3 ms·

I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of it

I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true. So what? If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app, its neither that protectable or even all that innovative. Afterall Google was the 11st search engine. Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. And now every competitor, be it Lyft or taxi companies, offers the same service, with exactly the same drivers & exactly the same cars. Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber because a few years ago it was a hassle to get a taxi?If Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps? Uber

grandalf 9y ago
> for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true It is :) > If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry. > its neither that protectable or even all that innovative Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself. Once this was in place (the protection) innovation was irrelevant as anyone who has ridden in a medallion cab pre-Uber can attest. > Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. Are you expressing doubt about whether people will need taxi style transit? I'd say it's one of the most proven business models in the world. The "subsidy" you mention allows Uber to grow more quickly than it otherwise would, but late stage investors are not stupid and would not pour money in if the economics were not sound. I don't actually care whether Uber ends up profitable in the long term or not. I'm not an investor, though I am a happy customer. But I do want a fair fight, and the DOJ picking on Uber is a major misallocation of resources. > Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber Not at all. I myself am not "loyal". A few months ago I made a post on HN in which I reached the conclusion that Travis probably ought to go. But making that argument does not mean I don't have tremendous respect for the company he built and the obstacles he overcame to make it happen. Travis is clearly an amazingly talented person who seems to have some blind spots as a manager. But let's not pretend someone like Eric Schmidt would ever start a company like Uber. Seasoned, wise managers are relevant when a company has generally plateaued. This does not justify the harm caused by bad HR practices and poor judgment in dealing with the treatment of women at Uber, but let's not forget that one of the problematic hires (perhaps scapegoats) at Uber had come from Schmidt's google where he'd had many years of success but had not disclosed the disciplinary circumstances of his departure from Google. > Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps This is farfetched, and not what I was arguing. My point is that Uber came up with a way to fight against one of the most entrenched industries in the world and win. This is generally what startups are supposed to do... create Schumpeterian growth which leaves a trail of destruction of the old edifices of power. It may be that Uber simply won the first round of battles but that the war will eventually be won by the cronies and insiders who cozy up to local politicians and held the taxi industry hostage for so long. They have not given up easily. In some cities they are still strong and don't plan to go anywhere. Before you decide to jump on the bandwagon against Uber, think about the many areas of life in which entrenched and backward systems oppress us and hold back progress. You are helping them drag us back into the darkness.
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  It seems we disagree on too many facts. Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it. Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the same cars are already and would still be available on Lyft & the taxi co's apps. And only time'll tell whether Uber matters.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    > so be it. No offense was meant by my phrasing, FYI. > Thankfully we have choices Yes we do. I think we likely agree on the overall benefits of Uber, but you are more inclined to focus on Lyft as a better instantiation of the idea and I'm just sort of defending Uber because it's fun to do so when everyone hates it.
    - gotothedoctor 9y ago
      I'm not offended; its just the opposite of persuasive. And "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender: if that's how you understood my reply, we're unlikely to understand each other & its not worth the effort to be clear. I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits. As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important. At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
      - grandalf 9y ago
        > "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender Has there not been a very profound anti-Uber bandwagon effect going on? Several incidents snowballing into a major backlash? I think there is some sort of organized labor sponsorship of a smear campaign, fwiw. > I don't think there are overall benefits I'm curious how you reach this conclusion. Is it as a consumer, comparing Uber to traditional taxi offerings in your area? Or based on some other viewpoint? > I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation I think innovation is the wrong word as well. Uber is a political and economic achievement of breaking a very entrenched system that had oppressed many people so that a small number could extract profits at the expense of society as as a whole. > democracy and the rule of law are ... important Absolutely. I view corrupt laws and crony capitalism as antithetical to the rule of law even if the laws which happen to be on the books support specific arrangements. The taxi market was a golden goose being plucked by corrupt officials and a small number of fat cat owners at the expense of everyone else. These sorts of crony/entrenched arrangements are a form of organized crime, as are the regulators who enforce unfair laws meant to funnel money into the coffers of specific crony firms. > my version of this being fun is being understood. I think I understand your points. But I'm not sure how you weigh your various points against each other in terms of their influence on your overall view. I don't disagree with any of them outright, but I think you weigh literal compliance with law too highly. Also, on the subject of Uber's corporate culture, Uber has been punished significantly already for the revelations about its culture. As much as I admire Uber's accomplishments, I would very likely not want to work there. One time I got a coding quiz easter egg in the Uber app and scored well and was invited to apply, but after what I've heard I would be unlikely to consider it, since I personally view the tolerance of sexual harassment behavior by companies to be one of the biggest indicators of larger culture problems and a "law of the jungle" environment where social dominance trumps merit when it comes to how decisions are made.

grandalf 9y ago

> for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true It is :) > If Uber's big innovation was being able to order a car via an app That's like saying that it would be trivial to set up a rival to the post office or a rival airline industry. > its neither that protectable or even all that innovative Correct, which is why the medallion industry had to get in bed with local politicians to protect itself. Once this was in place (the protection) innovation was irrelevant as anyone who has ridden in a medallion cab pre-Uber can attest. > Given that each of Uber's rides is significantly subsidized by VCs, it remains unclear if such a service could ever be profitable. Are you expressing doubt about whether people will need taxi style transit? I'd say it's one of the most proven business models in the world. The "subsidy" you mention allows Uber to grow more quickly than it otherwise would, but late stage investors are not stupid and would not pour money in if the economics were not sound. I don't actually care whether Uber ends up profitable in the long term or not. I'm not an investor, though I am a happy customer. But I do want a fair fight, and the DOJ picking on Uber is a major misallocation of resources. > Are you suggesting that no matter what Uber & its execs do, folks are supposed to be loyal to Uber Not at all. I myself am not "loyal". A few months ago I made a post on HN in which I reached the conclusion that Travis probably ought to go. But making that argument does not mean I don't have tremendous respect for the company he built and the obstacles he overcame to make it happen. Travis is clearly an amazingly talented person who seems to have some blind spots as a manager. But let's not pretend someone like Eric Schmidt would ever start a company like Uber. Seasoned, wise managers are relevant when a company has generally plateaued. This does not justify the harm caused by bad HR practices and poor judgment in dealing with the treatment of women at Uber, but let's not forget that one of the problematic hires (perhaps scapegoats) at Uber had come from Schmidt's google where he'd had many years of success but had not disclosed the disciplinary circumstances of his departure from Google. > Uber disappeared, do you really think their competitors would suddenly stop using apps This is farfetched, and not what I was arguing. My point is that Uber came up with a way to fight against one of the most entrenched industries in the world and win. This is generally what startups are supposed to do... create Schumpeterian growth which leaves a trail of destruction of the old edifices of power. It may be that Uber simply won the first round of battles but that the war will eventually be won by the cronies and insiders who cozy up to local politicians and held the taxi industry hostage for so long. They have not given up easily. In some cities they are still strong and don't plan to go anywhere. Before you decide to jump on the bandwagon against Uber, think about the many areas of life in which entrenched and backward systems oppress us and hold back progress. You are helping them drag us back into the darkness.

gotothedoctor 9y ago
It seems we disagree on too many facts. Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it. Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the same cars are already and would still be available on Lyft & the taxi co's apps. And only time'll tell whether Uber matters.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > so be it. No offense was meant by my phrasing, FYI. > Thankfully we have choices Yes we do. I think we likely agree on the overall benefits of Uber, but you are more inclined to focus on Lyft as a better instantiation of the idea and I'm just sort of defending Uber because it's fun to do so when everyone hates it.
  - gotothedoctor 9y ago
    I'm not offended; its just the opposite of persuasive. And "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender: if that's how you understood my reply, we're unlikely to understand each other & its not worth the effort to be clear. I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits. As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important. At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      > "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender Has there not been a very profound anti-Uber bandwagon effect going on? Several incidents snowballing into a major backlash? I think there is some sort of organized labor sponsorship of a smear campaign, fwiw. > I don't think there are overall benefits I'm curious how you reach this conclusion. Is it as a consumer, comparing Uber to traditional taxi offerings in your area? Or based on some other viewpoint? > I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation I think innovation is the wrong word as well. Uber is a political and economic achievement of breaking a very entrenched system that had oppressed many people so that a small number could extract profits at the expense of society as as a whole. > democracy and the rule of law are ... important Absolutely. I view corrupt laws and crony capitalism as antithetical to the rule of law even if the laws which happen to be on the books support specific arrangements. The taxi market was a golden goose being plucked by corrupt officials and a small number of fat cat owners at the expense of everyone else. These sorts of crony/entrenched arrangements are a form of organized crime, as are the regulators who enforce unfair laws meant to funnel money into the coffers of specific crony firms. > my version of this being fun is being understood. I think I understand your points. But I'm not sure how you weigh your various points against each other in terms of their influence on your overall view. I don't disagree with any of them outright, but I think you weigh literal compliance with law too highly. Also, on the subject of Uber's corporate culture, Uber has been punished significantly already for the revelations about its culture. As much as I admire Uber's accomplishments, I would very likely not want to work there. One time I got a coding quiz easter egg in the Uber app and scored well and was invited to apply, but after what I've heard I would be unlikely to consider it, since I personally view the tolerance of sexual harassment behavior by companies to be one of the biggest indicators of larger culture problems and a "law of the jungle" environment where social dominance trumps merit when it comes to how decisions are made.