Uber

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Name them with supporting information or we're going to need to change your username to Makeyourmindup

I'm talking about the actual use of the app itself. Given the shíte I've been dealing with here, why don't I use the same lines...

i.e. "Don't be so lazy"
"Go do your own research"

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.


That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

So you're living overseas and decide that you need to get ride sharing introduced into Ireland, come on, you can tell us the real reasons for your interest in it. After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.

Also more to the point are you frequenting any forums in France, Germany,etc. to encourage there ride sharing acceptance or is just here?

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'm talking about the actual use of the app itself. Given the shíte I've been dealing with here, why don't I use the same lines...

i.e. "Don't be so lazy"
"Go do your own research"

makeyourmindup it is then, name the four companies I'll do the research as to when they started then.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you're living overseas and decide that you need to get ride sharing introduced into Ireland, come on, you can tell us the real reasons for your interest in it. After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.

Also more to the point are you frequenting any forums in France, Germany,etc. to encourage there ride sharing acceptance or is just here?

Again, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I'm Irish but I live overseas. I accompanied a local to their offices as he was interested in driving via the platform.

As regards frequenting other forums, not particularly Sherlock. I use boards from time to time, came across this uber thread and posted. Whilst there's a good chance I'm not going to relocate back to Ireland, I'd still hope that it can rise above protectionist shíte like this. I'd like family and friends back home to be able to benefit from it.

Am I free to leave now or do you want to press charges, chief?

Spook_ie wrote: »

makeyourmindup it is then, name the four companies I'll do the research as to when they started then.

You've already said it doesn't matter - and I agree with you. Hailo is just another technology company. They all came up around the same time and that is innovation. That's not innovation from within the Taxi Industry. It's innovation brought both TO the taxi industry and as a complete enablement of ride sharing.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Again, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I'm Irish but I live overseas. I accompanied a local to their offices as he was interested in driving via the platform.

As regards frequenting other forums, not particularly Sherlock. I use boards from time to time, came across this uber thread and posted. Whilst there's a good chance I'm not going to relocate back to Ireland, I'd still hope that it can rise above protectionist shíte like this. I'd like family and friends back home to be able to benefit from it.

Am I free to leave now or do you want to press charges, chief?



You've already said it doesn't matter - and I agree with you. Hailo is just another technology company. They all came up around the same time and that is innovation. That's not innovation from within the Taxi Industry. It's innovation brought both TO the taxi industry and as a complete enablement of ride sharing.

If that's what you say, that's what you say but you must agree that it certainly comes over as peculiar the amount of interest in getting ride sharing accepted in Ireland that you exhibit as a not concerned about it ex pat?

As to agreeing with me, it's not me that you spouted on about 4 companies starting up before Hailo, so name them or is that just a figure pulled from mid air and like most of your arguments on here, disparaging at the least to other posters views

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.


That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

it's not political at all. they fit the definitions of a transport company hence the ECJ ruled them correctly as such. they are a transport company which uses an ap but which does not directly operate the cars.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

If that's what you say, that's what you say but you must agree that it certainly comes over as peculiar the amount of interest in getting ride sharing accepted in Ireland that you exhibit as a not concerned about it ex pat?

Right - but how else would this play out? I mean I know Uber are in monopoly money territory with their bonkers IPO but you think they put me on the payroll? lol

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to agreeing with me, it's not me that you spouted on about 4 companies starting up before Hailo, so name them or is that just a figure pulled from mid air and like most of your arguments on here, disparaging at the least to other posters views

You said this => "Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki"

Or are you now rolling back on that?
I'm not of a mind to go off on a tangent for the sake of it. This all started with the notion that the app side of things is not an innovation when it was and it is....and it didn't come from within the taxi industry.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.


That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

So that's that then, the ECJ ruling puts this to rest, for Uber, EU govts, consumers and Taxi associations..... just not for makeorbrake and his assorted conspiracy theory's

I can live with that

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

it's not political at all. they fit the definitions of a transport company hence the ECJ ruled them correctly as such. they are a transport company which uses an ap but which does not directly operate the cars.

It's HIGHLY political.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Right - but how else would this play out? I mean I know Uber are in monopoly money territory with their bonkers IPO but you think they put me on the payroll? lol



You said this => "Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki"

Or are you now rolling back on that?
I'm not of a mind to go off on a tangent for the sake of it. This all started with the notion that the app side of things is not an innovation when it was and it is....and it didn't come from within the taxi industry.

You stated 4 companies started before Hailo, name them, simple enough request.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

So that's that then, the ECJ ruling puts this to rest, for Uber, EU govts, consumers and Taxi associations..... just not for makeorbrake and his assorted conspiracy theory's

I can live with that

Well bully for you, dude. :-)

The ECJ is the ECJ. Uber is an illegal service where I live yet everyone uses it (or an alternative ride sharing app). They themselves say that they are a technology company.

If anyone could possibly leave the politics aside (not going to happen) - and you look at where they come from (silicon valley) and what they do - purely technology - then it's as clear as night and day that they've built a platform ...they're a glorified app developer.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Right - but how else would this play out? I mean I know Uber are in monopoly money territory with their bonkers IPO but you think they put me on the payroll? lol



<snipped>

I wouldn't know, all I do know is you show an unusually high interest in getting ride sharing introduced into a country that you no longer reside in, yet you are not forthcoming with anything that even reads as a possible reason for this.

There's nothing in any of your posts that would exclude you from being among their 22,263 employees

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

You stated 4 companies started before Hailo, name them, simple enough request.

Eh, seeing as making demands seems to be a thing, respond to the previous post on that particular side issue first - and we'll go from there, yeah?

Spook_ie wrote: »

I wouldn't know, all I do know is you show an unusually high interest in getting ride sharing introduced into a country that you no longer reside in, yet you are not forthcoming with anything that even reads as a possible reason for this.

There's nothing in any of your posts that would exclude you from being among their 22,263 employees

Jesus wept. Ok, and fella's on here wanted to crown ME with a tin foil hat?

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, seeing as making demands seems to be a thing, respond to the previous post on that particular side issue first - and we'll go from there, yeah?

Jesus wept. Ok, and fella's on here wanted to crown ME with a tin foil hat?

I already posted the details that both Hailo and Uber started in or around the same time, you are the one that stated there were four companies, stop trying to fog the issue and name them.

No tin foil hat, just that there is nothing in any of your posts that would exclude you from being an employee, you certainly seem to be more concerned for getting an Uber free for all in Ireland than most people who don't reside here.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

I already posted the details that both Hailo and Uber started in or around the same time, you are the one that stated there were four companies, stop trying to fog the issue and name them.

Eh, level playing field here dude (unlike the state of regulation of ride sharing in IRL) - you didn't get elected as demands making officer. See my previous post. Respond to that and I'll reciprocate.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No tin foil hat, just that there is nothing in any of your posts that would exclude you from being an employee, you certainly seem to be more concerned for getting an Uber free for all in Ireland than most people who don't reside here.

Yet there could only be a tin foil hat. I know they've got VC and IPO money coming out their arses but even then, you think that they would have someone come on to this boards thread to try and convince you guys (many of you being taxi drivers) of how wonderful uber is?

Added to the fact that I've stated on here a couple of times that i'm actually not a fan of uber itself as a company and prefer other ride sharing services.

I guess I'll be up in front of HR first thing Monday morning, then.:D

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's HIGHLY political.

it is not.
uber provide the platform for cars to pick up fares. uber make a large amount of money from the ap. uber would not make any money if it did not have cars. uber don't directly operate much of the car fleet so are therefore doing something similar to subcontracting. therefore they are ultimately a transport company, as while they came in to existance due to developing an ap to allow cars to pick up fares, the cars are the reason they are making money.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

it is not.
uber provide the platform for cars to pick up fares. uber make a large amount of money from the ap. uber would not make any money if it did not have cars. uber don't directly operate much of the car fleet so are therefore doing something similar to subcontracting. therefore they are ultimately a transport company, as while they came in to existance due to developing an ap to allow cars to pick up fares, the cars are the reason they are making money.

The saga around uber is not political? Really? God damn. There's hardly a country in the world where its not political.
Stick "uber" and "political" into a search and you get 46 million results.

As regards subcontracting, that's ridiculous (even if it is the ruling of the ECJ). How many app developers are subcontracting then? Anyone who takes a commission on an app is now subcontracting?

Give me a break.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, level playing field here dude (unlike the state of regulation of ride sharing in IRL) - you didn't get elected as demands making officer. See my previous post. Respond to that and I'll reciprocate.

As I can't decide which post it is of yours that you think needs responding to, post it again AFAIK You haven't responded to the first request to name these phantom 4 companies which was a question in response to your reply to AJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

The arrogance. I asked a simple question which is the complete opposite of making definitive statements. Right back at ye : Yer taxi driving buddies are renowned at being experts at everything - I guess that's where you picked that up, right? :rolleyes:


GTF out of here with your faux concern and pathetic attempt to take the moral high-ground!



YOU DONT KNOW? - and you call me ignorant? GTF. Secondly, in case it escaped your attention, this is a discussion forum. I don't have any obligation to do 'research'. And once again, stop hiding behind the disability issue.


Says it all that you would invoke a trumpism here!


And you follow up by talking about FACTS when your facts are lies? Give me a break.

There were 4 technology companies that had apps launched before Hailo. Notwithstanding that, Hailo was just another application from just another technology company. The taxi industry didn't bring that about either.


Stop trying to hide behind the disability issue. Is every taxi in Ireland wheelchair accessible? Then your point is null and void.


Of course they have innovated by enabling technology to in turn enable ordinary people to use their existing vehicles for ride sharing purposes.


Wrong (and you can keep on with this and I'll keep correcting you...as you want). There is no regulation for ride sharing in ireland. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It's quite common for a new technological approach to emerge and no regulation existing to govern it to begin with.

And next you go after AirBNB? Dude, you have no credibility.


I've been to their offices here and talked to them about what they are. And what they are is a technology company. Uber is a platform - that enables individuals to go out and ride share. Of course they're not a traditional transport provider - with the exception of where they have their own autonomous cars on the road in the U.S.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I can't decide which post it is of yours that you think needs responding to, post it again AFAIK You haven't responded to the first request to name these phantom 4 companies which was a question in response to your reply to AJRenko

Let me help you out with that.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki

Or are you now rolling back on that?


Does that help?

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Let me help you out with that.



Or are you now rolling back on that?


Does that help?

No I'm not rolling back on that both started at aprox the same time, now assuming you think that Uber was one of the 4 , name the others

hawkelady

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

The saga around uber is not political? Really? God damn. There's hardly a country in the world where its not political.
Stick "uber" and "political" into a search and you get 46 million results.

As regards subcontracting, that's ridiculous (even if it is the ruling of the ECJ). How many app developers are subcontracting then? Anyone who takes a commission on an app is now subcontracting?

Give me a break.

the judges in the ECJ, who are experts in law, have, on the basis of all of the evidence put forward, determined that uber are a transport company. if you believe these experts are wrong, then perhapse get crowdfunding to get as much evidence as possible to refruit the ruling, and lawyers to bring a challenge against that ruling.
it is a transport company. it transports people via more or less outsourcing the driving to independant drivers, who use the ap to pick up fares, but who actually have to pay a fee to the company. ironically, joining a company and paying a small fee in exchange for that company getting them fares is i believe how some taxi companies work.

hawkelady

Refruit???? Haha.

Spook_ie

hawkelady wrote: »

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

Uber does operate here, however, they have to abide by NTA regulations, I don't think anyone should be allowed to ride roughshod over regulations. If you want the NTA to change the regulations then lobby them so at least any changes will apply across the board.

makeorbrake

hawkelady wrote: »

Refruit???? Haha.

Consider it reFRUITed

Did every jurisdiction in the world come out with the same conclusion? Either Europe has more learned people or to my point, ALL of this is deeply political.

Spook_ie

hawkelady wrote: »

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

Just for you here's a link to Uber Ireland

https://www.uber.com/en-IE/cities/dublin/

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Consider it reFRUITed

Did every jurisdiction in the world come out with the same conclusion? Either Europe has more learned people or to my point, ALL of this is deeply political.

I would suspect the EU might not agree that the ECJ is deeply political, if it were then maybe the UK have the right idea with Brexit, however, the judgement reads

The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an
intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application,
a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban
journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers
urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and
whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in
order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by
Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It
also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers
provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an
integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and,
accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the
field of transport’.
The Court states that, consequently, the directive on electronic commerce does not apply to that
service, which is also excluded from the scope of the directive on services in the internal market.
For the same reason, the service in question is covered not by the freedom to provide services in
general but by the common transport policy. However, non-public urban transport services and
services that are inherently linked to those services, such as the intermediation service provided by
Uber, has not given rise to the adoption of measures based on that policy.

Nermal

Spook_ie wrote: »

After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.

We all have skin in the game as customers. We should be entitled to choose between ride-sharing apps and NTA-regulated taxis. If you're confident the NTA model is better, you shouldn't fear that.

Spook_ie

Nermal wrote: »

We all have skin in the game as customers. We should be entitled to choose between ride-sharing apps and NTA-regulated taxis. If you're confident the NTA model is better, you shouldn't fear that.

That doesn't mean you can run an unregulated service side by side with a regulated service, either it's all unregulated or it's all regulated, either way I'm fine with, just not where one aspect has an unfair advantage.

AndrewJRenko

hawkelady wrote: »

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

How about the downside of destroying ten years of tortuously slow progress on improvements to services for people with disabilities?