Uber can be fixed
I read an article from HBR, Uber Can’t Be Fixed–It’s Time for Regulators to Shut It Down, and it felt wrong from the title. While the arguments are sound, it just feels wrong.
Yes. Uber is beneficial for passengers. Yes. Uber’s decision and practices are unethical and illegal. Yes. Uber is not too big fail.
Yes. Uber Can Be Fixed.
Not by one of the long list of executives dreaming about adding Uber to their impressive CV’s. It can be fixed by someone with the same rebellious streak as Travis Kalanick only with a better education and common sense. I’m not talking about school education but about those “seven years from home” when your parents smack you over the head in less than a nanosecond for being a little prick.
Seven years from home = Romanian expression meaning the education you get home from your parents, relatives, and family friends in the first seven years of life. This period defines what you become as an adult, your notions of right and wrong.
Uber can be fixed by a rebel that has grown up and become a real responsible human being with a vision and merciless respect for equality between human beings no matter their differences.
It’s time for the regulators to shut it down
…a terrifying sentence to read. I just got chills down my spine about the idea of a room full of politicians trying to preserve a world long gone by executing any company daring to question the status-quo reached transforming generations of humans beings in modern slaves of a post-industrial era. The big danger of this type of Regulators is that they tend to overreach as all regulators do (Inquisition comes to mind).
The fundamental illegality of Uber is the best thing about the company. Its illegality is defined as such by governments that are slow to adapt to the fast-paced evolution of our society. We keep letting old people vote for other old and corrupt people. They are good at selling the illusion of making the country great again in dozens of countries all over this planet. The laws need to adapt to the emergence of the platform economy and not the other way around.
Rotten to the Core
…what a bunch of bs. Those without sin cast the first stone is a decent argument in this case. There are companies that thrive in fraud impoverishing millions but are deemed too big to fail. The governments protecting them and allowing this are rotten to the core. Let’s shut them down first.
The conclusion of the article is that Uber should follow the fate of Napster. Both companies opened new ways. As Napster was replaced by companies that retain what was great and lawful so should the future be populated by companies that will retain what was great and lawful about Uber.
No. It doesn’t work like this. Uber is not unique and didn’t open new roads for future companies. The type of services offered by Uber were also offered before and are offered now by companies that do it better. The platform economy is here to stay.
Uber shouldn’t be shut down but redefined, re-positioned, and re-evaluated.
The only people to lose money should be the investors that paid for something that wasn’t there and will never be. Uber is different through size and valuation because some smart hustlers sold an app together with something they didn’t really owned: the drivers.
While I’m in love with the platform economy and the idea of start-up, I’m also a believer in positive cash-flow. Moreover, this is what every Uber driver believes in: the money made by using a ride-hailing app. If Uber disappears, another app will come along.