PR-haveri eller marknadsföringsuccé? Efter två dagars Uber-debatt på Twitter och i bloggvärlden är det svårt att säga. Här är några läsvärda röster kring taxitjänsten Ubers utspel med korruptionsanklagelser mot svenska myndigheter. Personligen har jag ett behov av att hålla isär Ubers åsikter med hur de framför. Jag är i grunden positiv till förändrad reglering och innovativa nya lösningar men negativ till falska anklagelser och utspel där en part tar offer-rollen när det är oklart om så faktiskt är fallet.
”Tillsynsmän inom Transportstyrelsen identifierar Ubers förare och nekar dem det tillstånd som krävs för en tjänst som Ubers – vilket gör det omöjligt för oss att fortsätta i Stockholm. Varför gör de såhär? Det är enkelt. Den befintliga taxi-industrin är stor och stark – och den vill Transportstyrelsen skydda till varje pris.”
Transportstyrelsen i Computer Sweden:
”Vi har inte haft kontakt med Uber över huvud taget. Det som hänt är att två företag som kör för Uber ansökt om och fått avslag på dispens för taxameter, vilket det är lag på att ha i en taxi. Och på den egna hemsidan.”
”Det är bisarrt. Som att läsa något en arg och förvirrad tonåring skriver i sin dagbok. Och det är fullt av hårt dragna halvsanningar blandat med orimligheter. I uppföljningen på twitter har man sedan fortsatt underblåsa ”konspirationen” genom att bland annat ”avslöja” möten mellan Transportstyrelsen, polisen och representanter för taxinäringen. Men sådana möten har pågått sedan minst 2012 och handlar om att försöka sätta stopp för svartåkarna.”
”Jag förstår frustrationen. Man bygger en tjänst som folk vill ha och alla inblandade tjänar på. Varför ska man också behöva bråka med byråkrater, lobbyister och skråväsen? Det är möjligt att Uber överreagerade, men det var inte de som slog först, så att säga.”
Digital McGyver (Michael Kazarnowicz):
”I liked Uber before this, but seeing this behavior that would barely be tolerated from a petulant teenager has turned me off big time. I would be more than willing to help them to get rid of regulations that indeed are bad for both customers and companies, but so far what I can see is that they want to get rid of regulations that actually help customers.”
”Ultimately, it comes down to how we value innovation in our country. We could also ask ourselves how smart it was to move from “särskilda” to “synnerliga” in our legislation in 1997. But unless we are smart and practical about this now in 2013, customers will have to settle for a lesser quality service, the industry will see its evolution being hampered and Sweden will see its brand as an innovation leader being soiled.”
3 kommentarer
This ”fight” that Uber is trying to win has nothing to do with anyone trying to stop progress or getting rid of a competitor.
The main problem that nobody seems to understand ( since Uber does not want this to come out) is that the whole idea of what Uber offers does not work!! They do not have any cars of there own. They need other taxi companies that have some spare time in between other jobs.
They are trying to sell this service cheaper than it actually is to run.
If we start with the problem that started this petition. Ordinary taxi companies working for Uber tried to get permission to have cars without taximeters and taxi plates. They were denied this since the reason in there application was that they needed it to work for Uber.
The only way to get this is if you never pick up clients directly from the streets and you have fixed prices (distance or time) and no money transaction in the car (only invoice).
Of course you have to put in the right words in the application so that you follow the directions as said in the law. This is not impossible to get. And when you have received the permit you can drive anyone that would like to ride in such a fashion, does not have to be a politician or a CEO. As long as you follow the law with fixed prices and invoices.
If Uber wanted to do this in the legal way they would only use cars from the limousine companies that have these permits already. Or buy there own cars. But since these cars have a price tag of around 1 000 000 sek, it is impossible to use them on these kind of jobs since it costs more to run them than Uber is willing to pay.
The whole Idea that Uber is trying to use, is that there has to be companies willing to give Uber a few hours here and there for almost nothing so that they can offer it to people who could otherwise not afford it. No company can offer them a nice car fulltime on what they are offering. It does not work! That is why the taxi companies were denied, because they have to use the cars as ordinary taxies in between Uber jobs to make ends meet.
What they are doing now is just turning off there own taximeter when they drive for Uber and put it on for the next job 20 minutes later. If you are a taxi you can not choose witch system to use, you always have to use the meter. And NO an app is not a taximeter and it never will be….
I found this comment on Mcgyvers page:
“I live in Vancouver where apparently Uber has had similar problems and simply had to give up and move on. Until now I’d only heard the Uber-half of the story, so I found this post very eye-opening. I wonder if these were the same kind of restrictions that stopped them from expanding into Vancouver, and if they’ll encounter this sort of thing in many other cities.”
This Means that Uber has had to stop there services in, New york, Vancover and now Sthlm. Dont they ever learn?
[…] Uppdaterat: Fredrik bjuder på länkar till fler läsvärda röster om Uber. […]
Tack för detta inlägg! Mycket läsvart!