Reading their press release (the Swedish one, I'm a native Swedish speaker) I get a feeling that they are, quite frankly, not a serious business. It's filled with paranoid tinfoil hattery where they claim the Big Nasty Government is out to get them without actually pointing out what rules they're asked to comply with.
Sweden is fairly big on consumer protection, and price comparisons is generally a mandatory part of that (all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km). That they're being asked to follow those rules is hardly government bullying - in the eyes of most everyone here that definitely counts as "consumer protection".
It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all.
To be honest, I'd never heard of this story before I saw it here. It certainly hasn't been covered by mainstream press. I don't live in Stockholm though, so it might be bigger there.
> It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi-like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all.
I was wondering about that too, but instead of declaring Uber to be lying here on HN, I went and looked for more information. What I found, was a news article that actually went and asked the Swedish Transport Agency for a comment[1].
STA's answer was that STA has had no direct contact with Uber, but had had contact with two companies that drive cars for Uber. Those two companies had asked for an exception from having an taximeter in the car (Swedish law requires one otherwise). STA denied the request, stating that to get an exception, one needs to follow the regulations of 1998, which states that exceptions are only allowed in exceptional cases, for instance when driving for royal families or prominent business leaders.
So, Uber is ... stretching the truth. Their claim is not a complete fabrication, but neither did they tell the whole story. I tend to put cases like this under the "company statement" category.
Good catch. I certainly phrased that wrong. What is allowed, and open to anybody, is the kind of service that is charged strictly by time unit (usually by hour), and (as far as I know, at least) they don't need a taximeter. I think this is a healthy restriction, but obviously Uber hasn't considered using that payment model here.
So, yes, if they're insisting on using the "hybrid" payment model, they need a permit which is restricted to extraordinary events (essentially events where the customer won't care about the price, no matter how outrageous it is). In hindsight, I agree that calling it a lie is incorrect, I should have phrased it better. It does not, however, make me more forgiving w/r to their press release, as it's deliberately written as a factually lacking, misleading appeal to emotion.
I'm not an Uber user but don't really think they are stretching the truth:
- Permits exist for private car hire services in Sweden. The STA has issued them before.
- However these are currently reserved for circumstances eg members of royal families or prominent business leaders.
It isn't a stretch of the truth to say the STA are denying such permits to Uber, and that regular citizens should have the same services available to them as these other groups.
As a Swede I found it really weird that the "traffic agency" would be interested in protecting businesses. It really feels like someone is trying to do a direct translation of the US situation.
Lobbying isn't really a thing here, and is actually considered to be corruption. Whenever that sort of thing happens (which is pretty rare), the press is having a field day.
> Lobbying isn't really a thing here, and is actually considered to be corruption.
As an american, I would agree wholeheartedly that lobbying is most definitely corruption.
> Whenever that sort of thing happens (which is pretty rare), the press is having a field day.
Oh how I wish the US news would report something like this. Just once. But our media is in the government's pocket. Or, rather, big business' pocket, and the government in theirs. I guess that means I'm wearing a "tin-foil hat". Although I can't see it. Must be one of those government sponsored, brain-altering, invisible tin-foil hats. Bastards!
EDIT: Also, I've seriously considered moving to Sweden or one of the other Nordic (as we call them; don't know if it's the same over there) countries. Are Swedish people generally welcoming to newcomers or not? (And, yes, I know I'm generalizing; sorry.)
Yes, the nordic countries is a thing here too. We have a lot in common.
Generally, I think you will feel welcome. Swedes can be a bit reserved and tough to get to know, though. We don't talk with strangers on the bus, etc. Once you get to know us, though, we tend to be genuinely friendly. (Or so I'm told.)
There is some xenophobia, but the prejudice is mostly about arabs. I think if you are a caucasian/black american you will have a blast.
Thanks! I'm generally reserved until I get to know people as well. It's been my experience that most americans really don't fall into that loud/obnoxious/rude/belligerent stereotype that seems to be making the rounds (maybe not this generation's teenagers, though...).
Really, the thing that scares me the most about moving somewhere like sweden is learning the langage ;) I don't really have a gift for (human) languages, and swedish seems pretty tough already.
A hacker worrying about learning a new language? ;-)
There are courses in swedish offered to all immigrants. My wife did it in 4 months. Meanwhile, you won't have a problem getting around with english only. Virtually all swedes speak english, and most do it well.
I know haha. Give me a computer language and I'm good, but those pesky human languages... Who knows, maybe the problem is all in my head. Anyway, thanks so much for the info!
Seems to me like this is the double edged sword of consumer protection. I think Sweden has the right idea here but I can also see how someone starting a business might think that these consumer protection laws protect the existing players in an industry.
In America we have a lot of laws governing the hotel industry. For the most part I think they are in place to protect the millions of Americans and tourists who stay in hotels here every year. However, if I understand correctly, some of those laws have made it difficult for new businesses to enter the market.
On the flipside, sometimes it really makes new businesses think about the role they play in society. Just because Tom, Dick and Harry has money and wants to start a business, it doesn't mean that they can do whatever they like. There are bad apples looking to make a quick buck when they can. Of course, the good apples are the ones to suffer as well. It's a hard problem to solve. Should businesses be only about making money or should it also think about the services it's trying to provide and the role it plays in society? Sorry for the philosophical question :)
I may be a little cynical here but I think that businesses are amoral institutions by nature. They exist to generate a profit. That is why consumer protections have to be put in place by the government because businesses would not change a policy so long as it was continuing to generate a profit. It would be great if businesses considered the "social good", if you will, of their actions but I don't think that is realistic nor should it be expected.
Businesses are run by human beings, so while businesses themselves may be amoral, people making the decisions on direction of the business are not. Or at least one would hope that is the case. That isn't to say there is no place for regulation, but assuming without regulation business should be expected to run amuck is a bit cynical.
Terry Gross interviewed Matthew Weiner, the creator of Mad Men, on her show yesterday and he had what I thought was a great quote about morality. "People have great morality when they are observing other people." If you are making the decision you probably have a reason for thinking it is the right one and it will be hard to see that it was the wrong one. You will believe that you are justified in your actions. I think if you are a well paid executive at a company and you know your job is to increase shareholder value then it may be difficult to see what may be good for society if it is ultimately bad for business.
I went to school for finance and in my experience the social good of business decisions is rarely considered. What is considered is: Will this make a profit? Are we working within the law? I am fairly certain that, at least on Wall Street, businesses would totally run amok without regulation.
I think it's a great quote although a little sad about how true it is. I share your sentiment that many times the law is what keeps people in check. But as it is, we are humans and I think it is absolutely possible to at least ponder the thought of "social good".
Don't get me wrong. I definitely agree that it is possible. I just think that when running a business it happens too frequently that the decision makers are put in a position to have to make a choice that is not in support of social good. This is made more complicated by the fact that in many cases those people may be rewarded financially for making that choice.
You are most likely right. I have never been involved in any business that targets the consumer market, so I have little first hand knowledge, but I once had the misfortune to be involved in a project to design software to aid the government procurement process.
There's a huge amount of laws there, which makes it darn near impossible to submit a tender, much less design a valid request for tenders. These laws are there to combat corruption (the point is that it should be virtually impossible to, as a government employee, simply award a government project to your brother in law if he really doesn't provide the best offer), but the amount of red tape involved turned out to be staggering. According to our expert source on the laws involved, it was in fact impossible to not break the law, as there were parts of it that were conflicting with itself.
That said - sorry for going on an off topic tangent - I think that over all the consumer protection laws have public support, and the possible downsides they come with w/r to establishing new actors in a market are outweighed by the benefits they have to consumer. But nothing is without its cost, you say.
>all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km
That's actually really interesting and I had no idea that was the case. In a supermarket, would such a list be in the isle next to the food? Or would it just be available from management or something like that?
I don't know about Sweden but here in Germany it's on the price labels that are attached to the shelves.
You have a price per unit. Say a 0.5l bottle of beer costs 0.78 EUR and then you have the price per 100ml or 1l below it (1l = 1.56 EUR). It's marginally useful if you compare the price of rice to the price of Coca Cola but it's really useful if you want to know what's cheaper: Buying a package of 6 1.5l bottles of Coke or buying a crate with 18 0.33l bottles.
We do this in the US. However, not being standardized on the metric system, it can end up being pretty useless. It's usually good, but every so often you come across something like:
Item A: $3, $6/pound
Item B: $4, $0.30/oz
Which defeats the whole purpose of the per-unit price. Occasionally drives me bonkers.
It would normally be right next to the price of the item itself on the shelf (usu. in smaller font). Here are some examples I found via google images. [1] is an example of a tesco shelf label. [2] is an example of why having this extra info available is useful for consumers (and some of the bizzare tricks that consumers still fall for)
Not Sweden, but the UK (and Germany) have the same thing.
Usually, they just tell you on the shelf's price tag:
Bigger Font: 1.50€/£
Smaller Font: 0.75€/p per 100g/100ml etc.
That way, you can see that sometimes it makes sense to buy 2x 400ml ketchup (just as an example where I had it recently) instead of 1x 800ml, simply because 2x 400ml is actually cheaper.
> That way, you can see that sometimes it makes sense to buy 2x 400ml ketchup (just as an example where I had it recently) instead of 1x 800ml, simply because 2x 400ml is actually cheaper.
That applies to plenty of dastardly stuff too e.g. the big 3-5kg pots of Nutella you see around Christmas? The unit price is often twice that of the standard 750g pot.
No, you will have to compare the individual products yourself. But since products of the same type is usually on display close to each other, and the price is displayed in the same unit, it's not very hard. In practice, this means that most products have two prices listed - first, the actual price of the product, second the "comparison price", per standard unit. For example:
Brand A, Orange Juice, 1L. 19.90 (Price per Litre: 19.90)
Brand B, Orange Juice, 2L. 30.00 (Price per Litre: 15.00)
This is simply to spare the consumer of doing the math themselves, which can turn out to be quite tricky in some cases (although not in my example:)
the small price on the rack sticker next to the big price is the price per unit. I have seen that in Connecticut, Vermont, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Norway. Actually pretty much every grocery store I have been to in my life.
I've seen this in the US, too. It's on the labels, typically listed in price per ounce/fluid ounce for smaller items. Maybe it's a local law (Los Angeles) because it's that way at every super market I go to.
I'm a Swede living in Stockholm and I have never ever heard of this company. I stopped reading right after this painful sentence:
The STA’s explanation for this is that the permit that is required should only be given to companies that drive members of royal families or prominent business leaders.
Sweden is fairly big on consumer protection, and price comparisons is generally a mandatory part of that (all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km). That they're being asked to follow those rules is hardly government bullying - in the eyes of most everyone here that definitely counts as "consumer protection".
It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish about certain unmarked taxi like services being exclusive to "royal families or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all.
To be honest, I'd never heard of this story before I saw it here. It certainly hasn't been covered by mainstream press. I don't live in Stockholm though, so it might be bigger there.