8 ms·

I think it's pretty unfair to lump Uber (which really has transformed the world in a real way) with Theranos (outright fraud) and WeWork (possibly a viable but

by harryh 7y ago

I think it's pretty unfair to lump Uber (which really has transformed the world in a real way) with Theranos (outright fraud) and WeWork (possibly a viable but semi boring business that got way over hyped).

wpietri 7y ago
Have you read "Super Pumped"? I'm pretty comfortable putting them in the same bucket: which is "genius/asshole founder hyping an unlikely future to get gobs of venture capital". Uber still hasn't turned a profit, and may never because it has no moat. I expect that in ~15 years, Uber will be in the same bucket as Groupon: things that everybody was excited about for a while but are at best minor players in their space. I also think you're giving Uber way too much credit. They are the dominant player because Kalanick was unusually terrible and because his investors gave a terrible person a lot of money. He didn't invent remote taxi dispatch (which was a telephone-era innovation) and he wasn't first in the anybody-with-a-car-can-be-a-taxi game (which was Lyft). He was just more willing to break laws and be a dick to competitors. I believe that if Uber hadn't appeared on the scene, things would be about the same (by which I mean we'd have people ordering rides via smartphone) but in a healthier way (by which I mean not burning billions per year, less worker exploitation, fewer negative externalities, and healthier municipal regulation). So I'll give plenty of credit to the smartphone pioneers, especially Palm and Apple. But not much to Kalanick.
- harryh 7y ago
  I think the Kalanick you describe here is a ruthless businessman that veers across the line into asshole and that's...not great. But again, it's not the same thing as Holmes (fraudster) or Neumann (purveyor of fantastical bullshit).
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Time will tell. Uber and WeWork are both bets on the ability to get monopoly-level pricing power on a major chunk of economic activity, just like Google and Facebook did. Neither one has a valuation that makes sense without that pricing power, and both of have been trying to buy it via liberal application of investor money. But in both cases, they've never turned a profit and there's no obvious moat. I agree that WeWork's vision is now more obviously likely to fail than Uber's. But WeWork's transition from hero to goat happened quite recently. Uber got a cash infusion from their IPO that gives them something like 18 months runway, but with their stock down 30% from IPO, they can't do that forever. We'll see what happens when they have to break even. Especially if they have to start paying their workers fairly. And if the margins in that business turn sufficiently positive, I expect people will be eager to compete. And even if they do manage to pull it together, I'm still comfortable putting Uber in that category, as Kalanick wasn't just an asshole, but a willful criminal who got his money through the same performative asshole/genius shtick. He may ultimately get away with it. But I think he's decreased the likelihood people will fall for it again.
fouc 7y ago
Good point. I was going to ask why OP mentioned Uber.
nabdab 7y ago
Uber didn’t transform the World. They offered cheaper taxis. Now wework actually transformed the world by bringing cheaper and flashier rental office space which has revolutionized the way most people use rental office space... /s Though in truth, neither did anything of notice. They used VC to undercut the market in a non-sustainable fashion.
- harryh 7y ago
  Taxis only really worked in a few large US cities before Uber. Now I can get an Uber almost anywhere.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Uber coverage is still fairly limited with plenty of cab companies operating in areas they don’t. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/ https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/ In 2012 there where 233,900 cabs in the US which seems limited, but they would work very long hours. Uber’s actual change was mostly around increasing peak availability, but not nessisarily total availability as 1/2 of their drivers average 1 to 15 hours each week.
    - harryh 7y ago
      I didn't check exhaustively but I looked at all the cities in South Carolina (the state that I am from) in that list and if you click through you'll see that the areas they are talking about actually pretty much cover the whole state. If that's getting done for SC (a relatively un-dense state) I think they're covering pretty much everywhere in the US. TBH I think the page you linked to is more about SEO than about Uber's actual coverage. Can you tell me a specific place that has good coverage from cabs where Uber doesn't operate?
      - Retric 7y ago
        For larger areas I am not seeing Charleston WV on their list of cities. Though this would be easier if they showed a single map across the US. Think smaller, Charles town WV official population 5,957 has taxi service. Edit: that was under the Baltimore map even though DC was closer. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/baltimore/ https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/baltimore/
CPLX 7y ago
Uber wasn’t really what transformed the world, it was just an emergent property. What changed taxi transportation was ubiquitous personal computers with detailed screens, network connectivity, and GPS in literally everyone’s pocket. As soon as it was technically possible to press a button on a portable device you already have and see a little car coming towards you on a map, hundreds of startup founders were going to try to do it, and did. Before that something like Uber was impossible, after that it was inevitable. Just like something like YouTube and something like Netflix were inevitable. That’s not to discount the very impressive work it takes to be the winner in such a fast moving market. But it’s not reasonable to credit them with the world transforming innovation, it was just the next logical step in an ongoing progression.
- harryh 7y ago
  Did smartphones transform the world or were they just an emergent property of improved touchscreen and battery technology? Like...I get what you are saying and I agree that something like Uber was inevitable. But someone still has to go out and do it.
- bhouston 7y ago
  Every big business idea in inevitable in it's time. The trick is being first to grow large and take the market. Often people try out the exact same ideas but they are too soon so they run into problems. Timing matters so much as well as the ability to raise money when it is a big idea Your argument means no business success deserves any credit, they all just inevitable .
  - CPLX 7y ago
    Nah. Some businesses are genuinely innovative from a technical or structural standpoint. Ford comes to mind, or Google. They had very strong competitive advantages due to a technically superior process or product. Cars and search engines were probably inevitable, but Ford and Google moved the technology forward a whole generation. Uber made a pretty rudimentary mobile application, their real competitive advantage had more to do with success in financial sophistication and compliance/regulatory avoidance.

by harryh 7y ago

wpietri 7y ago

Have you read "Super Pumped"? I'm pretty comfortable putting them in the same bucket: which is "genius/asshole founder hyping an unlikely future to get gobs of venture capital". Uber still hasn't turned a profit, and may never because it has no moat. I expect that in ~15 years, Uber will be in the same bucket as Groupon: things that everybody was excited about for a while but are at best minor players in their space. I also think you're giving Uber way too much credit. They are the dominant player because Kalanick was unusually terrible and because his investors gave a terrible person a lot of money. He didn't invent remote taxi dispatch (which was a telephone-era innovation) and he wasn't first in the anybody-with-a-car-can-be-a-taxi game (which was Lyft). He was just more willing to break laws and be a dick to competitors. I believe that if Uber hadn't appeared on the scene, things would be about the same (by which I mean we'd have people ordering rides via smartphone) but in a healthier way (by which I mean not burning billions per year, less worker exploitation, fewer negative externalities, and healthier municipal regulation). So I'll give plenty of credit to the smartphone pioneers, especially Palm and Apple. But not much to Kalanick.

harryh 7y ago
I think the Kalanick you describe here is a ruthless businessman that veers across the line into asshole and that's...not great. But again, it's not the same thing as Holmes (fraudster) or Neumann (purveyor of fantastical bullshit).
- wpietri 7y ago
  Time will tell. Uber and WeWork are both bets on the ability to get monopoly-level pricing power on a major chunk of economic activity, just like Google and Facebook did. Neither one has a valuation that makes sense without that pricing power, and both of have been trying to buy it via liberal application of investor money. But in both cases, they've never turned a profit and there's no obvious moat. I agree that WeWork's vision is now more obviously likely to fail than Uber's. But WeWork's transition from hero to goat happened quite recently. Uber got a cash infusion from their IPO that gives them something like 18 months runway, but with their stock down 30% from IPO, they can't do that forever. We'll see what happens when they have to break even. Especially if they have to start paying their workers fairly. And if the margins in that business turn sufficiently positive, I expect people will be eager to compete. And even if they do manage to pull it together, I'm still comfortable putting Uber in that category, as Kalanick wasn't just an asshole, but a willful criminal who got his money through the same performative asshole/genius shtick. He may ultimately get away with it. But I think he's decreased the likelihood people will fall for it again.

fouc 7y ago

Good point. I was going to ask why OP mentioned Uber.

nabdab 7y ago

Uber didn’t transform the World. They offered cheaper taxis. Now wework actually transformed the world by bringing cheaper and flashier rental office space which has revolutionized the way most people use rental office space... /s Though in truth, neither did anything of notice. They used VC to undercut the market in a non-sustainable fashion.

harryh 7y ago
Taxis only really worked in a few large US cities before Uber. Now I can get an Uber almost anywhere.
- Retric 7y ago
  Uber coverage is still fairly limited with plenty of cab companies operating in areas they don’t. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/ https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/ In 2012 there where 233,900 cabs in the US which seems limited, but they would work very long hours. Uber’s actual change was mostly around increasing peak availability, but not nessisarily total availability as 1/2 of their drivers average 1 to 15 hours each week.
  - harryh 7y ago
    I didn't check exhaustively but I looked at all the cities in South Carolina (the state that I am from) in that list and if you click through you'll see that the areas they are talking about actually pretty much cover the whole state. If that's getting done for SC (a relatively un-dense state) I think they're covering pretty much everywhere in the US. TBH I think the page you linked to is more about SEO than about Uber's actual coverage. Can you tell me a specific place that has good coverage from cabs where Uber doesn't operate?
    - Retric 7y ago
      For larger areas I am not seeing Charleston WV on their list of cities. Though this would be easier if they showed a single map across the US. Think smaller, Charles town WV official population 5,957 has taxi service. Edit: that was under the Baltimore map even though DC was closer. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/baltimore/ https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/baltimore/

CPLX 7y ago

Uber wasn’t really what transformed the world, it was just an emergent property. What changed taxi transportation was ubiquitous personal computers with detailed screens, network connectivity, and GPS in literally everyone’s pocket. As soon as it was technically possible to press a button on a portable device you already have and see a little car coming towards you on a map, hundreds of startup founders were going to try to do it, and did. Before that something like Uber was impossible, after that it was inevitable. Just like something like YouTube and something like Netflix were inevitable. That’s not to discount the very impressive work it takes to be the winner in such a fast moving market. But it’s not reasonable to credit them with the world transforming innovation, it was just the next logical step in an ongoing progression.

harryh 7y ago
Did smartphones transform the world or were they just an emergent property of improved touchscreen and battery technology? Like...I get what you are saying and I agree that something like Uber was inevitable. But someone still has to go out and do it.
bhouston 7y ago
Every big business idea in inevitable in it's time. The trick is being first to grow large and take the market. Often people try out the exact same ideas but they are too soon so they run into problems. Timing matters so much as well as the ability to raise money when it is a big idea Your argument means no business success deserves any credit, they all just inevitable .
- CPLX 7y ago
  Nah. Some businesses are genuinely innovative from a technical or structural standpoint. Ford comes to mind, or Google. They had very strong competitive advantages due to a technically superior process or product. Cars and search engines were probably inevitable, but Ford and Google moved the technology forward a whole generation. Uber made a pretty rudimentary mobile application, their real competitive advantage had more to do with success in financial sophistication and compliance/regulatory avoidance.