5 ms·

Well, technically it did. Investors, i.e. the capital, pressured him out.

CalChris 9y ago
capitalism -- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. So you are saying that the investors, i.e. the capital, pressured Kalanick out for reasons of profit rather than due to pressure by the state in the form of multiple lawsuits. You are mistaken. In particular, there is no evidence that Uber's naughty bro culture is any less profitable than a mature egalitarian culture. Lack of profit wasn't why Kalanick was shown the door.
- tw04 9y ago
  I would imagine they've seen a revenue decline from all the bad press. Furthermore, there's no way he wasn't directly involved in the Otto lawsuit, which isn't the governments doing.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    According to recent reporting in Bloomberg, there was a temporary dip in market share due to the #deleteuber campaign, which has since recovered. Both companies have grown considerably over that time period. Lyft's ridesharing growth in the U.S. has been much higher than Uber's. The Waymo lawsuit is still very much up in the air. Kalanick's involvement is already public: he collaborated with Levandowski to acquire a team of self-driving-car engineers and their work over 8 months. The key demands of the Waymo legal team were rejected in their injunction. Judge Alsop did not see a clear nexus between the Waymo designs and the Uber lidar, referring the matter to trial.
    - tw04 9y ago
      >According to recent reporting in Bloomberg, there was a temporary dip in market share due to the #deleteuber campaign, which has since recovered. Based on what? Uber isn't public, they aren't forced to release any information on their ride sharing, and what info they do release isn't subjected to any real verification. The only article I see is based on "number of app downloads" - that has literally no relevance in the number of rides they're servicing. I've got Uber on my phone and I haven't used it in 3 months and I don't see that changing anytime soon. They didn't lose me outright as a user, but they, for all intents and purposes, lost my business.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        The article had some numbers leaked from Uber. It should surprise you when some information isn't public these days, considering the volume of leaks from that company.
- lettergram 9y ago
  I think you're conflating the issue. When Capitalism is practiced you can still have laws... The industry is still controlled by private owners.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    I'm actually separating the issues rather than conflating them. Capitalism by itself looks at profit. In the United States capitalism is held in check by a legal+political+free speech system. A company (Uber) is not held in check by more capitalism; it is not held in check by competition. As an aside, this breaks down with regulatory capture. When VW cheated on its emissions testing it was not checked by a more efficient and competitive Tesla. It was held to account by a legal system external of capitalism.
    - mbesto 9y ago
      > It was held to account by a legal system external of capitalism. And Travis was not held accountable by a legal system - his investors (i.e. capital) asked him to step down. I think we're all saying the same thing, it's just your conclusion is incorrect.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        We are not saying the same thing. His investors asked him to step down for a reason and that reason was not profit or rather lack thereof; they've had ample profit reason to fire him for years. The reason the Uber board asked him to leave was not a capitalist reason.
        mbesto 9y ago
        > His investors asked him to step down for a reason Which reason would that be? Which reason is there for a investor to ask a CEO to step other than to protect his/her investment?
        deong 9y ago
        I'm not sure why you seem to deny the possibility that capitalists are concerned with future profits as well as past ones. You say their reason was not lack of profit, based I guess on the fact that they haven't suffered any major setback beyond their normal lack of profitability in the past couple of quarters. That's an oddly restrictive definition. Capitalism is about future profits, by definition. I can't invest money in Apple in 1997. I have to invest it today, and my only concern is what happens after that investment. The Uber boarding kicking him out is entirely a capitalist reason. They've invested money, and his presence will (they believe at least) negatively affect the return on that investment going forward.
- jklein11 9y ago
  I have not been keeping up with the news surrounding Kalanick or Uber, so this is an honest questions. Did the courts say that Kalanick is barred from being the CEO of Uber? Or, is it the case that Kalanick's actions have put Uber at risk fines and further litagation? My (admittedly uninformed) take on the situation is that Uber's investors weighed the costs and benefits and determined that Kalanick needed to go. While the regulatory environment probably influenced the decision, it wasn't the government calling the shots.

capitalism -- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. So you are saying that the investors, i.e. the capital, pressured Kalanick out for reasons of profit rather than due to pressure by the state in the form of multiple lawsuits. You are mistaken. In particular, there is no evidence that Uber's naughty bro culture is any less profitable than a mature egalitarian culture. Lack of profit wasn't why Kalanick was shown the door.

tw04 9y ago
I would imagine they've seen a revenue decline from all the bad press. Furthermore, there's no way he wasn't directly involved in the Otto lawsuit, which isn't the governments doing.
- linkregister 9y ago
  According to recent reporting in Bloomberg, there was a temporary dip in market share due to the #deleteuber campaign, which has since recovered. Both companies have grown considerably over that time period. Lyft's ridesharing growth in the U.S. has been much higher than Uber's. The Waymo lawsuit is still very much up in the air. Kalanick's involvement is already public: he collaborated with Levandowski to acquire a team of self-driving-car engineers and their work over 8 months. The key demands of the Waymo legal team were rejected in their injunction. Judge Alsop did not see a clear nexus between the Waymo designs and the Uber lidar, referring the matter to trial.
  - tw04 9y ago
    >According to recent reporting in Bloomberg, there was a temporary dip in market share due to the #deleteuber campaign, which has since recovered. Based on what? Uber isn't public, they aren't forced to release any information on their ride sharing, and what info they do release isn't subjected to any real verification. The only article I see is based on "number of app downloads" - that has literally no relevance in the number of rides they're servicing. I've got Uber on my phone and I haven't used it in 3 months and I don't see that changing anytime soon. They didn't lose me outright as a user, but they, for all intents and purposes, lost my business.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      The article had some numbers leaked from Uber. It should surprise you when some information isn't public these days, considering the volume of leaks from that company.
lettergram 9y ago
I think you're conflating the issue. When Capitalism is practiced you can still have laws... The industry is still controlled by private owners.
- CalChris 9y ago
  I'm actually separating the issues rather than conflating them. Capitalism by itself looks at profit. In the United States capitalism is held in check by a legal+political+free speech system. A company (Uber) is not held in check by more capitalism; it is not held in check by competition. As an aside, this breaks down with regulatory capture. When VW cheated on its emissions testing it was not checked by a more efficient and competitive Tesla. It was held to account by a legal system external of capitalism.
  - mbesto 9y ago
    > It was held to account by a legal system external of capitalism. And Travis was not held accountable by a legal system - his investors (i.e. capital) asked him to step down. I think we're all saying the same thing, it's just your conclusion is incorrect.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      We are not saying the same thing. His investors asked him to step down for a reason and that reason was not profit or rather lack thereof; they've had ample profit reason to fire him for years. The reason the Uber board asked him to leave was not a capitalist reason.
      - mbesto 9y ago
        > His investors asked him to step down for a reason Which reason would that be? Which reason is there for a investor to ask a CEO to step other than to protect his/her investment?
      - deong 9y ago
        I'm not sure why you seem to deny the possibility that capitalists are concerned with future profits as well as past ones. You say their reason was not lack of profit, based I guess on the fact that they haven't suffered any major setback beyond their normal lack of profitability in the past couple of quarters. That's an oddly restrictive definition. Capitalism is about future profits, by definition. I can't invest money in Apple in 1997. I have to invest it today, and my only concern is what happens after that investment. The Uber boarding kicking him out is entirely a capitalist reason. They've invested money, and his presence will (they believe at least) negatively affect the return on that investment going forward.
jklein11 9y ago
I have not been keeping up with the news surrounding Kalanick or Uber, so this is an honest questions. Did the courts say that Kalanick is barred from being the CEO of Uber? Or, is it the case that Kalanick's actions have put Uber at risk fines and further litagation? My (admittedly uninformed) take on the situation is that Uber's investors weighed the costs and benefits and determined that Kalanick needed to go. While the regulatory environment probably influenced the decision, it wasn't the government calling the shots.