5 ms·

Travis Kalanick reportedly sought to reassert control at Uber after ouster

67 points by mgiannopoulos 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Uber essentially was illegal and still is in many places, cab license and all. It needed to get so big, so fast to make it a fact. A typical Harvard MBA with a suit and tie would have failed. IMO they still need a guy willing to break the rules
flunhat 9y ago
I've found this video from 2011 to be kind of interesting in terms of illuminating how his history as an entrepreneur has shaped his attitude running Uber today (TL;DR - he failed and got screwed over a lot). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico
- x0x0 9y ago
  video summary Scout * preyed on by predatory vcs (sued by first vc to improve terms even after LOI expired; vc leaked lawsuit to WSJ to scare off other investors) Red Swoosh * cofounder tried to sell team behind his back; * team went without pay for multiple months * cofounder fucked up and didn't pay witholding taxes to IRS (NB: IRS can and will personally pursue officers of the company) * nearly went out of business multiple times * last eng quit via twitter / AOL saw this and spiked a deal * got a 4-way deal (worth watching at about 25:00 or so) * acquired by akamai for $23m It's worth watching
the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
Uber will be a very interesting company to look back in 20 years I feel. There are a lot of lessons in there, but not sure which ones yet.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
Is there any evidence that kicking Kalanick helped Uber?
- geofft 9y ago
  I am trying to determine what evidence I would expect to find after 47 days to either support or oppose this hypothesis. Since it's a privately owned company, we don't have a lot of detail about either stock performance or revenue / profit, and even so, I'm not sure that you'd be able to attribute changes on this timeframe (either for the better or for the worse) to Kalanick leaving. On the other hand, since it's privately held, arguably what helps Uber is that its investors (owners) are happy with it, and they requested that he leave. So, yes?
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Kalanick is the majority owner, so maybe he'll come back on board. The reason I ask is because I've heard that companies that kick their founders generally fail. I'm not sure how true that is, but people on HN said it was common during the bubble. It could be true that 2017 is different, that times have changed and that to win Uber needs to move forward without Kalanick. But the employees generally felt that he was doing a good job. All in all, it's a confusing situation.
    - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
      > The reason I ask is because I've heard that companies that kick their founders generally fail. Possibly because that companies that are so screwed up internally that they have to kick their founder out are destined to fail. And kicking the founder out doesn't change their course enough to fix it.
      - DrScump 9y ago
        companies that kick their founders generally fail Don't companies "generally fail" on average, period? (>50%)
colbyh 9y ago
For better or worse I think there are quote a few Uber employees that will support this move if it happens. The number of employees publicly speaking out for Travis is just the tip of the iceberg. Case in point - a female friend just completed a round of interviews there and was shocked to find that multiple interviewers openly commented about how badly they wanted Travis back, and how the sexism scandal was overblown. All male employees I should point out.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Perhaps Uber employees are willing to buy out investors holding grossly overvalued Uber stock if they believe in Travis more than Uber's board does. It's easy to hold an opinion when it's other people's money.
  - colbyh 9y ago
    I think this is a great idea actually. They wouldn't be able to put together very much in the grand scheme of things (even 100 M raised from employees wouldn't even give them a point on the cap table) but it would be a strong signal at least.
  - 19890309 9y ago
    > It's easy to hold an opinion when it's other people's money. Is this is the only metric to warrant having an opinion?! Every stakeholder has a right to speak their mind. For the employees, they may not have the money to buy into the business but they do so via sweat equity (effort + time + risk). Your attempt to trivialize their involvement amounts to nonsense for these reasons.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  And they were clueless enough to say this to a female interviewee? Yikes! I hope she finds another opportunity :-(
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
happy-go-lucky 9y ago
Uber must be his brainchild. Let him take care of it. Give him one more chance.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  How many chances do you think he should be given?" Frequently implied answer: "I don't really know but i feel it should be one more than the number of chances he's already been given and blown." Not necessarily saying that's your opinion - it just aligns with other conversations I've had.
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    It's his company (literally, he owns the majority of stock), so I think the answer is "as many chances as he damn well pleases."
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      The majority as in 12%? It's not his company.
      - Tinyyy 9y ago
        He owns shares with 10x votes, and thus the majority of the voting rights.
        kgwgk 9y ago
        But that is not exactly the same as owning the majority of the shares or owning the company.
Animats 9y ago
Uber needs a CEO who can maintain the reality-distortion field. Otherwise, the valuation will collapse and they'll have trouble getting new investors.
- therebedragons 9y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. A significant play in the startup playbook is: 1. Double Revenue in X period. 2. Add 50% to costs in same X period. 3. Raise enough money that the money in the bank is greater than the losses while (Revenue X 2) < (Costs X 1.5). No matter the starting point, as long as the runway is long enough, Revenue X 2 will eventually eclipse Costs X 1.5. Heck, even if it slows, as long as the Revenue X is greater than the Costs X, revenue will eventually exceed costs. The "leaked" financials bare out that this play, and I think Uber is a lot closer to breakeven than people seem to think, as long as than can 2X revenue. That's simply selling investors on maths, and doesn't require a lot of distortion .
kyrre 9y ago
you can't keep a good man down
sjg007 9y ago
Doesn't he have the majority of stock? Can't he just make it so?
smithsmith 9y ago
Like it or not, only the founder cares about the company. So the founders attitude should be forced to change and not change the founder itself. If Uber brings Meg Whitman then she will do the same what she did to HP. Split in to multiple pieces (HPE, e.t.c) and then sell em all, because only the founder cares.

67 points by mgiannopoulos 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Uber essentially was illegal and still is in many places, cab license and all. It needed to get so big, so fast to make it a fact. A typical Harvard MBA with a suit and tie would have failed. IMO they still need a guy willing to break the rules

flunhat 9y ago

I've found this video from 2011 to be kind of interesting in terms of illuminating how his history as an entrepreneur has shaped his attitude running Uber today (TL;DR - he failed and got screwed over a lot). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico

x0x0 9y ago
video summary Scout * preyed on by predatory vcs (sued by first vc to improve terms even after LOI expired; vc leaked lawsuit to WSJ to scare off other investors) Red Swoosh * cofounder tried to sell team behind his back; * team went without pay for multiple months * cofounder fucked up and didn't pay witholding taxes to IRS (NB: IRS can and will personally pursue officers of the company) * nearly went out of business multiple times * last eng quit via twitter / AOL saw this and spiked a deal * got a 4-way deal (worth watching at about 25:00 or so) * acquired by akamai for $23m It's worth watching

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago

Uber will be a very interesting company to look back in 20 years I feel. There are a lot of lessons in there, but not sure which ones yet.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Is there any evidence that kicking Kalanick helped Uber?

geofft 9y ago
I am trying to determine what evidence I would expect to find after 47 days to either support or oppose this hypothesis. Since it's a privately owned company, we don't have a lot of detail about either stock performance or revenue / profit, and even so, I'm not sure that you'd be able to attribute changes on this timeframe (either for the better or for the worse) to Kalanick leaving. On the other hand, since it's privately held, arguably what helps Uber is that its investors (owners) are happy with it, and they requested that he leave. So, yes?
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Kalanick is the majority owner, so maybe he'll come back on board. The reason I ask is because I've heard that companies that kick their founders generally fail. I'm not sure how true that is, but people on HN said it was common during the bubble. It could be true that 2017 is different, that times have changed and that to win Uber needs to move forward without Kalanick. But the employees generally felt that he was doing a good job. All in all, it's a confusing situation.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    > The reason I ask is because I've heard that companies that kick their founders generally fail. Possibly because that companies that are so screwed up internally that they have to kick their founder out are destined to fail. And kicking the founder out doesn't change their course enough to fix it.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      companies that kick their founders generally fail Don't companies "generally fail" on average, period? (>50%)

colbyh 9y ago

For better or worse I think there are quote a few Uber employees that will support this move if it happens. The number of employees publicly speaking out for Travis is just the tip of the iceberg. Case in point - a female friend just completed a round of interviews there and was shocked to find that multiple interviewers openly commented about how badly they wanted Travis back, and how the sexism scandal was overblown. All male employees I should point out.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Perhaps Uber employees are willing to buy out investors holding grossly overvalued Uber stock if they believe in Travis more than Uber's board does. It's easy to hold an opinion when it's other people's money.
- colbyh 9y ago
  I think this is a great idea actually. They wouldn't be able to put together very much in the grand scheme of things (even 100 M raised from employees wouldn't even give them a point on the cap table) but it would be a strong signal at least.
- 19890309 9y ago
  > It's easy to hold an opinion when it's other people's money. Is this is the only metric to warrant having an opinion?! Every stakeholder has a right to speak their mind. For the employees, they may not have the money to buy into the business but they do so via sweat equity (effort + time + risk). Your attempt to trivialize their involvement amounts to nonsense for these reasons.
ScottBurson 9y ago
And they were clueless enough to say this to a female interviewee? Yikes! I hope she finds another opportunity :-(
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

happy-go-lucky 9y ago

Uber must be his brainchild. Let him take care of it. Give him one more chance.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
How many chances do you think he should be given?" Frequently implied answer: "I don't really know but i feel it should be one more than the number of chances he's already been given and blown." Not necessarily saying that's your opinion - it just aligns with other conversations I've had.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  It's his company (literally, he owns the majority of stock), so I think the answer is "as many chances as he damn well pleases."
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    The majority as in 12%? It's not his company.
    - Tinyyy 9y ago
      He owns shares with 10x votes, and thus the majority of the voting rights.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        But that is not exactly the same as owning the majority of the shares or owning the company.

Animats 9y ago

Uber needs a CEO who can maintain the reality-distortion field. Otherwise, the valuation will collapse and they'll have trouble getting new investors.

therebedragons 9y ago
I'm not sure I agree. A significant play in the startup playbook is: 1. Double Revenue in X period. 2. Add 50% to costs in same X period. 3. Raise enough money that the money in the bank is greater than the losses while (Revenue X 2) < (Costs X 1.5). No matter the starting point, as long as the runway is long enough, Revenue X 2 will eventually eclipse Costs X 1.5. Heck, even if it slows, as long as the Revenue X is greater than the Costs X, revenue will eventually exceed costs. The "leaked" financials bare out that this play, and I think Uber is a lot closer to breakeven than people seem to think, as long as than can 2X revenue. That's simply selling investors on maths, and doesn't require a lot of distortion .

kyrre 9y ago

you can't keep a good man down

sjg007 9y ago

Doesn't he have the majority of stock? Can't he just make it so?

smithsmith 9y ago

Like it or not, only the founder cares about the company. So the founders attitude should be forced to change and not change the founder itself. If Uber brings Meg Whitman then she will do the same what she did to HP. Split in to multiple pieces (HPE, e.t.c) and then sell em all, because only the founder cares.