No way they can bring in more investments (although maybe they could get a loan). Given the changes and their runway, I honestly see Lyft managing to outpace Uber in the next 12 months.
Lyft has no choice but to subsidize itself into extinction. If Uber pulled back entirely into the US alone then Lyft would be truly doomed. Only by spreading themselves thin does Lyft have a fair fight.
Am I missing something? They seem far, far more investable now.
- Cut back on actions and strategies that only make sense in the context of massive continued growth.
- Set prices to sustainable levels even though that means the buy-on-price segment of your customer base goes away. That's an ultimately unprofitable race-to-the-bottom segment you don't want anyway.
- At that point, potentially pull out of places where you don't have the critical mass to operate--especially in non-US markets where there are probably fixed costs to operate.
- Autonomous vehicles? That's going to happen over a decade or three timeframe that's utterly irrelevant to Uber even if a first mover advantage was defensible.
- And, yeah, the company is now far less valued to investors but it can potentially at least stay intact as a viable business.
It seems to me, what should have happened (a long time ago) was that they got shut down for systematically breaking the law, or encouraging others to do so. That would have made sense.
But instead they are getting flayed alive by not much more than bad press for being jerks. Makes no goddamn sense.
It's easy to say that they're going to win in court... but this is GOOGLE - they're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and likely a decade trying to win this thing. Google isn't going to stop until they've exhausted literally every legal avenue possible. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a good portion of this isn't Uber's board trying to save the company from that legal battle - fire Kalanick, boot *Gurley, then license the tech from Waymo that was previously stolen.
They now have next to no leadership, and they still have no clear path to making money.
Their board is up in arms, their CEO stepped down, but still has full control.
If they want investment, it's going to be a down round. And their CEO will have to give up a significant chunk of the business. Even then, idk who else is left with the capital they'd need.
The Ravikant v. Tolia (and Bill Gurley) Lawsuit: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/02/ravika...
Sounds like they are trying to cleanup their image, then will get back to expanding their already massive reach they have in their cities they are already in around the world.
Ask Warren Buffett even he complains board members dont do much work they just blindly follow what the CEO says.
I find it strange that we seem to give finance a pass when they've engaged in this sort of behavior for decades.
> encouraged at all levels of the company
Do you have any sources for this? There have been a few blog posts and some independent investigations to my knowledge but nothing to suggest it is/was "one of the most insanely hostile work environments"--especially worldwide.
I mean, pretty close: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-gre...
They also have that Otto thing: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-fight-uber-takes-turn-...
Oh and yeah, and with the push to #deleteuber and the massive amount of cash Uber's burning (or was), I can't imagine they wont be bankrupt soon[1].
[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/uber-is-losing-an-ins...
I know exactly one person who works at Uber. She joined as an engineer about a year ago. I asked; she says it is less sexist than every other place she has worked (especially after all the press), and she likes her job. She also says it's a big company and she doesn't know if it's different in other parts.
Nothing is wrong with AngelList. AngelList is great. It was Bill Gurley's slimey VC actions to conspire with Nirav Tolia against the other Epinions founders and early employees that led Naval Ravikant to found AngelList as an alternative to the VC system.
Even if that number was 10%, or 1%, that is still a horrible track record.
They have perhaps taken the criticism and news to heart and changed their ways, but nobody at all denies that there WERENT problems before.
Uber itself has admitted that there were serious problems, and says that they re going to fix them.
let's wait and see what the q2 numbers look like before we start declaring the patient dead.
The (for some reason) publicly reported q1 losses of 700m, were (was?) ~33% better than q4 2016 (1b). if the (presumably) publicly reported q2 numbers are in the neighborhood of 500m, you'd be looking at real growth.
Quarter ends in 2 weeks and the q1 numbers were (for some reason) released right when q1 ended, so maybe we don't have to wait too long.
Extraordinary evidence, such as the company itself doing a thorough investigation, finding lots of problems, and then publishing those problems?
Uber itself has shouted to the world that the problems existed, and that they are working to fix them.
I am not sure what other kind of evidence you could get, that is better than the company itself saying that there is a problem.
if you piss off everyone, then you better hope like hell that you don't fall and need someone's help.
tldr: assholes.
Perhaps in the US. But Uber has a large presence in a number of other countries, while Lyft has none, AFAIK.
If you trivialise illegal activity as "acting like jerks", then none of this really holds much water. They've been jerks the whole time.
I'm sure you're paraphrasing, but these things are not equal.
edit: to be absolutely clear, i'm not saying that trump has committed _every_one_ of the _specific_ acts referenced by the parent. but he is the amalgamation of every terrible, wrong-headed political move a person can make, and he's president. my point was the initial analogy was bad, "picture a candidate who's done every bad thing a candidate can do; how do you think they'd be treated?". well, they'd quite possibly be elected president.
I personally support third party but damn the left loves to ignore how dirtball their own party is. Add Mel Reynolds, Robert KKK Byrd and others to the mix and it's laughable the party is any more a champion for anything. I honestly don't understand how either side can wage an ethics war on the other.
Someone makes a point about how dirtball politicians are in general and then it turns into criticism about the current powers that be as if the opposition is angelic. They both suck. Why can't we agree on that?
Putting in some stability for a while makes sense, but a some point they will probably want to start running hard again.
Making profits without employees is the holy grail of finance. They are willing to look away on law violations if you blind them with that dream. By the way, in my opinion, a similar sentiment is driving the hype in deep learning funding.
Listen, Uber gets lots of flak for being a nasty work environment, but maybe all it ever did was play very, very hard ball. People think the solution is to, figuratively speaking, play nice, but maybe the real solution is for the other side of the team to play just as hard, if not harder. Meaning for employees to not just own the assigned work, but also the work environment, to blow the whistle when they see something wrong, to dig up the hatchet when things get unfair, and most importantly to never be accepting of status quo just for political reasons or for lack of perseverance, but to confront every thing they disagree with, for the very simple reason of "communication" more than anything else.
The idea is not to punish but to make points known and push evil back into its hiding spot.
I'm surprised Thuan Pham (CTO) survived the carnage since he was mentioned in Susan Fowler's post. As an aside my dark horse candidates for CEO or COO are Thomas Staggs former Disney COO and Susan Wojcicki (Current YouTube CEO)
http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/
Words are defined by how people use them, and this fits the common usage of the word illegal.
Nobody cares what pedantic definition a lawyer would use to describe this, because nobody made lawyers the language police.
"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."
http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/
If the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits something, I think that that fits the common definition of "illegal" that a normal person would use.
Maybe a lawyer would use a different word, but who cares, everyone understood what you meant.
Also: if he leaves before something really bad happens to the company, he might claim he left because the unethical behaviour of the company didn't align with his ideals, perhaps not hurting his future prospects at the boards of other companies.
What unjust consequences are they experiencing, exactly?
Bad press – and the associated bad reputation – seem warranted and acceptable, no? Uber always had a terrible reputation as a place to work, as far as I could tell (worked in the same building for a year).
Employees leaving – also seems like a reasonable consequence for a negative work environment, and the press tables turning on a company that many joined because it was "hot".
CEO getting fired – a key part of the job of a CEO is crisis management. He didn't manage "crises" well (eg; top execs left). Whether the crises were real or inflated is irrelevant.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14609910 and marked it off-topic.
The key test is 'primarily'. Commenting occasionally on political topics, among others, is fine. But using the site primarily for political battle is not fine, regardless of which politics you favor. It's destructive of the intended use of the site, which is the gratification of intellectual curiosity. Since we can't have both kinds of site, we have to be careful about this.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...
can you help me understand how my reply was off-topic given the question:
> As an analogy, take every major political scandal you can think of - Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Iran Contra, Chappaquiddick, etc - and imagine a single elected official perpetrating them all within the course of a year. How do you think they would be treated?
It's often a judgment call where to clip these threads, sort of like the temperature at which to save a boiling frog.
The costs of Uber going up or decrease in availability of drivers should matter more.
Drivers only care about their bottom line which is rate per mile/time and frequency of riders.
There's an argument for Uber's eventual success, but there's a lot of stuff against it too. It's not an absurd theory.
Even the Google network forensics team have him bang to rights[1] taking data while on-site at the campus, Google would be mental to not launch a volley and destroy a potential competitor in the process.
And you don't drop $680m on an acquisition without going through board approval first, surely? Somebody's definitely complicit.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/googles-waymo-just-dropped-exp...
Yes, Uber board member David Bonderman said women talk too much at an all-hands meeting about sexism at Uber: https://www.recode.net/2017/6/13/15795612/uber-board-member-...
It's not fake news. It's not contested. He resigned in disgrace, because HE talked too much. You can listen to the audio yourself. It starts at 6:37.
LEAKED AUDIO: Uber's all-hands meeting had some uncomfortable moments: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-ubers-hands-meeting-tr...
Arianna Huffington: "And there is a lot of data that shows that when there is one woman on the board, it's much more likely that there will be a second woman on the board."
David Bonderman: "Actually what it shows is that it's much more likely to be more talking."
What he just did in front of the entire company at the worst possible moment is strong first hand evidence that speaks directly to the fact that the cause of Uber's horrible track record of sexism deeply pervades its board of directors. Making a remark like that at a time like that isn't just an anomaly out of the blue -- it reveals his true character and Uber's true culture.
It was nothing short of a vicious unfounded public personal attack on Arianna Huffington, Wan Ling Martello, and all of Uber's female employees.
David Bonderman Resigns From Uber Board After Sexist Remark: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/uber-sexual-ha...
"Mr. Bonderman’s original comments, according to experts, also lack merit.
Tali Mendelberg, professor of politics at Princeton University, and Christopher Karpowitz, an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, conducted a study in 2012 concluding that men talked far more than women did at meetings. The professors convened 94 groups of five people and varied the number of men and women in the groups. Their study is in line with multiple others drawing similar conclusions — men talk more than women, and men interrupt more than women.
“The study shows that men will dominate the conversation if there are more men than women in the group, and they dominate by a lot,” Ms. Mendelberg said in an interview. “When you have just two women in the group, those women are much more silent than men are.”
Uber’s board of directors was composed entirely of men until 2016, when Ms. Huffington gained a seat. This week Uber said another woman had been added to the board: Wan Ling Martello, the executive vice president of Nestle in Asia."
The problem with being a jerk is that people will dislike you.
They might put up with you if you are rich, successful and powerful, but they certainly won't look to help you if you are in trouble and may even come along to help put the boot in.
> Makes no goddamn sense.
What's happening makes perfect sense. People don't like jerks, and enjoy bringing them down.
Because they can afford it and desperately want to grow. Let's say Uber operates in about 300 cities around the world and have their eyes on another 100. Dedicate an average of 3-4 people to grow and market your services in each city plus another 3 to handle local staffing, admin and regulatory issues and you're already at ~2500.
What's your point?
Lastly, the political debate is often the thing I find interesting about the comment threads on HN, Its getting to see the different viewpoints which interests me. Ofcourse we have to be civil and respectful towards each other, but when we are, I don't see any problem on any topic, how can any topic be destructive to the intended use of the site?
Just thought some people might be surprised that the retaliation was not criminal, and at best results in injunctions, fines, civil liability, etc.
Because I didn't word it better, I find myself in the odd position of arguing with people who probably share my high level opinion on the matter.
I also find it crazy they do this in the threads and not by email, very easy to miss if you don't religiously check your /threads. I got a warning from dang once and he claimed I'd been warned before, which from my perspective I'd never been warned. They have my email.
Staggs I can see, he's made it pretty clear he's looking for a big job -- and as a former I-banker and public company corp fin / M&A guy, he very well may have an itch to prove he can hack it in startup-land (a la Anthony Noto).
See also:
http://www.paulgraham.com/mean.html
And
Uber is at a critical inflection point, and still remains a unsustainable company blowing through enormous amounts of cash. They desperately need to line up more, so unless they get their house in order they will not be an ongoing operation.
But this goes off the rails on the next part. On one hand, you have a company presumably following the legal process[1] of getting through a harassment accusation being accused of a "cover up" in order to implicitly draw an equivalence with a company that apparently had a policy of shielding specific employees from harassment claims.
[1] I have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, but haven't seen any suggestions of impropriety.
And those are just the bigger issues, there are numerous issues with local municipalities and also issues with driver quality (someone in my state was raped by a driver who has since fled the country) and workforce satisfaction.
There are a series of issues that will be problematic for them as they approach the need for more funding. If they aren't triaged now they're going to have bigger issues in the near future.
Honestly this is the smartest thing they've done in a while.
In this case, Uber is an international business that operates in the northern and southern hemisphere and many places with other relevant weather patterns like rainy seasons and dry seasons. The seasonality at this point is likely almost entirely smoothed out by the sheer number of places they operate in globally. The US market might be larger and more mature, but many international markets have largely caught up now.
http://gizmodo.com/former-google-engineer-blasts-companys-hr...
According to multiple sources and internal notes read to me, after discussing the claims of an alleged encounter between Singhal and a female employee first with former Google HR head Laszlo Bock and also Google CEO Sundar Pichai in late 2015, he denied those claims at the time. He also apparently stated a number of times that there were two sides to every story.
A former Google employee I spoke to has described the search giant’s HR as “a nasty mess.” They are not alone. Monday afternoon, former Google engineer Kelly Ellis shared some of her own experiences with at the company in light of the news surrounding Singhal’s departure. Ellis previously tweeted about sexual harassment she faced at Google back in 2015.
Sounds eerily familiar. My point being the exact same as what I said. Uber isn't right for letting this happen, but companies like Google have allowed this to happen, you just don't hear about it.
That said, your bias against Uber is blinding you.
Arianna Huffington: <Some female-positive remark>
David Bonderman: <Some female-negative remark>
Myself, I'm finding it difficult to understand your position at all because you aren't describing any recognizable facts about the situation.
You don't see Huffington resign in disgrace, because there was no reason for her to, but you do see Bonderman resign in disgrace, because there was a very good reason for him to, and he admitted it in his resignation letter, calling his actions "careless, inappropriate, and inexcusable" and adding "I need to hold myself to the same standards that we’re asking Uber to adopt. Therefore, I have decided to resign from Uber’s board of directors, effective tomorrow morning.".
Do you disagree with anything he himself said in his resignation letter? Can you explain why he resigned and she didn't, if their comments are equivalent, and he didn't disgrace himself? What precisely did Huffington say that you believe is disgraceful?
Huffington was INVESTIGATING sexism and attempting to CHANGE Uber's sexist culture. Bonderman was EXEMPLIFYING sexism and attempting to PERPETUATE Uber's sexist culture. Are you capable of seeing the difference?
While you're at it, do you care to also carry the water for rtx's sexist remark: "It's a fact that women can speak more than men. But not sure why that is important during board meeting." -rtx
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/technology/uber-limits-lo...
> The company said Wednesday that it lost $708 million over the first three months of the year on revenue of $3.4 billion, not counting expenses like employee stock compensation. That is a narrowing of the previous quarter’s loss of $991 million, on revenue of $2.9 billion.
revenue grew by ~500M, losses fell by ~300M. this isn't just more butts in seats trying to avoid the rain. this is about increased efficiency; each trip costing less in incentives and efficiency doesn't depend on the weather, or the hemisphere.
anyway, if the trend continues, we'll know more in a week.