5 ms·
Its weird seeing a post mortem for losing a user (I really want to say customer) from a piece of FOSS. Its also weird (still!) to consider Uber a tech company,
by ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
Its weird seeing a post mortem for losing a user (I really want to say customer) from a piece of FOSS. Its also weird (still!) to consider Uber a tech company, rather than a company that happens to use tech.
- menzoic 10y agoJust curious, what's your definition of "Tech Company"? All services provided by Uber are purely technical. Drivers and Riders are customers of Uber's technology. The full name of the company is "Uber Technologies Inc."
- ZanyProgrammer 10y agoWell if that's what their name says it must be true!
- vmateixeira 10y agoAcording to UK's Companies House search, Uber's nature of business (SIC) is 74990 - Non-trading company. This is quite vague but it doesn't mention technology. Interestingly, they were also called UBER TECHNOLOGIES LTD and UBERTECHNOLOGY LIMITED at some point in time, but these companies are now dissolved.
- HappyTypist 10y agoThat's because Uber UK is a pure support office, at least that's what their lawywers and accountants argue. The real company in Luxembourg.
- caoilte 10y agoIf that were true the nature of their company would be 'tax dodge'
- rplst8 10y agoI wasn't sure what to think of that comment either when I first read it, but I sort of see where he is coming from. One side you have companies like Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM types that actually develop new forms of technology and sell the technology to people. Then there are companies that leverage technology in other industries to "disrupt" like OpenTable, Uber, and AirBnB. Then there are companies like Google and Facebook that straddle that line. They've developed and contributed back huge advances in technology, they mostly make their money from another industry, but also sell some tech in certain areas (mostly Google).
- menzoic 10y agoInteresting perspective, but I don't think selling technology directly should be the requirement. I think a company is a "Tech Company" when the core product is technology produced by the company. I consider Facebook and Twitter to be tech companies, even though they don't sell technology directly. AirBnB and Uber have some decent open source contributions and have the ability to contribute back huge advances but probably won't focus as much on that until they're profitable.
- coldtea 10y agoThey don't "happen to use tech", their whole business is based on tech, and not in the way a bank would use tech say, but especially on tech they create (the client, the reservations system, extra services, etc). It's like saying Google is just an ad company that "happens to use tech".
- chii 10y agowhy isn't the tech that a bank would create in house be categorized similarly to the tech uber creates?
- oblio 10y agoWell, the main difference I'd expect from Uber vs a bank is that the majority of Uber employees are (software) engineers while the majority of bank employees are economists.
- czep 10y agoThe majority of Uber employees... are drivers. Clearly proportion of software engineers cannot be a good metric for what makes a "tech" company.
- WoodenChair 10y agoDrivers are independent contractors, not employees.
- ZanyProgrammer 10y agoThat's the company line, sure.
- joshmanders 10y agoThe IRS sees it that way too.. Just because you consider them employees doesn't make them employees.