't win by excluding businesses from operating, nor do the city officials. City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public, and by sharing details with the public that they might not otherwise know. The same can be said of businesses and their PR efforts.

> Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.

Balancing taxes, security, etc. is in the interest of residents. Taxes permit the government to pay for police, firemen, road construction, schools, etc. Security permits them to move freely without needing to focus much on that themselves.

> We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.

In balancing these there is a give and take. Setting one weight to 100% is not an option in a balanced equation.

> People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.

Yup I don't dispute that.

> They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting

You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts. At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do.

The city is not the elected officials, it's the myriad workers who perform the day-to-day work. The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.

> This is a really narrow minded view of the role of a politician. Their job depends upon public satisfaction. If the public is not happy with what they do, they risk losing their job.

If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.

Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.

> City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public,

You yourself point out that they win by being perceived to do that's in the interest of the public, not some hard to define "actual good".

> You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts.

Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign. Facts are everything, not nothing.

> Taxes permit the government to pay for [stuff]

And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.

The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc. But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands.

> At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do.

An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.

It doesn't matter that Uber is safer than a cab, if you can't attach your name to that claim you're politically better off banning it.

The city is everyone, both elected officials and those who elected them. The elected officials represent the desires of the city whenever they were last elected.

> The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.

Yes, this is exactly why we have a democratic republic and we don't referendum everything. It gives the public a chance to blame one individual rather than each other.

> If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.

Of course. My point was that city employees do suffer when you scoff at the law. They risk losing their jobs. Many roles are appointed by the elected administration.

> Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.

The government spent money holding a referendum that potentially would have benefited U/L. You're certainly free to voice your concerns about how tax money is spent. The city, in my opinion, acted properly.

> not some hard to define "actual good".

Right, I didn't say "actual good", I said "interest of the public". That is another way of saying their desire, which is based on their perception of facts, not facts themselves. I don't believe in "actual good" or "objective morality". Perceptions are reality

> Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign.

Enacting policies with which the public agrees helps them. It's a pretty simple equation. Politicians do not exercise any great mind control any more than U/L. Each holds their own sway, but ultimately the public decides themselves how to interpret facts.

> Facts are everything, not nothing.

I don't mean to say facts are useless. I mean that people can interpret them differently. One man's trash is another's treasure, that sort of thing. Some people love U/L, others have no need for it. Recognizing differences in people can help you build products, companies, run for office, etc.

> And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.

For sure. I have very little stake in this issue. No U/L stock and I don't live in Austin. I'm merely American. My interest is it's interesting to discuss. Whether or not Austin makes tax money or U/L make profit, and all the ramifications associated with employment etc. make little difference to me.

> The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc.

That's wonderful.

> But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless

Again I'd say that's short sighted. People do care when a business leaves a city. Parents recognize the value of tax money, which goes towards keeping them and their young ones safe and educated.

> its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands

Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion. Another way of phrasing this is you think more than 50% of active Austin voters are unreasonable. I'd say that attitude is unlikely to help you build a business there or get someone elected.

> An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.

Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective. People voted on this. If U/L feels private checks without fingerprints are just as good as government ones, then they should share more information on this through their website.

Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point, particularly to me, since I'm not even a resident. Perhaps you also just find it interesting to discuss. Cheers!

The workers at the DMV don't suffer, the meter readers don't suffer, etc.

If anyone does, it's the politician whose stupid ideas and lies wasted everyone's time and money. And that's a feature.

> Enacting policies with which the public agrees helps them. It's a pretty simple equation. Politicians do not exercise any great mind control any more than U/L. Each holds their own sway, but ultimately the public decides themselves how to interpret facts.

Cough. They use your tax money to send propaganda to you, lying about the facts. They abuse the presumption that they're working for the public to push their own agenda.

Uber and Lyft have fact on their side. And if they lied, they'd risk someone going to jail.

> Whether or not Austin makes tax money or U/L make profit, and all the ramifications associated with employment etc. make little difference to me.

You just spent time explaining that tax money can be used to buy services. I knew that, but figured you might be saying it because you didn't see the other side of the equation where untaxed wages can also be used to buy things...

> Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion.

Only if you water words down until they don't mean anything.

The city's demands are for useless measures to fix an issue that already doesn't impact anyone, and the proposition is one they make money from.

> Another way of phrasing this is you think more than 50% of active Austin voters are unreasonable. I'd say that attitude is unlikely to help you build a business there or get someone elected.

No, I think the politicians are lying which confounds the issue. The people trust them and many or all may be mislead but that's not the same as thinking that each and every voter themselves is unreasonable.

> Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective.

That's not the issue, that's the overton-window version. Worthless checks are worthless, no matter who does them.

> If U/L feels private checks without fingerprints are just as good as government ones, then they should share more information on this through their website.

As you say, it's not about facts. Engaging on the wrong issues merely settles the discussion around those issues.

> Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point

I'm not complaining, I think it's exactly what the city deserves for duplicitousness. Sometimes walking away from crazy people is all you can do.

So you don't think Fasten or other competitors will be able to fill the gap? I'll be interested to follow developments.

> Sometimes walking away from crazy people is all you can do.

That's fine that you feel this way. I'd argue it hasn't been the path forward for businesses or governments when working with each other. U/L has a lot of business elsewhere so the decision to leave may not hurt them in the short term.

I understand better now how strongly you feel the city government is lying. I'm still not convinced that leaving Austin is the right way for U/L to get what they want.

Arguing that private background checks are just as effective as government fingerprint checks is a nuanced point of view. The public may have a hard time swallowing this one. Through their vote, they expressed more trust in the government's claim that fingerprint checks are more secure than private checks. Generally, people trust government security over private security. Apple staked a good part of its reputation challenging one part of this belief. They seem to have won, for now. U/L could also something extreme along those lines, walk away as you say, or try negotiating. They have several options

No, it's not. In this case there's no risk (see the majority of areas where taxi drivers are not fingerprinted and the lack of rape epidemics) so there's no benefit to any mitigation strategy.

You'd receive just as much value from an anti-rape charm bracelet.

If there was a real problem you could actually analyze it, knowing what we know of rapists, and see how much of a barrier each type of countermeasure would provide. Not "nuanced" but fact-based.

> Through their vote, they expressed more trust in the government's claim that fingerprint checks are more secure than private checks.

The same government that paid to build fear over a non-existent rape epidemic paid to tell them that their solution was better.

If I hire an expert and that expert lies to me, yes I'd probably be fooled. But having fooled me doesn't somehow vindicate the expert. Even if Uber was banned by an actual popular vote it would be meaningless at this point.

> But having fooled me doesn't somehow vindicate the expert

I never said it would vindicate anyone. I just said people make decisions based on their interpretation of facts, or their perception of reality. Since reality is always perceived through some lens, there is no objective reality. You are, of course, free to disagree.

The fact that interpretation and context impact our perception of facts is not a bad thing or a good thing. It's just a thing. When you're 7, and your parents tell you that skateboards are dangerous, you'll probably believe that for awhile. At age 10, you might see a friend riding a board while wearing pads. You might think that's pretty reasonable and change your mind. For those 3 years between 7-10, you stayed away because your parents kept telling you it's too dangerous. Adults aren't so different from kids. We don't have time for all these detailed messages from companies and politicians. Each news headline gets about 5 seconds of people's attention. People don't have time to read an article about every topic.

They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done

PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing.

U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone.

Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10.

Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved.

U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y.

It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.

But they already comply with fingerprinting requirements (and other variations in laws) for other juridictions, like NYC, which requires Ubers to get a special TLC number, and IIRC Houston and San Antonio, where they fingerprint.

(Which, of course, will eventually work to Uber's advantage, just like it did for the taxi companies. At which point the hero has lived long enough to see himself become the proverbial villain.)

No, it's better to take a stand and fight these people head on. It's not OK to force every new business to decide whether it's safer to ask permission first or apologize later.

Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1]

I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber.

I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors.

[1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548

The price is $1-2 more per ride and a I have to wait a few more minutes, but it does the job. The drivers I've talked to also prefer the compensation structure more than Uber and Lyft. Fasten's cut is fixed at $1 per ride (vs 20-28%), or $12 for the day. And like Uber, they get paid every Wednesday.

It's not available at the airport, but there's a city bus that drives from the airport to downtown (where getting a rideshare is easy) in 30 minutes for $1.75.

EDIT: Clarified Fasten's commission.

"""

From the moment your ride starts, our goal is to provide the maximum level of protection for both you and the driver. Fasten provides coverage in the following areas during your ride:

* Commercial auto liability and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage up to $1,000,000 per occurrence (this covers you as a rider)

* Contingent comprehensive and collision coverage up to $50,000 per occurrence

"""

Do you mean fee structure?

I think it's pretty amazing, as an Austin resident, how fast the void is getting filled with comparable apps.

If my connecting flight is delayed an hour, I'm SOL because my original reservation is no longer valid, but I can't make another reservation because I'm within two hours of my (new) expected arrival time.

Essentially you have to be a professional to drive an Uber/Lyft in NYC, legally. They comply in NYC so I'm not sure what Uber & Lyft are complaining about. At least one of them should have stayed, especially Lyft this a missed opputunity for Lyft.

I ended up buiding a web app that keeps track of what apps work where (for example, Fasten currently doesn't work from the airport), along with the relative pricing this past weekend:

https://ridefinder.io

I feel like something like craigslist, but with an ebay-like "95% driver approval rating" would do the job well enough. Sure, there are people that won't use it for security reasons and lack of standards, but if that's the case an alternative should prop up that ensures these things with standards for their drivers. One being cheaper as all funds go between driver and driven, the other providing a middle man that spends some of these funds to filter bad actors.

In my opinion, the mandatory regulation isn't really necessary if competition is healthy. If there's enough demand for finger-printed drivers, a service should crop up to provide it. Facebook though sounds like a terrible medium for this kind of thing. People will use what's familiar I guess.

If I had to peruse a list of drivers close to me, find a balance between price, rating, and proximity... then request a ride from that driver.... and then have to repeat that process when the driver declines the ride or has already taken another fare.. I think I would call a cab.

The entire key to the success of Uber is the ease with which you can get a ride fast. Your idea of a craiglist-ebay hybrid for selecting a ride wouldn't work.

A lot of Uber drivers aren't loyal though, they'll have both apps open in order to get fares and I think that's the end-game. Discovery services often live and die by their exclusives and if there's no viable way to force driver exclusivity, the discovery medium becomes way more important than the driver.

I'm sure I'm being naive, but I don't think Uber is all that special of a service. It handles queues, paths and estimation. Other services could out-feature it with relatively low-tech provided the regulatory overhead isn't prohibitively expensive, especially if U/L chose not to operate in a that geographic market.

Not necessary at all. Austin got by for nearly a century of automobile use without one.

> I always felt like something like craigslist, but with an ebay-like "95% driver approval rating" would do the job well enough. Sure there are people that won't use it for security reasons and lack of standards, but if that's the case an alternative should prop up that ensures these things with standards for their drivers. One being cheaper as all funds go between driver and driven, the other providing a middle man that spends some of these funds to filter bad actors.

So a private tax to not be murdered? Makes sense. We could also move to regulating our food supply like this - you could buy your food through a service that would vet it for evidence that it hasn't been poisoned or adulterated with broken glass. In the spirit of consumer choice, maybe have a different service for each type of food, with no standardization or regulation to compare the assurances that every service claims to give you. Then, there would be a great opportunity for a meta-service to vet services to vet each type of food you choose to eat. Since all of those services would add layer upon layer of middle-men and bureaucracy, having lots of layers with an easily verifiable reputation would cost more, and people who chose ala carte, or with fewer guarantees of safety would pay less. A meta-service for the wealthy, and total lack of regulations or minimum guarantees for people who couldn't afford them - sounds like a perfect libertarian dystopia to me.

Not that this Facebook thing isn't even worse. All this to avoid the pretend horror of taxis.

Taxis consistently fail to show up in a reasonable amount of time (or at all). They have a solid track record of preferring riders who aren't large black men, like I am. I am a happy Arcade City rider. I avoid the actual horror of taxis.

I can use taxi.eu to order a taxi in minutes, it will be clean, it will be there quickly, it will be cheap, and anyone can easily start their own taxi company if they have a commercial drivers license and commercial car insurance.

That’d liberalize the market.

Uber gaining a monopoly is not a free market.

Hell, the whole fucking Unicorn thing, no, the whole fucking startup thing is about monopolies, breaking Antitrust laws, and it’s all intentional.

The whole point of startups like Google, Facebook, Uber, etc was to outcompete competitors by doing predatory pricing thanks to VC funding (for example, Uber pays drivers in several countries more than the ride brought them in profit), then getting a monopoly (for example, Facebook paying people’s data costs if they’d spend more than X time on FB, and automatically inviting friends in the early years in Europe), increasing the costs for competitors to enter the market (For example, Facebook’s Internet.org campaign trying to ensure competitors would have a huge disadvantage without lots of funding).

If you want to get the best result for you as customer, you have to basically ban any VC-funded fast-growth focused startups from the market you are in, and then try to reduce remaining regulation as necessary. These startups are not there to improve the service for you.

And try competing with uber with no regulation: uber will just reduce costs of their service (as they are doing now) and fund it with their existing money, while you have to run a profit and will be more expensive.

Regulation can help against that.

You realize this is called 'predatory pricing' and is already illegal under federal antitrust laws? No new taxi-specific regulations required.

Let's say Uber is charging a really low price for their service, much less than what taxis think they can charge. Sounds fine to me. Low prices for customers!

Let's say it's so low that Uber is losing money on every ride. Well, obviously this is an unsustainable strategy. (I've heard that this is happening in some places, and my interpretation is that it's essentially marketing, to get people in the habit of using the service and working for it.) I don't know, maybe there are economies of scale that will kick in and it'll become slightly profitable for Uber at the same price? Long-term low prices for customers: sounds good to me. But let's suppose not: eventually Uber has to raise prices so they're making at least a bit of profit.

Once they do that, the taxis can presumably charge the same price and compete. And we get long-term low-ish prices (lower than the original taxi price) to customers. Right? Unless taxis' costs are higher, such that the price in question is slightly profitable for Uber, but would give a loss to the taxis. Well, then, Uber is more efficient, it'll remain around while the taxis die, and customers get long-term low-ish prices. Sounds fine to me.

If Uber subsequently jacks their prices way up, to what taxis' prices used to be or higher, then taxis (and Lyft and similar companies) can come back into the market, charge the old price or lower, and make a profit. Unless they're all colluding to keep prices high, or getting regulators to force the entire industry to so collude, competition will eventually force the price down, and most likely customers will get long-term lower prices.

The only way I can imagine a "predatory pricing" scheme that leads to high prices to the customer in the long term is if "network effects" and "economies of scale" mean that the market leader has a large advantage in supply costs; the industry might then be described as having a "natural monopoly". Then Uber might spend a lot early on to capture the market and then sit on their advantage making a large profit while charging medium prices (which are roughly break-even for competitors). Even supposing that's the case... what's the alternative?

Right now, either taxis are one big monopoly and already gaining from the network effects and economies of scale, in which case it's just one monopoly replacing another... or they're not, taxis are fragmented and only colluding insofar as they're restricting supply but not cooperating for efficiency gains. Even if it's the first case, the barrier to entry of "you don't have network effects and economies of scale" is certainly lower than "the government will shut you down", and I'd expect a correspondingly lower resulting price. In the second case, it's better, because even if Uber owns the entire market, it will be in their economic interest to charge a lower price (and produce more of the service) than was in the best interests of the inefficient taxi cartel. This is a general fact of economics:

For a firm with a monopoly, there is an optimal price they should choose to maximize their profit. It will be a higher price and lower quantity supplied than the break-even, maximum-supply result of "perfect competition"; at the optimal point, there are additional units that the firm could have produced and sold profitably at a slightly lower price, to additional customers who would have bought them--but without good price discrimination, they would also have to lower the price they charged for all the earlier units they sold, and the optimal point is where these effects exactly cancel out. Now, if the firm's cost of production is reduced--specifically, if the marginal cost at what used to be the "optimal point" is cut down, then that calculation about the marginal profit of the next N units vs the drawback of having to sell everything at the lower price gets pushed in the direction of "marginal profit", and thus the optimal point moves to a lower price and a higher number produced.

You can just get elected, and solve it that way.

Regulation is also only useful for things you actually want regulated, and you should directly write down what it’s meant for. Regulate uninsured drivers, regulate drivers without license, prevent companies from controlling > 50% of the taxi market.

But neither banning all competition, nor just allowing uber will work.

Uber is just as bad as the existing monopoly.

I think mandating the public disclosure of certain private information in business dealings that may be sensitive like this would help a lot. eg. whether or not and to what extent your drivers are vetted. If you don't have the information available to make a decision, then you can't make an educated one. However, simply mandating everything around paid driving makes people less cautious of the decisions they make. That's partly why people are so cavalier with their private information or what's in their food. They just assume everything is harmless. Arguing that doctors have to be licensed because they perform medical procedures is one thing, arguing that home decorators need to be because they might put furniture in front of a fire exist, quite another.

I wasn't speaking about doing away with the FDA here nor some hokey far-right field libertarian dream scenario. I'm not going to defend the straw-man and I think the hyperbole is unnecessary. This comes down to people wanting to pay an individual for an otherwise legal service. I just think we should let the person decide who and when to give their money to someone, even if they discover them online. I'm not advocating no-knowledge or low-knowledge services, I'm just saying they exist because people want them.

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a reason why people were so eager to welcome an alternative to taxis? What do you suppose that reason (or reasons) might be?

You're basically saying "I'm amazed that anybody can organize anything via <every forum software ever>

This is a case where capitalism is attempting to dominate the political realm.

So instead of having fingerprints of all drivers, now they don't even have verified names, but simply completely anonymous people.

Great going lawmakers!

Some things you just can't legislate.

Uber and Lyft simply don't want to do this because it threatens their profit margins. It makes just as much sense to blame the companies for this situation.

You do understand how silly that sounds right? They want to protect their profit margins because... they're businesses! Uber and Lyft both said beforehand that they'd leave if they were forced abide by the silly measures put in place by the Austin silly council, so no, it does not make sense to blame them.

Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, but the decentralised model just presents way too many risks for both riders and drivers, and the lack of fees means AC is not incentivised to protect either.

There are risks in everything. The only thing any ridesharing app at the end of the day can truly offer consumers of any meaningfulness in terms of driver / rider security are public ratings on both from all their previous customers and clients. Anything else is some artificial gating metric that tries to break people down into historic footnotes.

I hope that AC has such a feature, but even if it does not if its an Ethereum app you can very easily include ratings per contract.

If a group of people on a Facebook group can replace its functions for a significant group of people in a few days, why is this company valued in the billions again?

Uber is not an austin-only operation.

These austin solutions don't currently work in any other city.

Also- I have heard misery from austin users of the uber replacements. They may be attempting to fill the void, but I don't hear anyone saying they're satisfied with the solutions that are currently festering.

They're valued in the billions because they just work, and the solution could be extended in numerous directions that could rejigger everyone's daily lives.

Once Uber runs out of war chest dollars to subsidize rides, what is stopping competitors?

If a bunch of people pissed off at the loss of Uber/Lyft can cobble together a half-assed replacement, what is stopping Facebook from making a baked product?