This article has the usual pro-Uber slant that allows them to complain that it's "impossible" to do business in a place because of regulations that apparently don't hinder any of the other players, so we're unlikely to get any details on what in particular made servicing Hungary "impossible."
I have to assume this is just more of their petulance, given local events involving them. Uber and Lyft claimed that servicing Austin would be "impossible" given the horrific demands that their drivers submit to finger-printing and left, claiming all over the place that they were "kicked out."
We have several ride-hailing services that are somehow able to bear these truly onerous and unbearable regulations, and that's without 100 billion in SV funding.
So I would guess that Hungary didn't want to serve themselves up on a silver plate and Uber threw the usual fit.
Yup. They clearly have an agenda that's more than just doing business. If all they wanted to do is make money for shareholders, they'd just comply with local regulations. They must be thinking for the verrrry long term, if they are planning on changing the structure of democracies to allow them to operate as they please.
Edit: To wit, appealing to the Texas legislature to overrule Austin's popular referendum.
Not sure about their long-term planning. It seems to me they're doing "just" business pretty well. Their strategy seems to be universally to burn money on lawyers so that local authorities can't ban them until they get to stay due to popular demand. It seems to be evidence of audacity, not necessarily of a long-term strategy.
I agree there is a deeper agenda to create a Libertarian structure so that government can't interfere in their operations.
This is made clear by the idea that a $60 billion dollar silicon valley company finds it "impossible" to create a seamless, frictionless method of obtaining fingerprints from drivers as part of their on-boarding process. It's ludicrous on its face. I'd be happy to do the project for just what they spent on the failed referendum in Austin.
Having predictable and uniform standards for Texas state-wide seems to make sense to me. Uber should be careful what they wish for, though, because the last quote I heard from one of the legislative committee chairman controlling such a bill was "as long as we get fingerprints I think it's a good thing."
I have to assume this is just more of their petulance, given local events involving them. Uber and Lyft claimed that servicing Austin would be "impossible" given the horrific demands that their drivers submit to finger-printing and left, claiming all over the place that they were "kicked out."
We have several ride-hailing services that are somehow able to bear these truly onerous and unbearable regulations, and that's without 100 billion in SV funding.
So I would guess that Hungary didn't want to serve themselves up on a silver plate and Uber threw the usual fit.