5 ms·

Uber has a culture of breaking the rules. As beneficial as that was and is in their growth, it's not surprising it mutates in less pleasant ways as they grow. T

Uber has a culture of breaking the rules. As beneficial as that was and is in their growth, it's not surprising it mutates in less pleasant ways as they grow. The same actions that seemed benevolent before, will seem more and more malevolent as they look less and less like an underdog. A cheesy line from Batman comes to mind, they will live long enough to see themselves become the villain. The customers will end up asking for more regulation in a few years. Maybe Uber will start issuing a limited amount of medallions in every city. But a lot of money to be made along the way.

nyrulez 12y ago
"will seem more and more malevolent". Are you saying its not actually malevolent but is just being perceived as so because it is aggressive ?
- napoleoncomplex 12y ago
  I only meant that how we look at them changes with their size, and if they want to remain the "good guys" their tactics should change too. If Lyft had 5 times the funding, Uber recruiting their drivers would look like a bold move. It would mean Uber believes drivers will stick with them long-term because life for drivers with them is clearly better, and the initial investment pays off in the long run, despite them having a smaller war chest to begin with. Now that Uber has 5 times the funding, the same move looks like Uber is afraid of Lyft beating them in the market, and is trying to kill them early by buying off their drivers and crippling them. They can afford this even if driving for Uber is a shittier experience long-term than driving for Lyft, since they have so much more money it doesn't really matter. Lyft will be dead or badly injured before drivers figure it out, so Uber doesn't need to worry about being the best in the market. What their actual motives are is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look good for them to do this.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  The way people perceive actions tends to change based on the status of the person(s) performing the action at the time the action was performed. Everyone knows reddit admins used to game the system by faking submissions to solve the chicken and egg problem and nobody really cares, but there would be an uproar if they were found to be manipulating story placements behind the scenes today because the scale of the site is so different. People are pretty willing to overlook borderline underhanded things if you are really an underdog trying to get a leg up, but far less so when you're the industry leader trying to crush upstarts.
josu 12y ago
>The customers will end up asking for more regulation in a few years Consumers hardly ever ask for regulation.
- napoleoncomplex 12y ago
  I was thinking of taxi legislation as the example (EU city example, can't speak for the US). Taxis in my city need to be registered and the drivers need to have a taxi license, the cars need to have prices clearly listed on their window, as well as the driver's ID visible in the car. All of this is due to consumers getting repeatedly ripped off, complaining about it to the city's politicians, which then wrote up the regulations. The consumers are much better protected now, and have a clear channel for complaints. To me that is clearly a consequence of consumers wanting more regulation. Same as with perishable products having to be clearly marked with its due date in stores, and practically every consumer protection law/regulation out there. Not saying that these laws can't be abused, but that doesn't mean the consumers aren't the main reason behind their existence.
- dalke 12y ago
  Really? My view is the other way around. Customers ask for more regulation and businesses are against it. Some of the consumer requested laws include national laws like the Pure Food and Drug Act and Clean Water Act, state laws like various lemon laws, and local laws like rent control.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > businesses are against it I think some businesses are against it (they tend to be the smaller ones), but other businesses (these tend to be the larger ones) like it because, while it imposes a burden on them, it imposes more burden on their competitors. Also, businesses can often get into a position where they basically write the regulations that they will have to abide by (i.e., regulatory capture). In that situation, regulation can be an asset for a business.
    - dalke 12y ago
AJ007 12y ago
It will be interesting to see how long a company with that culture can survive. Uber may even be able to flout federal law because of their extensive passenger & travel data. (Suspect Larry Page got off easy on the illicit drug advertising because of this, others would expect to do hard time.) For service startups we benefit from the early adapter "eliteness." Early drivers as well as users of Uber were of a high social status and fairly sophisticated. Much like the early days of usenet, rules can be lax or non-existent. However when the mass market begins to arrive startups which previously flourished with an tight early adapter user base start to show their cracks. No one wants to kill their own momentum but a way to see if your startup will start to stink as it grows is to recruit both service providers and users from online ad campaigns very early on. Track them as their own segment and see what sort of unique problems they bring.
wellboy 12y ago
This is a really dumb strategy though, breaking the rules means not being constrained by the social norms and trying something new, however, it doesn't mean being an a-hole and doing purely malicious stuff at all. That's very unentrepreneurial.

nyrulez 12y ago

"will seem more and more malevolent". Are you saying its not actually malevolent but is just being perceived as so because it is aggressive ?

napoleoncomplex 12y ago
I only meant that how we look at them changes with their size, and if they want to remain the "good guys" their tactics should change too. If Lyft had 5 times the funding, Uber recruiting their drivers would look like a bold move. It would mean Uber believes drivers will stick with them long-term because life for drivers with them is clearly better, and the initial investment pays off in the long run, despite them having a smaller war chest to begin with. Now that Uber has 5 times the funding, the same move looks like Uber is afraid of Lyft beating them in the market, and is trying to kill them early by buying off their drivers and crippling them. They can afford this even if driving for Uber is a shittier experience long-term than driving for Lyft, since they have so much more money it doesn't really matter. Lyft will be dead or badly injured before drivers figure it out, so Uber doesn't need to worry about being the best in the market. What their actual motives are is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look good for them to do this.
georgemcbay 12y ago
The way people perceive actions tends to change based on the status of the person(s) performing the action at the time the action was performed. Everyone knows reddit admins used to game the system by faking submissions to solve the chicken and egg problem and nobody really cares, but there would be an uproar if they were found to be manipulating story placements behind the scenes today because the scale of the site is so different. People are pretty willing to overlook borderline underhanded things if you are really an underdog trying to get a leg up, but far less so when you're the industry leader trying to crush upstarts.

josu 12y ago

>The customers will end up asking for more regulation in a few years Consumers hardly ever ask for regulation.

napoleoncomplex 12y ago
I was thinking of taxi legislation as the example (EU city example, can't speak for the US). Taxis in my city need to be registered and the drivers need to have a taxi license, the cars need to have prices clearly listed on their window, as well as the driver's ID visible in the car. All of this is due to consumers getting repeatedly ripped off, complaining about it to the city's politicians, which then wrote up the regulations. The consumers are much better protected now, and have a clear channel for complaints. To me that is clearly a consequence of consumers wanting more regulation. Same as with perishable products having to be clearly marked with its due date in stores, and practically every consumer protection law/regulation out there. Not saying that these laws can't be abused, but that doesn't mean the consumers aren't the main reason behind their existence.
dalke 12y ago
Really? My view is the other way around. Customers ask for more regulation and businesses are against it. Some of the consumer requested laws include national laws like the Pure Food and Drug Act and Clean Water Act, state laws like various lemon laws, and local laws like rent control.
- pdonis 12y ago
  > businesses are against it I think some businesses are against it (they tend to be the smaller ones), but other businesses (these tend to be the larger ones) like it because, while it imposes a burden on them, it imposes more burden on their competitors. Also, businesses can often get into a position where they basically write the regulations that they will have to abide by (i.e., regulatory capture). In that situation, regulation can be an asset for a business.
  - dalke 12y ago

AJ007 12y ago

It will be interesting to see how long a company with that culture can survive. Uber may even be able to flout federal law because of their extensive passenger & travel data. (Suspect Larry Page got off easy on the illicit drug advertising because of this, others would expect to do hard time.) For service startups we benefit from the early adapter "eliteness." Early drivers as well as users of Uber were of a high social status and fairly sophisticated. Much like the early days of usenet, rules can be lax or non-existent. However when the mass market begins to arrive startups which previously flourished with an tight early adapter user base start to show their cracks. No one wants to kill their own momentum but a way to see if your startup will start to stink as it grows is to recruit both service providers and users from online ad campaigns very early on. Track them as their own segment and see what sort of unique problems they bring.

wellboy 12y ago

This is a really dumb strategy though, breaking the rules means not being constrained by the social norms and trying something new, however, it doesn't mean being an a-hole and doing purely malicious stuff at all. That's very unentrepreneurial.