Innovators seldom have an easy time. Developing a new technology, business model and product is hard enough. Then they often face opposition from disrupted firms that must either adapt to new competition or whither. However, some incumbent firms latch onto a third option: turning to the government to enact rules that tilt the playing field back in their favor.
An example of this is playing out in Taiwan, where legislators are in the process of enacting regulations that would essentially force ride-sharing platforms such as Uber to leave — something the taxi industry has sought since Uber entered the market.
Few would question that ride-sharing firms have disrupted the taxi industry. The merits of their services are demonstrated by the more than 75 million riders (and 3 million drivers) around the world who use Uber rather than traditional taxi services.
However, rather than adopt a better model, Taiwanese taxi firms are pushing for regulation that would force Uber to charge riders by the hour or day rather than by the ride. The government appears to have acquiesced, placing the interests of taxi drivers over those of Uber riders and drivers.
Charging by the minute might make sense, but if riders preferred it, ride-share companies probably would already be using it. However, the Taiwanese rule is worse. Unlike elsewhere, in Taiwan Uber partners with local rental car agencies rather than individual drivers. Under the new rule, Uber would be prohibited from renting cars for less than an hour and all cars would have to return to their place of business before being rented out again. To add insult to injury, riders would be prohibited from hailing an Uber on the street. This clearly gives a leg up to taxi drivers, but will hurt Taiwanese riders.
Part of the reason the rule turned out so badly is that the process was opaque. Although the government held four stakeholder sessions before issuing the rule, Uber was not allowed to participate. When lions write the rules, tigers starve.
The motivation for the regulation seems to be a desire to keep the car rental and taxi markets separate, and to hamper Uber’s innovations in the transportation market. The government recommends that Uber license its cars as taxis, but as local taxis apparently do not use dynamic up-front pricing, a flexible business model, or even apps to conveniently order a cab, Uber would have to leave its technology behind.
Uber is not a taxi service. It has never wanted to be a taxi service. It is a technology company that is now in danger of having its technology not just regulated, but outlawed.
The government might see the rationale for preventing unused rental cars from being put to use, but most riders probably do not. Taxi riders rightly complain that the current regulatory system puts them at a disadvantage.
Rather than handicapping Uber, the correct response would be to eliminate the unnecessary regulations that gave Uber a market opportunity in the first place. Allow cabs to switch to dynamic pricing, so that riders do not have to wait as long on busy days. Use up-front pricing so riders know what the cost will be before they step in a cab. Let riders order and pay for a cab by phone and give drivers more flexibility in their schedule.
The preferences of Uber’s 3 million registered users and 10,000 drivers in Taiwan cannot all be wrong.
Uber says that the new regulations would force it to leave Taiwan, which it did for two months over an earlier issue — this after investing large sums on the understanding that previous issues had been settled.
The government also has something to lose by introducing these regulations. Uber runs an exchange program with the Ministry of Science and Technology in which local engineers travel to Uber’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, California, to study its artificial intelligence technology.
Uber’s cooperation in helping to plan for smart cities could also end. Moreover, as an up-and-coming global technology leader, by taking this action Taiwan sends a clear signal to entrepreneurs and tech companies around the world: The government does not support innovation.
The ultimate losers will be Taiwanese.
The American Institute in Taiwan has also opposed the proposed regulations, pointing to its likely effect on innovation and business confidence.
According to a recent article, several international technology companies, including PayPal, have exited the nation over frustrations with an inflexible regulatory process and a conservative business environment. Part of their fear is that the government might suddenly change the rules to favor local competitors or old technology.
With China becoming more assertive, Taiwan should feel the need to increase productivity and innovation, including by working more closely with US companies. Apparently not.
Joe Kennedy is a senior fellow for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based think tank for science and technology policy, where he focuses on tax and regulatory policy. The views expressed here are his own.
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) took the stage at a protest rally on Sunday in front of the Presidential Office Building in Taipei in support of former TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has been sentenced to 17 years in jail for corruption and embezzlement. Huang told the crowd that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) had sent a message of support the previous day, saying she would be traveling from the south to Taipei: If the protest continued into the evening, she had said, she would show up. The rally was due to end
RSS