6 ms·

After seeing a lot of negative press on Uber and its questionable tactics, I'm wondering the following: Is it necessary for Uber to be so cutthroat, sneaky, an

After seeing a lot of negative press on Uber and its questionable tactics, I'm wondering the following: Is it necessary for Uber to be so cutthroat, sneaky, and brutal to survive in the space they've carved out for themselves, or is this just a reflection of the poor character of the management team?

forrestthewoods 12y ago
Well I think for starters they haven't carved out a space for themselves. They were the first to a new space made possibly by recent advances in technology, but that's it. Furthermore as technology continues to march forward it's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space. So from that perspective yeah, yeah I guess they do have to be cut throat to survive. The service they provide is not far off from being commoditized. It's easy and cheap for competitors to step in and drive prices down. Will be very, very hard for Uber to secure their space. Honestly the only thing that will make it possible is the same time of legal protection that taxi companies have had. Oops.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  They can also protect it through scale, since more drivers and users on the platform means better liquidity in the rider driver market, and a more pleasant seamless experience compared to a newcomer. Hence the cutthroatness.
- mbca 12y ago
  > [I]t's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space. Not going to happen. Those "regulators" they decry so loudly? I'm sure they have plans to buy a few once they get big enough and use them to put barriers in place to put a stop to any competitors. Combine that with their size (and thus their ability to undercut any new competition), and I don't see anything but an Uber monopoly on the way.
prostoalex 12y ago
Another article from today might answer that question: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-controversy http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalan... In a nutshell, constant confrontation with politicians, taxi medallion owners, its own drivers, and competitors make this a fairly cut-throat industry. Uber took up this battle. Would a nicer, gentler company succeed in this space? Hard to say, so far the data says no.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Lyft is that nicer, gentler company. That's their differentiator: "We're like Uber, but friendlier." Whether that can succeed in the marketplace will depend upon consumers like cutthroat & efficient over friendly & quirky. So far most of my friends prefer Uber, but then again, we're evil techies who are taking over SF with our laptops.
  - nickonline 12y ago
    Interesting, I was just in the USA and caught up with people my partner knows in SF (none techies mind you). All of them told me uber was old news, service was not as good, coverage not as good as Lyft. I have no idea if it's true while over there but enough of them said it that I stopped using Uber while I was in SF and only used Lyft, and managed to convert my partner's parents to using Lyft as well.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    Lyft is US-only so far, so they haven't had a chance to run into European regulators, airport operators and cabbies. They also haven't entered combatant US markets like Las Vegas. I try to distribute my spending equally, since a dominating player would be quick to raise the prices on consumers, but it's certainly hard to spend more money on Lyft unless you happen to live within one of their coverage markets and don't travel much.
wamatt 12y ago
Is it just me, or does Uber's behavior seem a bit Microsoft-in-the-90's?
- wamatt 12y ago
  Ok that was weird; tbh I'm genuinely confused. It would be helpful if anyone can explain what is so awful about my comment?
  - sooheon 12y ago
    Maybe you really pissed off Uber-riding Microsoft fans?
encoderer 12y ago
I don't have any dog in this fight, but why are you holding this against Uber? The idea that they put him up to this borders on absurdity.
- viscanti 12y ago
  I don't get any new information about Uber from this, but it's interesting to see Lyft pursue it. It's also interesting to see what appears to be several of the top people from Lyft choose to go over to Uber. This doesn't look good for Lyft.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  What's absurd about it? Being hired to oversee Uber's overseas markets, it's hard to see what personal incentive he would have had to take all that data with him.
  - encoderer 12y ago
    It's even harder to see what incentive Uber would have to ask him to spy on his employer? Besides, I get the impression Uber is beating the pants off Lyft. What do they want from them? Who knows why he did it. Maybe he had anxiety about getting rid of things. But it's worth mentioning that Lyft did not name Uber in the lawsuit, which they would certainly do if they had any belief Uber instigated it.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      To beat them in the market of course - the same incentive as in any other case of industrial espionage, if such it turns out to be. Most businesses would like to know what their competitors are up to. You're assuming that Uber is beating the pants off Lyft through merit, and concluding from that that Uber has nothing to gain. Who knows why he did it. Maybe he had anxiety about getting rid of things. Spreadsheet nostalgia!? Defending against this litigation is likely to be very expensive and his personal reputation has taken a severe hit regardless of outcome. That's some weapons-grade OCD you're suggesting. Lyft hasn't named Uber but has left open the possibility of naming additional defendants. They do mention VanderZanden's admission to a Lyft board member back in August that he was in talks with Uber (before the termination of his employment), so you can bet they'll be wanting to look at any emails he might have exchanged with Uber. It's very common for legal complaints to be amended following the discovery process.
wahsd 12y ago
Here's how things will go. Über will continue steamrolling the country and locking down the market and subduing drivers into subjugation, then they will start regulatory and policy capture by corrupting politicians to write rules that keep them in power with as little effort as possible. The reason Über is trying to crush competition, is that it knows they are currently still vulnerable for real competition to enter. Once they have dominated all the major metropolitan centers, they will know that they dominate to a point that significantly disincentivizes entry by real competition.
- johnloeber 12y ago
  I don't think this is true. I think that the ridesharing market will become split between many interchangeable ride-sharing services. Three main reasons: (1) the barriers to entry for this market are actually very low, (2) it's hard for even a dominant company to differentiate itself from the competition, and (3) it is easy for both drivers and consumers to use all ridesharing services, to optimize pricing and wait times. I wrote a piece on this just a few days ago. You can read it here: http://johnloeber.com/w/uber.pdf http://johnloeber.com/w/uber.pdf
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Read your piece earlier today. Excellent summarization of the mobility endgame.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    > the barriers to entry for this market are actually very low How so? First you have to line up enough drivers to make it worthwhile, and then get enough app downloads by consumers to make it worthwhile for drivers. Both groups will inquire about your differentiating factor, and to sign up on either side you would have to promise higher payouts to the drivers or lower prices for consumers, both at expense of your margins, which limits the scale of your deployment.
    - johnloeber 12y ago
      > First you have to line up enough drivers to make it worthwhile, and then get enough app downloads by consumers to make it worthwhile for drivers. You're assuming that drivers/consumers will be exclusively using your service. Few drivers are going to drive exclusively for your service. The assumption is that your drivers will already be driving for Uber, Lyft, etc. and will sign up with your service just in order to marginally raise their expected number of rides per hour (hoping that your service might get them a ride when business is slow on Uber, etc.). Similarly, few consumers are loyal to exclusively one service. They don't care about the difference between Uber and Lyft, they care about getting a cheap ride, quickly. They'll try Uber for a ride. Maybe Uber will be surge-priced. They'll try Lyft, which might not have any drivers on the road. They'll try your service.
acjohnson55 12y ago
It also brings to mind the question of whether their image will hurt their potential for regulatory acceptance (and the industry as a whole).

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Well I think for starters they haven't carved out a space for themselves. They were the first to a new space made possibly by recent advances in technology, but that's it. Furthermore as technology continues to march forward it's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space. So from that perspective yeah, yeah I guess they do have to be cut throat to survive. The service they provide is not far off from being commoditized. It's easy and cheap for competitors to step in and drive prices down. Will be very, very hard for Uber to secure their space. Honestly the only thing that will make it possible is the same time of legal protection that taxi companies have had. Oops.

hkmurakami 12y ago
They can also protect it through scale, since more drivers and users on the platform means better liquidity in the rider driver market, and a more pleasant seamless experience compared to a newcomer. Hence the cutthroatness.
mbca 12y ago
> [I]t's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space. Not going to happen. Those "regulators" they decry so loudly? I'm sure they have plans to buy a few once they get big enough and use them to put barriers in place to put a stop to any competitors. Combine that with their size (and thus their ability to undercut any new competition), and I don't see anything but an Uber monopoly on the way.

prostoalex 12y ago

Another article from today might answer that question: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-controversy http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalan... In a nutshell, constant confrontation with politicians, taxi medallion owners, its own drivers, and competitors make this a fairly cut-throat industry. Uber took up this battle. Would a nicer, gentler company succeed in this space? Hard to say, so far the data says no.

nostrademons 12y ago
Lyft is that nicer, gentler company. That's their differentiator: "We're like Uber, but friendlier." Whether that can succeed in the marketplace will depend upon consumers like cutthroat & efficient over friendly & quirky. So far most of my friends prefer Uber, but then again, we're evil techies who are taking over SF with our laptops.
- nickonline 12y ago
  Interesting, I was just in the USA and caught up with people my partner knows in SF (none techies mind you). All of them told me uber was old news, service was not as good, coverage not as good as Lyft. I have no idea if it's true while over there but enough of them said it that I stopped using Uber while I was in SF and only used Lyft, and managed to convert my partner's parents to using Lyft as well.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  Lyft is US-only so far, so they haven't had a chance to run into European regulators, airport operators and cabbies. They also haven't entered combatant US markets like Las Vegas. I try to distribute my spending equally, since a dominating player would be quick to raise the prices on consumers, but it's certainly hard to spend more money on Lyft unless you happen to live within one of their coverage markets and don't travel much.

wamatt 12y ago

Is it just me, or does Uber's behavior seem a bit Microsoft-in-the-90's?

wamatt 12y ago
Ok that was weird; tbh I'm genuinely confused. It would be helpful if anyone can explain what is so awful about my comment?
- sooheon 12y ago
  Maybe you really pissed off Uber-riding Microsoft fans?

encoderer 12y ago

I don't have any dog in this fight, but why are you holding this against Uber? The idea that they put him up to this borders on absurdity.

viscanti 12y ago
I don't get any new information about Uber from this, but it's interesting to see Lyft pursue it. It's also interesting to see what appears to be several of the top people from Lyft choose to go over to Uber. This doesn't look good for Lyft.
anigbrowl 12y ago
What's absurd about it? Being hired to oversee Uber's overseas markets, it's hard to see what personal incentive he would have had to take all that data with him.
- encoderer 12y ago
  It's even harder to see what incentive Uber would have to ask him to spy on his employer? Besides, I get the impression Uber is beating the pants off Lyft. What do they want from them? Who knows why he did it. Maybe he had anxiety about getting rid of things. But it's worth mentioning that Lyft did not name Uber in the lawsuit, which they would certainly do if they had any belief Uber instigated it.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    To beat them in the market of course - the same incentive as in any other case of industrial espionage, if such it turns out to be. Most businesses would like to know what their competitors are up to. You're assuming that Uber is beating the pants off Lyft through merit, and concluding from that that Uber has nothing to gain. Who knows why he did it. Maybe he had anxiety about getting rid of things. Spreadsheet nostalgia!? Defending against this litigation is likely to be very expensive and his personal reputation has taken a severe hit regardless of outcome. That's some weapons-grade OCD you're suggesting. Lyft hasn't named Uber but has left open the possibility of naming additional defendants. They do mention VanderZanden's admission to a Lyft board member back in August that he was in talks with Uber (before the termination of his employment), so you can bet they'll be wanting to look at any emails he might have exchanged with Uber. It's very common for legal complaints to be amended following the discovery process.

wahsd 12y ago

Here's how things will go. Über will continue steamrolling the country and locking down the market and subduing drivers into subjugation, then they will start regulatory and policy capture by corrupting politicians to write rules that keep them in power with as little effort as possible. The reason Über is trying to crush competition, is that it knows they are currently still vulnerable for real competition to enter. Once they have dominated all the major metropolitan centers, they will know that they dominate to a point that significantly disincentivizes entry by real competition.

johnloeber 12y ago
I don't think this is true. I think that the ridesharing market will become split between many interchangeable ride-sharing services. Three main reasons: (1) the barriers to entry for this market are actually very low, (2) it's hard for even a dominant company to differentiate itself from the competition, and (3) it is easy for both drivers and consumers to use all ridesharing services, to optimize pricing and wait times. I wrote a piece on this just a few days ago. You can read it here: http://johnloeber.com/w/uber.pdf http://johnloeber.com/w/uber.pdf
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Read your piece earlier today. Excellent summarization of the mobility endgame.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  > the barriers to entry for this market are actually very low How so? First you have to line up enough drivers to make it worthwhile, and then get enough app downloads by consumers to make it worthwhile for drivers. Both groups will inquire about your differentiating factor, and to sign up on either side you would have to promise higher payouts to the drivers or lower prices for consumers, both at expense of your margins, which limits the scale of your deployment.
  - johnloeber 12y ago
    > First you have to line up enough drivers to make it worthwhile, and then get enough app downloads by consumers to make it worthwhile for drivers. You're assuming that drivers/consumers will be exclusively using your service. Few drivers are going to drive exclusively for your service. The assumption is that your drivers will already be driving for Uber, Lyft, etc. and will sign up with your service just in order to marginally raise their expected number of rides per hour (hoping that your service might get them a ride when business is slow on Uber, etc.). Similarly, few consumers are loyal to exclusively one service. They don't care about the difference between Uber and Lyft, they care about getting a cheap ride, quickly. They'll try Uber for a ride. Maybe Uber will be surge-priced. They'll try Lyft, which might not have any drivers on the road. They'll try your service.

acjohnson55 12y ago

It also brings to mind the question of whether their image will hurt their potential for regulatory acceptance (and the industry as a whole).