5 ms·

That 50-70% is a loss leader for Uber. Did you read the post of their financials? They are hemorrhaging money. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-

• Animats 10y ago
  Uber's biggest investor is Saudi Arabia's Sovereign Wealth Fund.[1] They don't have a problem with the company keeping women in their place. It may even be viewed as a plus, influencing an American company to adopt Saudi values. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/technology/uber-investment-saudi-arabia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/technology/uber-investmen...
  • imglorp 10y ago
    I suspect even the most misogynistic investor will balk at the poor publicity like OP's story, and especially at the stack of harassment lawsuits that are sure to be in the pipeline if all these employees grievances are accurate.
  • wheelerwj 10y ago
    how the fuck did Saudia Arabia investors make it into a conversation about SF company culture..
    • Animats 10y ago
      Saudi Arabia is keeping Uber alive. Without that $3.5 billion cash investment from last summer, Uber would be in serious financial trouble now. They wouldn't have been able to get the $2 billion loan that followed, and would have had to raise rates to stop the cash burn. That would have stopped their growth and cut their market share.
      • wheelerwj 10y ago
        and none of that makes any difference to company culture. if it was toxic without money it wil be toxic with money.
        • MegaButts 10y ago
          To assume there is a disconnect between a company and the investors that fund it is pretty naive. For starters, major investors almost always get board seats, which means they have a direct say in managing the company. Besides that, there are numerous articles that discuss how taking VC money has ruined many companies - Zenefits is the most popular recent example.
          • wheelerwj 10y ago
            VC momey doesnt ruin anything. shitty managers do. any investor or board member whonis aware of the type of activity mentioned by OP would shut it down fast. their first responsibility is to protect the company, especially one about to go public, and that doesn't happen when you're getting sued repeatedly for hostile work environment and/or sexual harassment.
            • MegaButts 10y ago
              VC's main goal is for their investments to grow and grow fast. They know most of their companies will fail, and they don't want to waste their time on the companies that will only net them a modest return when they can focus more of their efforts on the company that will net them a 20x return. It's actually in a VC's best interest for you to either be a rocket ship or for you to fail completely, as mathematically it's the best use of their time for maximizing profits. VC's aren't trying for all of their portfolio companies to be profitable - they're trying to fund 1 company that is going to be uber profitable. There's a saying from the dot com investment days - you either invested in Google or you didn't.
              • Animats 10y ago
  • grzm 10y ago
    Do you believe the behavior described in the piece is a result of Saudi investment? Your comment leans in that direction, which is quite an insinuation if that's not what you actually believe to be the case. If so, I'd like to know more about what leads you to believe it is, or is even likely. It seems to me that much more prosaic explanations are likely.
    • mst 10y ago
      My reading is that their belief is that Saudi investors wouldn't care about such behaviour or consider it marginally positive, as a contrast with non-Saudi investors who might reconsider doing a deal given such information.
      • grzm 10y ago
        I think this sentence is implying something much stronger than that: It may even be viewed as a plus, influencing an American company to adopt Saudi values.
        • mst 10y ago
          I'm unsure what difference you see between "a plus" and "marginally positive" except I'm specifically pointing out it's probably a secondary consideration to profit.
          • grzm 10y ago
            Interesting take. The operative word for me is influencing. Thanks for pointing out in detail where you where getting your reading.
          • deleted 10y ago
            [deleted]
    • 010a 10y ago
      Investors pull the strings. The behavior isn't the result of an investment, but failing to implement procedures after the fact to stop future incidents definitely can be. Not through action, but through inaction. Meaning, more ethical investors (also known as: Board Members) might say "We need to do something about this."
• laser 10y ago
  "Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares." Is either mathematically incorrect or extremely misleading. You can't take Uber's cut of passengers payments (~18%) and then divide by Uber's costs to say "passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips", as the bulk of the cost of the trip goes directly to the driver. If you take this into account the rider is actually covering about 80% of the total cost of the trip, with Uber subsidizing about 20% of the cost on average, which includes their massive infrastructure building and expansion efforts. This means that even break-even Uber at a 25% higher cost, or a 20% profit margin Uber at a 50% higher cost, is still cheaper (and more convenient and enjoyable) than a taxi.
• richardwhiuk 10y ago
  In which case, isn't taking Uber and forcing them to eat that 50-70%, the ethical thing to do?
  • Decade 10y ago
    The 50% that you are forcing Uber to pay is 100% that is denied to Lyft, and additional pressure on drivers to keep the Uber app open and the Lyft app closed.