Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Uber Conflation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#121

Post by niij »

amyjess wrote: post #96
slantview wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I deleted Uber after all of this, but You are wrong. I lived in SF during 2010-2012 and calling taxis was a huge pain. I started using Uber when it was only black cars because they showed up. I would call yellow cab and after an hour they didn't even show up, so I called them again and they said "well, if you didn't see a car after 20 mins, you should have called back." I had another experience in LA in 2014 where I…

> I had another experience in LA in 2014 where I got yelled at by a taxi driver because HIS card reader was broken and my credit card was flat so he couldn't use the old style imprint. > The taxis can suck it. They are unclean, expensive, and have irrational drivers that think they can push around their customers because they know there was no need to improve due to regulation. Unfortunately, these Taxi drivers are n…

That is an insane amount of negative experiences. Have you considered purchasing a car?

Re: The Uber Conflation

#122

Post by ghaff »

hardym24 wrote: post #111
rrdharan wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at Google, though not on anything remotely related to cars/transportation, nonetheless I'm clearly not unbiased here. At any rate this part of Ben Thompson's post annoyed me for a different reason - he conflates and equates patent infringement with theft of trade secrets, while those are in fact quite different things, and have correspondingly quite different forms of relief/punishment. I don't have a strong p…

My thoughts exactly. Having read the lawsuit in its entirety, if true the claim by Waymo against Otto/Uber is not only a tale of egregious theft by a rogue former employee, but also an indication of Uber's lack of competence when it comes to self-driving technology. The following quote from Bloomberg's piece revealing the acquisition shows the panic Uber felt: “The minute it was clear to us that our friends in Mounta…

The idea that there's going to be a robo ride-sharing service by the end of 2017 is... optimistic. Maybe 2037? Maybe 2047? Longer?

It's not so much that Uber is behind on self-driving but the idea that Uber is in any way dependent on self-driving as a business. If they're covering their bets just in case that's one thing. If they think their business model depends on it, I wouldn't go anywhere near them as an investor.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#123

Post by fragmede »

xapata wrote: post #120
galdosdi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people say the same thing you do -- their diverse anecdotes agree that regular cabs are obviously (better, worse) than uber/lyft/etc. The trouble is, they don't agree which way it goes. I think the resolution to this conondrum is, it varies based on city/region. Some areas had traditional taxis that are worse than ridesharing, and some better.

Name a region where taxis provide better service than "rideshare".

It might be hard to believe, but there are urban places, outside the US, where public transportation works (so Uber and taxis are still luxury items, so taxis themselves are nice and clean), where taxis are plentiful (so no problems finding one, even at 3am) and either electronic cash works (ie; not credit cards that drivers accept), or credit card readers are required (and effectively enforced so there are no problem paying with credit card), or cash is still king (if your job is paying you in cash, paying cabs with cash is not a burden). On top of that, Google maps/GPS/whatever is unfortunately terrible in many places, so an Uber driver being directed by an app may never get you where you're going, greatly hurting adoption.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#124

Post by Tycho »

st3v3r wrote: post #116
Tycho wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEO has 100% responsibility that his/her company fulfils its fiduciary duty to investors. They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the employees. It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR policy. True I don't have evidence that the #UberSurvivor blog was fake but there's also be…

"They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the employees." Yes, they do. Again, they are entirely responsible for their company. "It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR policy." Like the several other times he's done that, and it failed to change anything?

I cited the fiduciary duty which is a widely recognized standard for the practice of running a company. What standard are you alluding to, exactly, when you say the CEO is "entirely responsible" for everything that happens within the walls of their company? Are you just making an arbitrary assertion? Who exactly does the CEO need to answer to for these kinds of employee misconduct?

Re: The Uber Conflation

#125

Post by chillacy »

FussyZeus wrote: post #105
zeveb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber's biggest problem is the confrontational way they've expanded their business, often thumbing their nose at regulators the entire time and pissing off a lot of the local communities. I think regulators' attitude is just as controversial: 'you must do this because we say so ,' not 'you must do this because it's a good idea .'

I don't see why it's suddenly up for debate whether companies need to abide the letter of the law. Origin of the law is irrelevant, if you disagree with a law you can campaign to have it changed. Corporations should not be allowed to violate the law to execute their business model.

We break many laws every day without consequence and often with necessity (speed limit on freeways in large cities for instance). Law isn't quite so straightforward. The Myth of The Rule of Law: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

I'd wager that most corporations are violating one law or another, without any complaints from the people.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#126

Post by xiaoma »

xapata wrote: post #120
galdosdi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people say the same thing you do -- their diverse anecdotes agree that regular cabs are obviously (better, worse) than uber/lyft/etc. The trouble is, they don't agree which way it goes. I think the resolution to this conondrum is, it varies based on city/region. Some areas had traditional taxis that are worse than ridesharing, and some better.

Name a region where taxis provide better service than "rideshare".

Taiwan. I'd definitely take standard taxis in Taiwan over Ubers. In fact, I've made that choice at least a hundred times.

Especially in Taipei, they hit a price and convenience point where taking an Uber is essentially doing a task on my phone in exchange for having to wait longer to get a ride. To be clear, it usually takes about 15 to 90 seconds of waiting to get a cab.

Outside of Taipei, any convenience store (which are basically all over the place) will call a cab for you and again, it's still a pretty short wait unless you're in a remote area in the mountains or something.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#127

Post by notyourwork »

chillacy wrote: post #125
FussyZeus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's suddenly up for debate whether companies need to abide the letter of the law. Origin of the law is irrelevant, if you disagree with a law you can campaign to have it changed. Corporations should not be allowed to violate the law to execute their business model.

We break many laws every day without consequence and often with necessity (speed limit on freeways in large cities for instance). Law isn't quite so straightforward. The Myth of The Rule of Law: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm I'd wager that most corporations are violating one law or another, without any complaints from the people.

That isn't justification to say because we break law X all the time we can also break law Y. Flawed logic.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#128

Post by FussyZeus »

chillacy wrote: post #125
FussyZeus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's suddenly up for debate whether companies need to abide the letter of the law. Origin of the law is irrelevant, if you disagree with a law you can campaign to have it changed. Corporations should not be allowed to violate the law to execute their business model.

We break many laws every day without consequence and often with necessity (speed limit on freeways in large cities for instance). Law isn't quite so straightforward. The Myth of The Rule of Law: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm I'd wager that most corporations are violating one law or another, without any complaints from the people.

I'm just going to point out that Uber is sidestepping all those "useless regulations" and in the process has had issues ranging from abused customers to abused drivers or combinations of the two, repeatedly, since it's inception.

I'm not saying ALL the regulations were put in place for good reasons, and I'm not going to argue that cab companies don't have a monopoly in most places because they do indeed have that. But then to turn that around and say therefore, the Government shouldn't regulate Taxis in any capacity is equally stupid and not supported by the evidence.

And before you say "Well I didn't say they shouldn't regulate at all" please bear in mind that you just said a corporation should be able to violate laws deemed useless by that corporation and/or the general public, meaning the regulations have no teeth and therefore might as well not exist.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#129

Post by xapata »

fragmede wrote: post #123
xapata wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a region where taxis provide better service than "rideshare".

It might be hard to believe, but there are urban places, outside the US, where public transportation works (so Uber and taxis are still luxury items, so taxis themselves are nice and clean), where taxis are plentiful (so no problems finding one, even at 3am) and either electronic cash works (ie; not credit cards that drivers accept), or credit card readers are required (and effectively enforced so there are no proble…

Makes sense. However, I travel frequently, but have yet to encounter this situation. In the US the taxi monopoly results in poor customer service and/or difficulty getting a ride. In the various countries I've visited outside, the wealthy countries have had slightly better Ubers than taxis. In the poor countries, I'm incredibly happy to find Uber has arrived as I no longer fear for my life or worry that I'm being cheated. And no, I'm not exaggerating. These are places where the tourism office says to avoid taking public transport for fear of robbery/murder. Thus my belief that Uber is wonderful.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#130

Post by hardym24 »

ghaff wrote: post #122
hardym24 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. Having read the lawsuit in its entirety, if true the claim by Waymo against Otto/Uber is not only a tale of egregious theft by a rogue former employee, but also an indication of Uber's lack of competence when it comes to self-driving technology. The following quote from Bloomberg's piece revealing the acquisition shows the panic Uber felt: “The minute it was clear to us that our friends in Mounta…

The idea that there's going to be a robo ride-sharing service by the end of 2017 is... optimistic. Maybe 2037? Maybe 2047? Longer? It's not so much that Uber is behind on self-driving but the idea that Uber is in any way dependent on self-driving as a business. If they're covering their bets just in case that's one thing. If they think their business model depends on it, I wouldn't go anywhere near them as an investo…

Obviously no guarantee, but it's their stated ambition and they've been on the streets for years. It's such a monumental change it will be hard for people to comprehend until it's actually functioning live in the world. Hard to believe Uber can catch up from what seems to be a cold start if the lawsuit's allegations are true.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti...

Post reply on HN