4 ms·

I find the tone of the article a little uncharitable. Innovation is full of scenarios where visionary companies thought they could offer something at a loss, a

I find the tone of the article a little uncharitable. Innovation is full of scenarios where visionary companies thought they could offer something at a loss, and then eventual improvements to technology/logistics/supply chain/process/etc would make the concept profitable. Whether it's Amazon offering free shipping, or Google offering OUTLANDISH (for the time) storage volumes for Gmail. I can definitely imagine that Uber's leadership genuinely believed that various economies of scale or technological innovations would allow them to be fully profitable in the long run. Same for Self-driving cars: When Uber was investing billions into it, it really looked like they were at the tip of the spear of innovation together with Google. People felt that Uber was actually BETTER Positioned for introducing self-driving technology than Google because they were focusing on adding extensions to existing cars, and they already had a built-in customer base using them for ordering point-to-point rides (Whereas Google/Waymo had to build out those capabilities themselves since) This is where my charity ends. Uber has not treated their drivers because it considers them completely fungible and replaceable. Everything to do with Public Transit is completely bang on - it's ludicrous to even imagine Uber participating here. And I buy the overall conclusion - in the long run we will look back at Uber and consider it a net loss for humanity's progress. But there is no getting around the pure delight of the original user experience - irrespective of pricing. And I'm willing to bet that the leadership did not consider it a con from the beginning, they really thought they could make a profitable business from this in the long run.

Spooky23 5y ago
Doctorow’s schtick is to be a snarky know it all. I worked in government and started doing services procurements years ago. When I first started doing that, I was really taken aback by the cynicism of the procurement officers and attorneys. Then I did two or three engagements… and it makes sense. Similarly, I experienced the delight aspect on a trip where I paid $20 for a ride in a Mercedes SUV in Baltimore that would have been a $30 cab ride. The next time I used Uber, 5 years later, it was a 10 year old Odyssey with an Afghan guy who was illegally sub-letting somebody’s Uber Driver account, and it cost $35 for a $20 cab ride. End of the day, all of these stories boil down the same thing. Commodity services are either luxury at a premium, or minimum viable level of delivery at a low price.
- pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
  > an Afghan guy Why is that relevant?
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    It’s pretty typical for recent immigrants to be exploited with grifty gigs like that.
Daishiman 5y ago
> But there is no getting around the pure delight of the original user experience - irrespective of pricing. And I'm willing to bet that the leadership did not consider it a con from the beginning, they really thought they could make a profitable business from this in the long run. I have no doubt about the same. But the point isn't about what Uber was; it's about what Uber became, and how their over-promises turned into outrageous claims that snowballed into a completely unsustainable business. And while I do respect the spirit of the original app being a serious improvement over prior experience, truth is that nowadays even traditional banks and even government apps can be found that are just high-quality and show that you don't need a cutting-edge startup to have good service. I also believe that other entrepreneurs would have been able to plod a similar path without ripping off investors or mismanaging finances.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
> they already had a built-in customer base using them for ordering point-to-point rides I never understood the value of that. The value is in the driver network, which is hard to build with human drivers, but trivial with self-driving cars. Given a driver network, building a customer network is trivial. You can have a large fleet that moves to a city that you want to bring up. The novelty of a self-driving car will help find users, the sudden large presence of highly recognizable, branded vehicles will automatically serve as a billboard for your service, an offer of free rides does the rest. Once people realize that the self-driving option is a) cheaper b) faster (because of the excess of cars) c) safer (because there is no unpredictable human driver that could be a bad actor), human-based competitors will have a very hard time. Once the city is brought up, they can leave the number of cars that they deem appropriate (gradually worsening service), and have the rest of the fleet drive to the next city. What does Uber have? An app (easy), a way to handle fraud and abuse (totally changes and gets a lot easier when you remove the driver), network effect (see above). Google has a special advantage, the maps app. If they manage to not ship the org chart, they can add a "order Waymo" button to navigation. Boom, everybody has their ride share app already installed on their phone, and many of the users have payment data in their account.

Spooky23 5y ago

Doctorow’s schtick is to be a snarky know it all. I worked in government and started doing services procurements years ago. When I first started doing that, I was really taken aback by the cynicism of the procurement officers and attorneys. Then I did two or three engagements… and it makes sense. Similarly, I experienced the delight aspect on a trip where I paid $20 for a ride in a Mercedes SUV in Baltimore that would have been a $30 cab ride. The next time I used Uber, 5 years later, it was a 10 year old Odyssey with an Afghan guy who was illegally sub-letting somebody’s Uber Driver account, and it cost $35 for a $20 cab ride. End of the day, all of these stories boil down the same thing. Commodity services are either luxury at a premium, or minimum viable level of delivery at a low price.

pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
> an Afghan guy Why is that relevant?
- Spooky23 5y ago
  It’s pretty typical for recent immigrants to be exploited with grifty gigs like that.

Daishiman 5y ago

> But there is no getting around the pure delight of the original user experience - irrespective of pricing. And I'm willing to bet that the leadership did not consider it a con from the beginning, they really thought they could make a profitable business from this in the long run. I have no doubt about the same. But the point isn't about what Uber was; it's about what Uber became, and how their over-promises turned into outrageous claims that snowballed into a completely unsustainable business. And while I do respect the spirit of the original app being a serious improvement over prior experience, truth is that nowadays even traditional banks and even government apps can be found that are just high-quality and show that you don't need a cutting-edge startup to have good service. I also believe that other entrepreneurs would have been able to plod a similar path without ripping off investors or mismanaging finances.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

> they already had a built-in customer base using them for ordering point-to-point rides I never understood the value of that. The value is in the driver network, which is hard to build with human drivers, but trivial with self-driving cars. Given a driver network, building a customer network is trivial. You can have a large fleet that moves to a city that you want to bring up. The novelty of a self-driving car will help find users, the sudden large presence of highly recognizable, branded vehicles will automatically serve as a billboard for your service, an offer of free rides does the rest. Once people realize that the self-driving option is a) cheaper b) faster (because of the excess of cars) c) safer (because there is no unpredictable human driver that could be a bad actor), human-based competitors will have a very hard time. Once the city is brought up, they can leave the number of cars that they deem appropriate (gradually worsening service), and have the rest of the fleet drive to the next city. What does Uber have? An app (easy), a way to handle fraud and abuse (totally changes and gets a lot easier when you remove the driver), network effect (see above). Google has a special advantage, the maps app. If they manage to not ship the org chart, they can add a "order Waymo" button to navigation. Boom, everybody has their ride share app already installed on their phone, and many of the users have payment data in their account.