For those wondering why Lyft and Uber doing the shutdown, it's to bully voters into voting their way on Prop 22 in November.
They had two years to adjust their businesses for a proposition approved by voters. They chose to spend nine figures fighting it in the press and the courts.
I mean - if no one else comes up with a business now that works well and people enjoy doesn't that prove Uber and Lyft are right in that the platform is valuable and unique?
If California lawmakers are using this as negotiating tactic that's cool with me - but I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect Uber or Lyft to negotiate as well.
> I mean - if no one else comes up with a business now that works well and people enjoy doesn't that prove Uber and Lyft are right in that the platform is valuable and unique?
To me, it proves that investors don't have the appetite to fund an underdog fight against the two large companies. There are ethical alternatives (at least half a dozen when I last checked a couple years ago), but they're slow-growing. The fact that the conversations seem to default to assuming there are no other alternatives already speaks volumes about consumer mentality.
They did not have "years to adjust their businesses" to a changing landscape of demands, the worst-case scenario of which literally destroys their innovation/business.
"You had years to plan for us removing 95% of your business!" is quite the argument.
Their business was a legal dodge to begin with and they knew it. You can't start a business selling cocaine through a series of complex transactions such that it's "technically" legal and then complain when the government tries to regulate your "innovation" to bring it in line with existing law.
While cocaine is illegal and most voters still think it should be illegal, no voters think that calling a cab with an app should be illegal (at least provided the driver is compensated fairly).
> For those wondering why Lyft and Uber doing the shutdown, it's to bully voters into voting their way on Prop 22 in November.
Why is this getting downvoted? The strategy seems fairly obvious: by threatening to end service, they're trying to scare voters (and the legislature) into repealing this law.
Uber and Lyft could, under this law, continue to operate in a legal, legitimate manner, no longer relying on the legal loopholes that this law closed. The fact that they would rather shut down entirely than follow their own state's laws is deeply disturbing.
They had two years to adjust their businesses for a proposition approved by voters. They chose to spend nine figures fighting it in the press and the courts.