6 ms·

Any insight on why his failures innovating at GE that caused him to resign aren't a red flag for an innovative company like Uber? Just because they're looking f

Any insight on why his failures innovating at GE that caused him to resign aren't a red flag for an innovative company like Uber? Just because they're looking for a grown up?

OzzyB 9y ago
Hush now the money men are in charge, it's time for grown ups to run things. Like that Pepsi guy that ran Apple (into the ground).
- pocketsquare2 9y ago
  John Sculley. "Jeff [Immelt], do you want to sell planned-obsolescence dryers and weather derivatives the rest of your life?"
- valuearb 9y ago
  The parallels are actually pretty interesting. You can argue that Sculley saved Apple. At the time Jobs was a terrible leader and manager, and he had way over-forecast Macintosh sales. And because of it, Apple was hemorrhaging. After booting Jobs, Sculley cut head-count, refocused Apple on it's bread and butter product, the Apple II and led Apple to a massive turnaround. Sculley did so well he lasted 10 years as CEO. Uber is a company that was a great idea, got off to a great start, but then management started to constantly sabotage themselves. Travis has acted as irrationally as Jobs 1.0 did. Bringing in a Sculley type is exactly the type of leader they need now. Clean out all the dumb side business ideas, refocus on the car sharing service, and work hard to rebuild it's brand. Ten years from now they might need someone more creative (and Immelt is so old there is no way he's going to run it for that long). But right now they need to survive and get back on track.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tootie 9y ago
Uber is an international brand for taxis. I'm not even sure why they are considered a tech company.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- moxious 9y ago
  This always blew my mind: a smartphone app for a cab company that doesn't even own any cabs raised $16 billion. It simply can't be that they spent even a small fraction of that writing software, smartphone apps just aren't that expensive. But they've got one helluva marketing engine and investor relations group... That, and a lot of their money is buying market share, effectively subsidizing people's rides. I've never understood how that's going to work, beyond vague handwavey arguments about potential future driverless cabs and other complex arguments that don't seem backed by data.
  - origami777 9y ago
    I think the lesson here is that kickstarting new markets (entering new countries) is not easy. They basically have a local or regional team that needs to find a way to drive user adoption. They also spend a lot of money on promotions to change user and driver behavior. IMO it doesn't do them just when we say "it's just an app". It's a complex operation that they've simplified to appear as that way.
    - moxious 9y ago
      It's fine to spend money driving a new market but you eventually have to capitalize on it. How will that work? Large price increases, or just betting that driverless tech will eliminate costs and get them to profitability? Also, they already have substantial scale. When would one reasonably expect them to stop losing so much money?
      - fstuff 9y ago
        Just take a look at Didi. They won the market in China and now prices are up, driven incentive pay is cut, wait times are up because drivers are leaving the platform because pay is down. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/14/didi-china-users-prices/%3fsource=dam https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/1...
valuearb 9y ago
Because they desperately need a grown up. Uber doesn't need to be innovative, it needs to execute without continuing to shooting off it's toes.
- revelation 9y ago
  What exactly does it need to execute on? It's valued at $60B and is losing money with every. single. fricking. ride. It doesn't need someone to "execute" some sort of plan, it needs a miracle only innovation can provide.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    What it needs is a time machine to bring the necessary automotive tech back from 2050.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    It needs to re-focus on it's core ride-sharing business and substantially reduce it's burn rate. There is little doubt that ride-sharing will be a massively profitable business, they get paid dollars per ride and their booking costs should only be pennies. The myth that their rides are unprofitable is because they spend money like drunken sailors in a whorehouse. Anyone analyzing their financials has no insight into whether ride sharing is profitable in the US, or other countries because the needed information is not broken out in those reports They have up to 100 side businesses like UberEats. They've spent a ton trying to design autonomous vehicles they don't need now and likely never will need (given they'll be freely available for purchase from Tesla, GM, etc when created). Lastly, they spend huge amounts opening new markets, basically paying drivers to sign up with such lucrative bonuses that Uber gets scammed constantly by them. The plan is pretty simple 1) Kill almost every side business, and do a substantial headcount reduction. 2) Dump the autonomous driving development group and cheaply settle the Waymo lawsuit. 3) Focus everyone left on ride-sharing, improving the brand, and efficiently expanding internationally. 4) Clean house in the HR department and of every remaining harasser. 5) Raise another round to ensure Uber's long term financial stability. Thats a plan that gives Uber a very long runway to achieve full profitability, even without an IPO.

Any insight on why his failures innovating at GE that caused him to resign aren't a red flag for an innovative company like Uber? Just because they're looking for a grown up?

OzzyB 9y ago

Hush now the money men are in charge, it's time for grown ups to run things. Like that Pepsi guy that ran Apple (into the ground).

pocketsquare2 9y ago
John Sculley. "Jeff [Immelt], do you want to sell planned-obsolescence dryers and weather derivatives the rest of your life?"
valuearb 9y ago
The parallels are actually pretty interesting. You can argue that Sculley saved Apple. At the time Jobs was a terrible leader and manager, and he had way over-forecast Macintosh sales. And because of it, Apple was hemorrhaging. After booting Jobs, Sculley cut head-count, refocused Apple on it's bread and butter product, the Apple II and led Apple to a massive turnaround. Sculley did so well he lasted 10 years as CEO. Uber is a company that was a great idea, got off to a great start, but then management started to constantly sabotage themselves. Travis has acted as irrationally as Jobs 1.0 did. Bringing in a Sculley type is exactly the type of leader they need now. Clean out all the dumb side business ideas, refocus on the car sharing service, and work hard to rebuild it's brand. Ten years from now they might need someone more creative (and Immelt is so old there is no way he's going to run it for that long). But right now they need to survive and get back on track.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tootie 9y ago

Uber is an international brand for taxis. I'm not even sure why they are considered a tech company.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
moxious 9y ago
This always blew my mind: a smartphone app for a cab company that doesn't even own any cabs raised $16 billion. It simply can't be that they spent even a small fraction of that writing software, smartphone apps just aren't that expensive. But they've got one helluva marketing engine and investor relations group... That, and a lot of their money is buying market share, effectively subsidizing people's rides. I've never understood how that's going to work, beyond vague handwavey arguments about potential future driverless cabs and other complex arguments that don't seem backed by data.
- origami777 9y ago
  I think the lesson here is that kickstarting new markets (entering new countries) is not easy. They basically have a local or regional team that needs to find a way to drive user adoption. They also spend a lot of money on promotions to change user and driver behavior. IMO it doesn't do them just when we say "it's just an app". It's a complex operation that they've simplified to appear as that way.
  - moxious 9y ago
    It's fine to spend money driving a new market but you eventually have to capitalize on it. How will that work? Large price increases, or just betting that driverless tech will eliminate costs and get them to profitability? Also, they already have substantial scale. When would one reasonably expect them to stop losing so much money?
    - fstuff 9y ago
      Just take a look at Didi. They won the market in China and now prices are up, driven incentive pay is cut, wait times are up because drivers are leaving the platform because pay is down. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/14/didi-china-users-prices/%3fsource=dam https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/1...

valuearb 9y ago

Because they desperately need a grown up. Uber doesn't need to be innovative, it needs to execute without continuing to shooting off it's toes.

revelation 9y ago
What exactly does it need to execute on? It's valued at $60B and is losing money with every. single. fricking. ride. It doesn't need someone to "execute" some sort of plan, it needs a miracle only innovation can provide.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  What it needs is a time machine to bring the necessary automotive tech back from 2050.
- valuearb 9y ago
  It needs to re-focus on it's core ride-sharing business and substantially reduce it's burn rate. There is little doubt that ride-sharing will be a massively profitable business, they get paid dollars per ride and their booking costs should only be pennies. The myth that their rides are unprofitable is because they spend money like drunken sailors in a whorehouse. Anyone analyzing their financials has no insight into whether ride sharing is profitable in the US, or other countries because the needed information is not broken out in those reports They have up to 100 side businesses like UberEats. They've spent a ton trying to design autonomous vehicles they don't need now and likely never will need (given they'll be freely available for purchase from Tesla, GM, etc when created). Lastly, they spend huge amounts opening new markets, basically paying drivers to sign up with such lucrative bonuses that Uber gets scammed constantly by them. The plan is pretty simple 1) Kill almost every side business, and do a substantial headcount reduction. 2) Dump the autonomous driving development group and cheaply settle the Waymo lawsuit. 3) Focus everyone left on ride-sharing, improving the brand, and efficiently expanding internationally. 4) Clean house in the HR department and of every remaining harasser. 5) Raise another round to ensure Uber's long term financial stability. Thats a plan that gives Uber a very long runway to achieve full profitability, even without an IPO.