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

301–310 of 542 posts

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#301

Post by solomatov »

temp246810 wrote: post #18

Not related - but I do find it ironic that google is up in arms about stolen tech given Steve Jobs' vendetta against google over stolen smart phone ideas. And yes I realize that the gravity of the situation here is different but it's still an amusing thought - not sure why everyone is so offended by this comment. Regarding the lawsuit - I've learned that we have no clue what is going on behind the scenes, so why stre…

This is the difference between misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, and just copying uncopyrightable ideas from your competitors. A person can go to prison for the first, pay the injury compensation for the second, but nothing can be done for the third.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#302

Post by comicjk »

BurningFrog wrote: post #103
harryh wrote: post #29

Uber passengers only pay 41% of the cost of trips, with investor capital making up the difference FWIW this assertion (which isn't really core to the central thesis of the post, but still) is wrong. That number comes from https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic... but the author of that story misread the data. Uber only counts their cut as revenue not the full cost of the ride. Despite this repet…

Also, that number must be Uber's total loss distributed per ride, rather than the profitability of each ride? I can't imagine that Uber loses money on each additional trip. If that was true, the boycotts are helping Uber!

The boycotts might help Uber's profits - by bringing them closer to zero - but that's irrelevant to Uber's goal of growing its user base.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#303

Post by harryh »

habosa wrote: post #238
harryh wrote: post #29

Uber passengers only pay 41% of the cost of trips, with investor capital making up the difference FWIW this assertion (which isn't really core to the central thesis of the post, but still) is wrong. That number comes from https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic... but the author of that story misread the data. Uber only counts their cut as revenue not the full cost of the ride. Despite this repet…

Can you explain further what was wrong with the calculation? This number is widely reported and yours is the first refutation I've seen.

The number was determined by looking at gross revenues (which is just Uber's cut of rides not the total that customers pay) and comparing it to corporate expenses (which is not the same thing as what it costs to deliver the rides). It's an almost non sensical calculation.

The fact that it has been widely reported is a sad statement on the innumeracy of journalism.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#304

Post by bigiain »

ptero wrote: post #245
thrill wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think this could be a very big deal. As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company (via a federal judge's order once certain evidence was presented) and gather and present evidence of massive fraud, etc., and working entirely as an amateur in this effort, managed to aid in recovering assets and capturing the former CEO and sending him to prison for several years, I find stor…

Removing a CEO based simply on allegations sounds to me as a pretty extreme response. Would you feel the same if the company in question would not be Uber (whose CEO may be a liability for Uber ATM anyway) but, say, IBM? This is an honest question.

"Relieve" and "remove" are not the same thing.

I'm inclined to agree that there's significant circumstantial evidence here that at the very least extremely pointed question should be currently being asked of the CEO, and in the absence of immediately and publicly verifiable evidence countering these claims - the CEO should quite reasonably be "relieved" (as in - temporarily taken out of decision making and business information collecting capacity) while the investigation continues.

But Uber has continuously demonstrated if not the sort of company who's ethical constraints would bind it to that sort of behavior. (To the extent that I'm now cynically wondering whether the current "Uber is an awful place for women to work" controversy has been intentionally orchestrated and played up in the press to help suppress this information...)

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#305

Post by harryh »

vkou wrote: post #174
harryh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is also not correct. Uber's cut of the ride (which is a bit under 20% of the fare) is covering 41% of their total corporate expenses (which are not the costs of delivering rides).

So, they are losing 12%/ride, but some of these costs will scale with the number of rides, and some will not.

That is also not correct. TBH I have no idea where you are even getting that 12% number.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#306

Post by navek »

zeptomu wrote: post #287
cvwright wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have some pretty cool stuff for monitoring their internal systems. For example, this distributed live forensics system: GRR Rapid Response https://github.com/google/grr http://grr-response.blogspot.com/

Funny note: these screenshots show an AWS instance :) https://github.com/google/grr/blob/gh-pages/screenshots/Scre...

maybe simply to keep keep all forensic operations as separated from any google operations as possible?

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#307

Post by nlh »

GCA10 wrote: post #58

For all the noise and excitement at the start of these clashes, don't they usually get settled with a licensing agreement that both sides can live with? Sometimes we also see a medium-sized payment (not ruinous) to address the allegedly bad conduct. That usually gets paired with some lawyer-like phrases that amount to a blend of quasi-apology and face-saving evasions. It's still an interesting suit. But after Apple/S…

Because I think in this case, it's not just about money (per se), copying a public design, or patent-related technicalities ("we had a patent on that very generic thing!").

This one is about bad-faith theft. Google didn't sue Uber because they want to extract some $ from them, they sued because they feel their hard work was literally stolen by a bad-faith actor who is now competing against them with their own work.

Neither party cares about an extra billion or two in either direction, so I doubt we'll see a "token" settlement for that amount.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#308

Post by bigiain »

sauronlord wrote: post #293
st3v3r wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, given the history of Uber's CEO, I think he's no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. The onus would be on him to prove to the board that these accusations are not true.

What crimes or violations was he convicted of? Enough accusations and then you are guilty until proven innocent? Wtf

Having not been convicted of a crime (with the assistance of one of the world's largest legal budgets) is not the usual measure of being the sort of respected and trusted person you'd want at the helm of your corporation.

The man is unquestionably toxic - it's entirely possible the entire company is toxic.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#309

Post by dookahku »

empath75 wrote: post #227
dookahku wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not. Every major car company plus competitors are focusing on self-driving cars. Why pay a human what a machine can do for cheaper? Uber's future depends on being first with self driving cars. Being a good taxi company in the 21st century will mean good at self-driving cars.

So why not just wait for someone else to build the cars and buy them?

Mostly because you're in a competition with everyone who sells cars; a commodity business. That's hard.

What is a startup? Poised for explosive growth. Are commodity businesses poised for that growth? No.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#310

Post by scandox »

bedhead wrote: post #105

Among the circumstantial evidence, the self-funding aspect is what jumped out at me the most. This is the equivalent of a hedge fund manage buying something based on inside information, but only for his personal account. Why cut other people in on the wink-and-nod-guaranteed payday? Besides, Lewandowski couldn't realistically raise money through proper channels if his pitch amounted to, "I stole stuff from Waymo."

Mechanisms for self-funding are not always transparent. For example, someone might have given him an enormous private loan that he repaid after Uber bought Otto. For example. In a hypothetical universe.
Post reply on HN