The Uber Bombshell About to Drop • Hacker News Board

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#211

Post by dnautics » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

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…

Wow. The story of the sec attorney sounds even juicier than the story of the original CEO. Are you in the bay area? Drop a line!

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#212

Post by r00fus » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #139

r00fus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#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…

What happens when Google, Apple, Amazon or other company with a solid cloud app team steps in?

Austin's homegrown competitors may not be fearful, but one of the existing majors could single-handedly shatter Uber's image with a half-decent app, esp if it's integrated with something like Google Maps or Apple Wallet or equivalent feed.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#213

Post by _audakel » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

beamatronic wrote: post #180

ProblemFactory wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxi services are a centuries-old profitable business model (London had first laws regulating "taxis" in the 1600s). Dispatch via app is a solid improvement over the old phonecalls or street pickup, automatic credit card billing is an improvement over cash, and in cities with shady taxi drivers, GPS tracking is an improvement over potentially hacked taxi meters. So there is an obviously valuable business model for "t…

Exactly and not to mention, people aren't the only thing that needs to be taxied around.

i never understood why something like food / grocery delivery never took off with lyft/uber. they could partner with costco and do deliveries. I would love that.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#214

Post by Tom1971 » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #182

Another big bombshell is that apparently Google laptops store every single thing you do on it, including whether you attach a USB drive, etc. That's pretty scary if you're an employee.

My wife's manager at big tech company used to get an email whenever she inserted a USB stick.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#215

Post by sevensor » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

So at this point, Uber's name is mud, and they're getting tons of bad press. Does there exist a contrary interpretation of recent events in which Uber is still somehow OK as an employer or a business? In my news bubble, I haven't seen any.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#216

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #147

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…

Are you sure it was to make an example or there was something unique / different about Austin that made both companies not want to provide business there?

Neither. It was to prevent establishing a legal precedent of being treated the same as taxi companies.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#217

Post by objclxt » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #138

cma wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay?

Sure, although that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Normally the company would be liquidated to pay the judgment (this is basically what happened in Bollea (Hogan) v Gawker - Gawker couldn't afford the damages, so had to declare bankruptcy and sell itself to pay for them).

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#218

Post by astrodust » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #177

astrodust wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If self-driving cars become the norm, if you can just buy one at will, Uber's business model is junked.

I disagree. Uber's transportation-as-a-service model is likely to be far more cost effective when applied to self driving cars than car ownership is. Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive, making outright buying one cost-prohibitive. By the time costs come down transportation-as-a-service will have taken over the industry, and few people will have any particular desire to own their own car anymore. Not…

> Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive...

Not relevant to my assertion. I said when they become the norm, as in, when they're no more expensive as other cars.

> ... transportation-as-a-service would also be a lot more convenient than car ownership.

This means I can share a car with several friends, neighbors, or room-mates with little fuss. The problem with sharing a car today is licensing, insurance, and the inconvenience of the car being stuck somewhere when in use. If it acted, instead, as your own personal driver it can handle multiple trips concurrently. Two people go to the movies, so they're committed for X hours, and in that interim instead of sitting in a parking lot the car can deal with other things.

Uber's business model arbitrages the difficulty and expense of owning a car vs. the expense of buying a cab ride. If the car becomes more cost effective because of personal ride-sharing their margin evaporates.

Today a decent car would cost me about $600/mo. all-in. If I could buy a 1/6th share in a car for $100/mo. and be able to use it in short stints with little contention that's going to be cheaper than Uber if I use it more than a handful of times.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#219

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #177

astrodust wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If self-driving cars become the norm, if you can just buy one at will, Uber's business model is junked.

I disagree. Uber's transportation-as-a-service model is likely to be far more cost effective when applied to self driving cars than car ownership is. Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive, making outright buying one cost-prohibitive. By the time costs come down transportation-as-a-service will have taken over the industry, and few people will have any particular desire to own their own car anymore. Not…

[deleted]

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#220

Post by dnautics » Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #192

sschueller wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With everything that has gone on at Uber including a former friend of Travis' accusing him of stealing the company concept itself, something like this wouldn't be a Surprise.

Although I am ready to believe almost anything derogatory about Kalanick up to and including eating bbq'd babies with mayonnaise (yuck), the idea of "stealing a company concept" is pretty lame. Lyft started with a different business snd pivoted to Uber's (itself all a pivot?). Did Lyft "steal the concept?"

Not quite. Uber started as a hailing black car effort, then Lyft pivoted from ridesharing to hailing 'common cars' over a Hackathon iirc, and then Uber pivoted to uberX. History aside, this 'copying of ideas' is distinct since someone independent is reimplementing a general concept (which is not really protectable). You would be hard pressed to argue that burger king stole McDonald's idea of selling hamburgers, for example.

I think in the Uber/Otto case the theft is pretty specific. The laws outline what it means to steal corporate secrets. (This is distinct from violating IP or copying an idea). Usually this sort of theft involves being privy to corporate secrets and breaking contractual agreements to not take certain information with you.