Spook_ie wrote: » Name them with supporting information or we're going to need to change your username to Makeyourmindup
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.
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"
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?
Spook_ie wrote: » makeyourmindup it is then, name the four companies I'll do the research as to when they started then.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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>
Spook_ie wrote: » You stated 4 companies started before Hailo, name them, simple enough request.
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
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?
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.
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.
makeorbrake wrote: » It's HIGHLY political.
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.
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.
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.
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
Spook_ie wrote: » Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki
makeorbrake wrote: » Let me help you out with that.Or are you now rolling back on that? Does that help?
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.
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.
hawkelady wrote: » Refruit???? Haha.
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.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
