Something like Uber could never have come out of Europe. A large company that is breaking the law while competing with regulated taxis and remaining unregulated themselves? That would never fly in the EU, and Uber has met a lot more resistance there than the US. They're only able to address the EU market because they have a large, profitable base in the US.

In any measure, the regulatory culture in the US is much more laissez-faire than the EU. In the US, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not explicitly illegal. In the EU, you can do whatever you want, as long as you prove that it's not illegal first. It's a huge difference, and it's one of the biggest cultural differences between Europe and the US.

Uber is only able to address any market because they have a ton of outside venture funding.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the EU is overly protective and that this harms their startup economy, but Uber is not a good example of that point.

Their answer was basically "Fuck 'em, we'll flood the market with cheap product, make consumers love it and the regulators will cave." That would not have worked in Europe if they hadn't already done it in a bunch of cities across the US.

no, not really. its only true specific contexts. which was the point of the previous comment. but you're right in the second part, that's sort of a confidence game...success begets success.

The thing Uber has which I think it would only get in Silicon Valley is about $8bn of funding. The biggest UK company I think is Hailo which raised about $100m. It'll be interesting to see how they do in China where the competitors have raised similar vc - Kuaidi raised $950 and I think Uber are spending a billion or so in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlaBlaCar

Even if it were so owned, its entire history looks like a startup (lots of financing rounds, building out the product, about having to raise capital), so even if there was a buyout, it overcame whatever regulatory hurdles should have prevented this kind of thing in France.

Where are you getting this information?

[1] http://bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/entreprise/la-sncf-investit-28-...

So, not like Uber at all and not something that takes on the heavily regulated taxi industry.

This is a feature, not a bug.

We do tend to regulate some areas more in Europe than the US, but from various on-line discussions about Uber in recent months, I have come to the conclusion that the original problem they are trying to solve is much worse in the US than the EU.

Meanwhile, I have no problem with requiring any service competing with regular taxis to be held to the same standards in terms of vehicle maintenance, insurance, checks on drivers, standardised metered pricing so passengers know what to expect, etc. Being able to beat the incumbent because you broke the law and took shortcuts that could affect safety is not impressive.

Also, I don't know where you got the idea that in the EU you need to prove what you're doing is not harmful or illegal before you can do it, but you're completely wrong.

You didn't mention which cities you've experienced in the EU, and in any case I've no reason to doubt your experience, but all I can say is that some places with traditional/regulated taxis don't seem to have the same problems. I'm in the UK and I can't remember the last time I had trouble getting a taxi at quite short notice even at a busy time of day, booking in advance is pretty much 100% reliable around here these days, and I've never heard of someone finding they can't get a cab in their area (unless you mean somewhere rural where there isn't a local taxi firm, I suppose).

Edit: in NYC & Orlando I have the same experience by the way; unfriendly cab drivers, no seat belts, crap cars and generally more expensive. But I guess that's not well regulated?

Is there a reason why a black cab driver in London, Manchester or Edinburgh couldn't register as an Uber driver and play for both teams?

I actually don't disagree with you; but my original point is that the US actively prioritizes giving companies space to operate without government intervention over protecting the rights of its citizens.

It generally makes the US a worse place to live, but a better place to start a business.

> Also, I don't know where you got the idea that in the EU you need to prove what you're doing is not harmful or illegal before you can do it, but you're completely wrong.

Maybe poorly worded, but in the US the prevailing attitude is that it's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Because our government is generally underfunded (domestically anyway), it doesn't usually go out looking for problems anyway. So you can often get away with disregarding regulations as long as you don't make too much noise while doing it. And even if you get caught, you hire lawyers to negotiate the penalty down to 10% of what it would normally have been.

And there are the non tariff barriers look how hard it is to import eu cars

Be careful about what you're saying here. Conformance to regulations is not at all the same as safety. My (anecdotal) experience is that Uber drivers are consistently better in anything that could be considered related to safetey - namely having functional seatbelts and paying attention to the road.

I meant what I wrote.

Regulated taxis and private hire vehicles here in the UK are typically required to be serviced and tested much more often than regular cars, for example. Something like not having a functional seatbelt would mean an immediate failure at a test.

All such vehicles and their drivers are also required to display identification, so anyone who is not happy with the state of a vehicle can also report it themselves to the local licensing authority or even the police.

That feels wrong. Maybe it's just a distorted picture I get from outside the US.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3171665

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplic...

That said "In the US, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not explicitly illegal" is somewhat hyperbolic. Certainly there are things like zoning regulations and other laws that limit what you can do with your property, for example. However, I do think that there is a greater presumption of being able to do and say things in the US so long as they aren't specifically prohibited in some way. (Obviously private parties have the ability to govern a lot of behaviors on their own property.)

This is bad for big business, good for citizens. As a citizen I hope it stays this way. Regulation is our friend and it's the reason so many in the EU are against TTIP.

A race to the bottom of common regulation on either side of the Atlantic is something that will only be harmful to the average EU populace.

Suddenly we'd have growth hormone in our meat and shit like this;

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...

Does this have anything to do with the fact that many many companies are incorporated in Delaware but don't do much business there? It seems possible that the federal taxes paid by such companies are counted as being "from Delaware" even though they mostly aren't, really.

Is the sense of being 'European' so strong that member states are willing to spend billions of their own taxpayer euros to build up a tech sector largely centered in some other member state? I dont think so.