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

The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

danielcompton.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 542 posts

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#131

Post by Judgmentality »

hammock wrote: post #30
dantiberian wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bombshell part specifically would be Levandowski arranging with Uber to steal Waymo tech, form Otto, and Uber would acquire Otto. In all of the reporting I read about this after the first filing, this was missed.

I am reminded of an HN comment from 206 days ago that seemed prescient, even then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315888 This is from the big Bloomberg article/interview that came out today: 'Kalanick began courting Levandowski this spring, broaching the possibility of an acquisition during a series of 10-mile night walks from the Soma neighborhood where Uber is also headquartered to the Golden Gate Bridge. T…

Here's another comment from an HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12558078

"Otto was designed to be sold to Uber before it was created, there's a reason it was self-funded despite having nearly 100 employees by the time it was acquired. Anthony Levandowski met Travis Kalanick years ago and had been planning something like this for a while. It's basically an open secret."

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#132

Post by GCA10 »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #116
tannhauser23 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.

Google Ventures owns only 6% of Uber. If they can drag this out sufficently, then Uber cannot IPO, will have burnt all their cash - and the whole company will be at the mercy of their biggest creditor who just got awarded a billion-dollar penalty payment.

The math still doesn't work. Right now 6% of Uber is worth about $4 billion, if you believe the latest venture valuation. (Make adjustments as you see fit.) If this is litigated until Uber collapses in a heap of dust, Google ends up owning 100% of a heap of dust.

No money left to pay off the judgment. Most of the talent is gone, and the folks that remain are hardly motivated to rebuild the business for their new masters. The Napster mess is instructive. The brand might live on, but no one gets rich in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#133

Post by Animats »

Uber, in their usual rule-breaking way, may come out OK on this. Suppose everything in the complaint against Uber is proven true. Google/Alphabet/Waymo gets an injunction against Uber using their rotating LIDAR, a clunky technology that's on the way out. (The future of high-volume 3D LIDAR is either flash with a staring sensor or MEMS with chip-sized moving mirrors.) G/A/W gets paid a few billion dollars, but far less than the $16 billion Intel just paid for Mobileye's inferior technology. Uber has enough cash for that.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#134

Post by abakker »

thrill wrote: post #83
ontoillogical wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company ... That sounds like an interesting story! Have you told it elsewhere?

Heh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as th…

...Can I buy you a beer? or a few?

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#135

Post by cityhall »

jimmywanger wrote: post #106
NathanKP wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They work fantastically. Ride Austin is actually way better than Uber in my opinion. In fact even if Uber and Lyft decided to start following the city regulations and return to Austin I would probably never use either in Austin again, simply because I prefer the non profit approach that respects drivers and gives them a much higher percentage.

> because I prefer the non profit approach that respects drivers and gives them a much higher percentage For now. I generally prefer for-profit approaches because their motivations are far more transparent. They want to make money for the investors. Non-profits exist to serve the wishes of the donors, which may be opaque. For instance, the Ride Austin investors might suddenly decide that they really want to focus on…

What you want is competition, not for one entity to control the market regardless of its organization.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#136

Post by Eridrus »

aresant wrote: post #100

- Google's recently revised goal for their program is to license to existing manufacturers vs. building a car. (1) - It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game, except perhaps Tesla but they don't have enough manufacturing capability (yet, or anytime soon) to be a global threat to Uber. - Uber is never going to be a manufacturer but t…

> - It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game

I think GM shows clear signs of interest of being in the ride sharing game if they have an advantage there.

Would you rather be the first self-driving ride sharing company, and use that to displace Uber in high margin areas, or would you rather try to make a little bit of money off the premium segment buying these cars and then be a fast follower?

The main argument for being a fast follower would be to let someone else deal with regulation for you, but otherwise being able to undercut everyone in rich markets seems like a no brainer that would bring a tonne of revenue and experience to the project very quickly.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#137

Post by transfire »

themgt wrote: post #35
booleanbetrayal wrote: post #4

I can't imagine what Lewandowski and Uber were thinking here. The timeline is just too constrained to even be taken seriously.

Even at the time, knowing none of the characters or background I found Otto a very odd startup, one I almost didn't believe looked legit, and their rapid acquisition by Uber was one more "huh, strange" moment - how could they have bootstrapped out of nowhere and had tech worth that kind of money so fast? It's almost hard to believe Uber would be so brazen as to put something like this together, except that breaking t…

> except that breaking the law has been Uber's business model since day 1.

So tired of hearing this. It's just parrots talking in the echo chamber. Show me a court verdict that Uber broke the law.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#138

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

cma wrote: post #95
tannhauser23 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.

But if Google won a huge judgement they would outright own the company and not just be an investor.

What do you mean by that? Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Or do you mean indirectly, like, Uber gets found liable for say $10bn, and Google offers isntead to buy a controlling share of Uber and then forgive the liability?

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#139

Post by pm90 »

r00fus wrote: post #63
bbatsell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearing up some serious misconceptions here: 1) Austin did not ban Uber or Lyft. The city council passed an ordinance that required a gradually increasing percentage of rideshare drivers pass an FBI-approved fingerprint background check. (These rules are in place in other locales in which Uber operates, such as NYC and Houston.) Uber and Lyft formed a PAC that got a proposition on the next local election ballot that…

#3 if anything should be proof to Uber's potential future investors that they need to be wary that Uber has anything but name recognition and first mover advantage. They have no moat, no barrier to entry, and a whole lot of hubris just waiting to mature in the form of fierce competitors and negative PR.

To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads. e.g. I would not, from experience, trust fasten to get me back home at 2.30am on a weekend night (even if I'm willing to pay their "boosted" fares).

Its not an unsolvable problem though. I bet if they could hire more/better engineers and invest in infra for reliability they could be a lot better. And it might actually happen if Uber suddenly raises its prices and people look around for alternatives.

I think Uber and Lyft have made a huge mistake by leaving Austin. First of all they showed drivers and passengers just how little they cared about them; a lot of people in Austin were really angry at them and continue to be. Second, their stunt did not work. There was, obviously, a lot of backlash against the Mayor and local politicians but that has died down and the city has moved on. But lastly, and most importantly, the Austin market became available exclusively to all the other ridesharing apps, giving them a leg up and a source of reliable income and feedback.

I get the feeling that next time this happens in another city, the other apps will similarly step in and take over the market. But this time they will be faster and better prepared.

Post reply on HN