15 ms·

That article is a bit biased, especially given that it ignores that not only has GE has paid out around $15 in dividends since Immelt took over, and that GE sto

That article is a bit biased, especially given that it ignores that not only has GE has paid out around $15 in dividends since Immelt took over, and that GE stock was in a huge bubble at the time. Uber doesn't need tech leadership, it needs adult leadership. It's wounds are all entirely self inflicted.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
origami777 9y ago
To really dispute GP's claim you'd need to make a claim that GE has innovated in new categories under Immelt. The fact it paid out $15 in dividends might only support GP's (and the Forbes article) claim that Immelt has optimized for better selling what currently exists. This is the same thing that happened to MSFT under Ballmer. MSFT stocked performed well, but they missed the biggest opportunity of the post-PC era (mobile), were late to the cloud game, and probably missed some other opportunities I can't think of.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Every company doesn't need to innovate, sometimes just running the business well is the best strategy. Warren Buffett's entire massive track record is based on companies that do little innovation. And it's a strategy Uber desperately needs.
  - ncantelmo 9y ago
    I really don't believe this is true for tech companies at all. A decade ago, I had a front-row seat for Yahoo! under the stewardship of CEOs brought in to run the business well. The focus was not on innovation, and the company continued to languish. Why? Because tech companies that don't innovate get their lunches eaten by the ones that do. As for Buffett, I'm no expert on his portfolio, but I believe his track record was built on non-tech companies until very recently.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      Uber as far as I'm concerned isn't really a tech company - its a logistics company existing under tech company rules - in essence its a freight broker for human 'freight' - how it connects with its customers is irrelevant to what kind of company it is. In short, you're providing short term contracts between a consignor (the passenger) to transport an object (the passenger) between two known end points, by an independent contractor. Uber provides the infrastructure to make this happen, and takes a cut of the revenue from the shipment. If you wouldn't call JB Hunt a tech company, you shouldn't call Uber one. (The research into autonomous cars is not really central to their current core business model - and assuming the technology is successfully developed - their entire business model would change - they'd also need a massive capitalization to purchase a fleet of self driving cars when it does.)
      - bsaul 9y ago
        "how it connects with its customers is irrelevant to what kind of company it is" This is a pretty bold claim. The fact that it's instant, and that it geolocalize every party involved thanks to a mobile app, and that every part of the process is fully automated is what makes uber something different from a regular cab company. To reduce uber to its high level functions abstracting away the technical details and implementation is i think one of the big mistakes business people make in general. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of reasoning is what business CEO show in their slides before they take the decisions that completely screw the tech companies they're leading.
      - nopinsight 9y ago
        Uber is aggressively pursuing self-driving cars as we can observe from their massive investments to acquire Otto and other AI startups, and to set up labs filled with experienced robotics and AI researchers in the US and Canada. Once autonomous vehicles become practical, it is almost imperative for Uber to own the critical technology to be competitive in their current businesses.
        davidcbc 9y ago
        First Uber has to survive for the next 5-10 years until autonomous vehicles become practical at the scale required for them to replace their drivers.
  - origami777 9y ago
    There are certain industries and companies that you do really need to continue to innovate. If your product is a technology innovation, it has a life span. Eventually, something will replace it. History has proven this over and over again. At this point of time, Uber is an excellent example. There is an innovation on the horizon that will completely change the taxi industry; autonomous vehicles. It's not a secret either. It's an inevitable future. The date of realization? No one knows, but we can see it's coming. Now, should Uber optimize on it's current product set and optimize until they are profitable on every ride? Or should they balance some part of that, with innovating on the future of autonomous vehicles? Travis seems to be working towards the big vision of driverless cars. What would Jeff do? Fun stuff to think about :)
    - new299 9y ago
      "It's an inevitable future"? I'm assuming you mean it's something that will happen within the next 50 years? I just don't get how this isn't a super-hard social/political issue that we haven't even begun to address as a society. Maybe spending significant resources on this now, is not optimal.
      - fastball 9y ago
        How are driverless cars a huge social issue?
        Denvercoder9 9y ago
        They'll put millions of people out of their jobs.
        new299 9y ago
        * Who will be liable when a self-driving car hits someone. * Will people, on mass, accept being driven around by a machines, on public roads. * How will they deal with "trolley problem" type ethical scenarios? How will these decisions be made. * How will self-driving cars cope with rural roads (where they are arguably MORE useful than in Urban settings better served by public transport)? * How will they cope with signs/marking intentionally designed to fool machine vision systems. Who will be liable for accidents caused in these cases? There are other issues too. However, overall, I think with some infrastructure investment we could have had self-driving cars since the late 90s early 2000s and there have been many prototypes. It's the ethical/social issues that are the bigger barrier in my mind.
  - zachlatta 9y ago
    wat. Uber doesn't need to innovate? That is literally the premise of their entire business.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      The premise of their business is ride-sharing. It was once innovative. Going forward they have to execute, not innovate.
      - zachlatta 9y ago
        What's all that funding for? Ride sharing? If you look deeper, the premise of their business is to take over all of transportation. Not just ride sharing. Taking over transportation needs innovation. If their premise was just ride sharing, their funding and priorities would be very different.
        valuearb 9y ago
        Most of that funding was from really dumb investors (Saudi Royal Family) who paid a really dumb price. The new CEO shouldn't give a crap what late stage investors think Uber should be, he should focus on what Uber actually can be. It could never take over all of transportation. It's burning billions every year just trying to build out ride-sharing.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - kristianc 9y ago
    > Every company doesn't need to innovate, sometimes just running the business well is the best strategy. Warren Buffett's entire massive track record is based on companies that do little innovation. And it's a strategy Uber desperately needs. Uber absolutely does need to innovate. Its business model up to this point has been operating at below cost to suck the life out of the competition so that they can reap the massive network effects when they have driverless cars they can reap the profits. They can't run their business like a mature low-growth software business where the name of the game is to milk profits and license revenue, because they have no profits and license revenue to milk. Their current business model of subsidizing fares with VC cash is not a sustainable one, so they need a visionary CEO who can get them to driverless cars. Once they have driverless cars, then they'll be the kind of mature, milk the revenue stream business that Buffett tends to invest in (and then, they'll need the 'keep the business ticking over' CEO too). But Uber is not Geico yet.
    - davidcbc 9y ago
      Betting the house on perfecting driverless cars before they run out of money has always been a fools errand. If Uber is lucky Immelt will find another path to profitability.
      - late2part 9y ago
        Here's all that Uber has to do to succeed: Become the quality brand they started as. Charge more than Lyfy and Taxis because they have higher standard. Immelt can make that happen with process and measurement. Uber's tech will allow them to monetize data, and show customers their value is better. Better response times, better service, shorter faster trips, etc. That's how they can win. Trying to be cheaper than Lyft will fail miserably. Right after he's announced, he should find a buyer for 3/4 of Benchmark's shares to get them out of the conflict, and immediately appoint Travis Kalanick as Chief Vision Office, and hire Holder or someone with perceived panache as Chief of HR and put them on the board. That'd be a good deal to make with Travis - Kill Benchmark's influence by paying them to go away, trade a TK board seat for a neutral party. Win/win/win/win.
wellboy 9y ago
Uber does indeed need tech leadership as their entire premise is to segue the whole world to electric self driving cars. Their whole valuation is based on this premise, not that they replace taxis. This valuation has been botched by the recent success of Tesla, Apple, Google, GM and a few more who are developing self-driving technology. The one with the best technology will win the race and probably become the first trillion dollar company. So, in order to keep Uber competitive, you don't need to keep status quo. You need to invent probably the most meaningful technology of this century, at least of the next decades. This requires deep knowledge in tech, artificial intelligence, being able to find the right people for that, navigating the legal landscape in a.i. ethics (e.g. kill my passenger or kill the two pedestrians), motivating your employees through inspiring leadership and being able to lead your company through the next decades. Adult leadership as you called it is not it. It might conserve the company as is, but you need a lot more than that to make it succeed. Kalanick had the competitiveness and vision, however could not control his competitiveness, which lead him to build a toxic company culture. He might have succeeded in making Uber competitive to Tesla & Co. from a competition point of view, however, sooner or later the toxic culture would have made the company fold under the pressure, so the decision to replace him was a necessary one.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Their valuation never made any sense. They can never justify it. They can never win the self driving technology war. They were late to the party, they missed out on key patents. They chose a team that may have stolen technology from Waymo, exposing them to massive potential liability. Now they have to start over. Automous car technology will be freely available to everyone when it's commercially viable. Uber can't transition to that model unless it becomes far more economically successful. No one is going to give them $50B more to build out autonomous car infrastructure (cars, service, storage, parking) world-wide when they are still hemorrhaging money in their first business model. Uber doesn't need to invent squat. It has to maintain it's massive lead in drivers and installed apps. When it's customers want an autonomous car, they'll use the same app they always did.
  - wellboy 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

origami777 9y ago

To really dispute GP's claim you'd need to make a claim that GE has innovated in new categories under Immelt. The fact it paid out $15 in dividends might only support GP's (and the Forbes article) claim that Immelt has optimized for better selling what currently exists. This is the same thing that happened to MSFT under Ballmer. MSFT stocked performed well, but they missed the biggest opportunity of the post-PC era (mobile), were late to the cloud game, and probably missed some other opportunities I can't think of.

valuearb 9y ago
Every company doesn't need to innovate, sometimes just running the business well is the best strategy. Warren Buffett's entire massive track record is based on companies that do little innovation. And it's a strategy Uber desperately needs.
- ncantelmo 9y ago
  I really don't believe this is true for tech companies at all. A decade ago, I had a front-row seat for Yahoo! under the stewardship of CEOs brought in to run the business well. The focus was not on innovation, and the company continued to languish. Why? Because tech companies that don't innovate get their lunches eaten by the ones that do. As for Buffett, I'm no expert on his portfolio, but I believe his track record was built on non-tech companies until very recently.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Uber as far as I'm concerned isn't really a tech company - its a logistics company existing under tech company rules - in essence its a freight broker for human 'freight' - how it connects with its customers is irrelevant to what kind of company it is. In short, you're providing short term contracts between a consignor (the passenger) to transport an object (the passenger) between two known end points, by an independent contractor. Uber provides the infrastructure to make this happen, and takes a cut of the revenue from the shipment. If you wouldn't call JB Hunt a tech company, you shouldn't call Uber one. (The research into autonomous cars is not really central to their current core business model - and assuming the technology is successfully developed - their entire business model would change - they'd also need a massive capitalization to purchase a fleet of self driving cars when it does.)
    - bsaul 9y ago
      "how it connects with its customers is irrelevant to what kind of company it is" This is a pretty bold claim. The fact that it's instant, and that it geolocalize every party involved thanks to a mobile app, and that every part of the process is fully automated is what makes uber something different from a regular cab company. To reduce uber to its high level functions abstracting away the technical details and implementation is i think one of the big mistakes business people make in general. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of reasoning is what business CEO show in their slides before they take the decisions that completely screw the tech companies they're leading.
    - nopinsight 9y ago
      Uber is aggressively pursuing self-driving cars as we can observe from their massive investments to acquire Otto and other AI startups, and to set up labs filled with experienced robotics and AI researchers in the US and Canada. Once autonomous vehicles become practical, it is almost imperative for Uber to own the critical technology to be competitive in their current businesses.
      - davidcbc 9y ago
        First Uber has to survive for the next 5-10 years until autonomous vehicles become practical at the scale required for them to replace their drivers.
- origami777 9y ago
  There are certain industries and companies that you do really need to continue to innovate. If your product is a technology innovation, it has a life span. Eventually, something will replace it. History has proven this over and over again. At this point of time, Uber is an excellent example. There is an innovation on the horizon that will completely change the taxi industry; autonomous vehicles. It's not a secret either. It's an inevitable future. The date of realization? No one knows, but we can see it's coming. Now, should Uber optimize on it's current product set and optimize until they are profitable on every ride? Or should they balance some part of that, with innovating on the future of autonomous vehicles? Travis seems to be working towards the big vision of driverless cars. What would Jeff do? Fun stuff to think about :)
  - new299 9y ago
    "It's an inevitable future"? I'm assuming you mean it's something that will happen within the next 50 years? I just don't get how this isn't a super-hard social/political issue that we haven't even begun to address as a society. Maybe spending significant resources on this now, is not optimal.
    - fastball 9y ago
      How are driverless cars a huge social issue?
      - Denvercoder9 9y ago
        They'll put millions of people out of their jobs.
      - new299 9y ago
        * Who will be liable when a self-driving car hits someone. * Will people, on mass, accept being driven around by a machines, on public roads. * How will they deal with "trolley problem" type ethical scenarios? How will these decisions be made. * How will self-driving cars cope with rural roads (where they are arguably MORE useful than in Urban settings better served by public transport)? * How will they cope with signs/marking intentionally designed to fool machine vision systems. Who will be liable for accidents caused in these cases? There are other issues too. However, overall, I think with some infrastructure investment we could have had self-driving cars since the late 90s early 2000s and there have been many prototypes. It's the ethical/social issues that are the bigger barrier in my mind.
- zachlatta 9y ago
  wat. Uber doesn't need to innovate? That is literally the premise of their entire business.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The premise of their business is ride-sharing. It was once innovative. Going forward they have to execute, not innovate.
    - zachlatta 9y ago
      What's all that funding for? Ride sharing? If you look deeper, the premise of their business is to take over all of transportation. Not just ride sharing. Taking over transportation needs innovation. If their premise was just ride sharing, their funding and priorities would be very different.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Most of that funding was from really dumb investors (Saudi Royal Family) who paid a really dumb price. The new CEO shouldn't give a crap what late stage investors think Uber should be, he should focus on what Uber actually can be. It could never take over all of transportation. It's burning billions every year just trying to build out ride-sharing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- kristianc 9y ago
  > Every company doesn't need to innovate, sometimes just running the business well is the best strategy. Warren Buffett's entire massive track record is based on companies that do little innovation. And it's a strategy Uber desperately needs. Uber absolutely does need to innovate. Its business model up to this point has been operating at below cost to suck the life out of the competition so that they can reap the massive network effects when they have driverless cars they can reap the profits. They can't run their business like a mature low-growth software business where the name of the game is to milk profits and license revenue, because they have no profits and license revenue to milk. Their current business model of subsidizing fares with VC cash is not a sustainable one, so they need a visionary CEO who can get them to driverless cars. Once they have driverless cars, then they'll be the kind of mature, milk the revenue stream business that Buffett tends to invest in (and then, they'll need the 'keep the business ticking over' CEO too). But Uber is not Geico yet.
  - davidcbc 9y ago
    Betting the house on perfecting driverless cars before they run out of money has always been a fools errand. If Uber is lucky Immelt will find another path to profitability.
    - late2part 9y ago
      Here's all that Uber has to do to succeed: Become the quality brand they started as. Charge more than Lyfy and Taxis because they have higher standard. Immelt can make that happen with process and measurement. Uber's tech will allow them to monetize data, and show customers their value is better. Better response times, better service, shorter faster trips, etc. That's how they can win. Trying to be cheaper than Lyft will fail miserably. Right after he's announced, he should find a buyer for 3/4 of Benchmark's shares to get them out of the conflict, and immediately appoint Travis Kalanick as Chief Vision Office, and hire Holder or someone with perceived panache as Chief of HR and put them on the board. That'd be a good deal to make with Travis - Kill Benchmark's influence by paying them to go away, trade a TK board seat for a neutral party. Win/win/win/win.

wellboy 9y ago

Uber does indeed need tech leadership as their entire premise is to segue the whole world to electric self driving cars. Their whole valuation is based on this premise, not that they replace taxis. This valuation has been botched by the recent success of Tesla, Apple, Google, GM and a few more who are developing self-driving technology. The one with the best technology will win the race and probably become the first trillion dollar company. So, in order to keep Uber competitive, you don't need to keep status quo. You need to invent probably the most meaningful technology of this century, at least of the next decades. This requires deep knowledge in tech, artificial intelligence, being able to find the right people for that, navigating the legal landscape in a.i. ethics (e.g. kill my passenger or kill the two pedestrians), motivating your employees through inspiring leadership and being able to lead your company through the next decades. Adult leadership as you called it is not it. It might conserve the company as is, but you need a lot more than that to make it succeed. Kalanick had the competitiveness and vision, however could not control his competitiveness, which lead him to build a toxic company culture. He might have succeeded in making Uber competitive to Tesla & Co. from a competition point of view, however, sooner or later the toxic culture would have made the company fold under the pressure, so the decision to replace him was a necessary one.

valuearb 9y ago
Their valuation never made any sense. They can never justify it. They can never win the self driving technology war. They were late to the party, they missed out on key patents. They chose a team that may have stolen technology from Waymo, exposing them to massive potential liability. Now they have to start over. Automous car technology will be freely available to everyone when it's commercially viable. Uber can't transition to that model unless it becomes far more economically successful. No one is going to give them $50B more to build out autonomous car infrastructure (cars, service, storage, parking) world-wide when they are still hemorrhaging money in their first business model. Uber doesn't need to invent squat. It has to maintain it's massive lead in drivers and installed apps. When it's customers want an autonomous car, they'll use the same app they always did.
- wellboy 9y ago