"They're a young, inexperienced company"
True. But they're also challenging regulations saying they shouldn't have to play by the same rules as everybody else. Here they got burned, and they have no-body to blame but themselves.
Cab dispatch companies work in all the cities Uber is in, and Uber meets exactly the same regulations those companies do. Should Uber double drug test drivers? Should they double inspect vehicles for emissions? Or are we OK with knowing that all their drivers are already in compliance with all local regulations in each city? I guess I don't see what regulations they're skirting, or why there's a need for more regulation now. There's a considerable difference between what Uber does (provides a way for licensed limo drivers to fill their spare capacity) and what companies like Lyft and Sidecar do (allow anyone to drive without commercial licenses or commercial insurance).
Uber is a young company. I don't think anyone is advocating that they'll do everything perfectly. It's pretty easy to imagine stumbling through some learning experiences like they did their first hour after hurricane Sandy, when they went with the tool they're used to using in similar non-emergency settings. They quickly corrected their actions, and seem to be learning. If they continue to flub future post-emergency responses, then I could see the issue. Until then, I applaud them for learning (or appearing to), and don't fault them for not breaking non-existent regulations (they're following all local regulations in each city, and shouldn't need to ask for permission to run a legal business there). The criticism they face is from people with vested interests in an outdated business model. Those people deserve to be called out.
There are a few examples, but one was with tracking their travel with GPS instead of the approved meter that others were required to use:
http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/mcafee/2012/08/bostons-uber-ruling-...
Uber was banned in Boston for awhile, and eventually the ban was overturned, but the fact remains that they did ignore (intentionally or unintentionally) the existing regulations for metering travel. I'm all for forward-thinking solutions to problems, and personally I think GPS is a better solution - but I grow tired of companies that repeatedly ask for forgiveness rather than permission as their modus-operandi.
Why should Uber ask for permission to run a legal business? The city of Boston agrees that their business is legal, and that GPS is OK. They're using commercially licensed drivers with commercial insurance, leveraging a system that existed well before Uber. They're simply making it more efficient for both sides (fill spare capacity with riders who need a car). Their drivers and cars meet all local regulations. Their outspoken opponents aren't doing so for the public good, they're doing it because they represent an entrenched power who is threatened. Legal businesses don't have to ask for permission, and shouldn't be asked to.
That would do nothing about demand (spiked because of mass transit closures). Discouraging consumption with price increases is to customers' benefit: it keeps the service available. You have choice of not riding by taxi, or paying twice the price; with a shortage, you have no choice -- you're stuck. (Of course Uber's PR is about the supply side; the demand effect is way too non-PC).
People prefer to have a shortage than feeling cheated.
This is a failure of political economics (not market failure). They didn't see the market choice. They thought the choice was political: don't buy, or get the police to make the guy lower his prices. They walk away with nothing.
Uber has a great algorithm to help supply meet demand through variable pricing.
They did forget to account for emergencies.
During the NYC blackouts not long after 9/11, not a single supermarket or corner grocer raised their prices.
I'm sure Uber has learned, and will have a plan in place next tme.
I am concerned about Travis' ability to beat the regulators here. He's taking an us vs. them approach.
May be necessary in reality - in fact, I bet it is.
But I wonder if he can get further by being outwardly less combative/aggressive.
It's very hard to negotiate with folks when what they want is your death. The compromise is what, exactly? That they only half-kill you for now until the rest of your support base erodes?
He's playing a giant game of chicken, because sometimes that's the only way to hope to win.
But, in the end, as the saying goes "You can always tell who the pioneers are because they have arrows in their back and are lying face down in the dirt."
The most likely outcome is status quo stays status quo, unless Uber can make enough noise/etc to matter.
What it really did, though, was generate massive amounts of bad publicity as journalists took the opportunity to dash off quick "Price Gouging" stories, inflaming the public and giving ammunition to those who would like to take Uber down.
Uber had a golden opportunity during Sandy. They could have dug into their own pockets and paid their drivers the 2x pricing, while keeping the rates as-is, or even giving a Sandy discount. The monetary cost would have been absorbable, and the benefit to their image would have been immense. Instead of regulators pointing to their "price-gouging" during the storm, there would be journalists and riders coming to their defense, talking about what a good thing it was that we had a company like Uber in New York City.
If they failed that simple test of PR101, it's not surprising that Kalanick and his company are having a hard time navigating the insular and heavily political waters of municipal regulatory boards. There's more to succeeding in business than having a great product. You've got to learn to play the game.