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

Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 241 posts

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#101

Post by Judgmentality »

nomnombunty wrote: post #62
TheCowboy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the problem that without the competition that Uber provides, Lyft likely becomes a more typical company and begins increasing their margins in ways that customers and employees dislike.

Lyft's valuation is still 1/10th of Uber's. I don't think we need to worry too much about Uber going under anytime in the near future. Uber still has another 10B in the bank. As a consumer, I am supporting Lyft so that they might live another day to keep the competition going

> Uber still has another 10B in the bank.

Seeing as how leaked financials have reported Uber losing billions each year, I don't think they have nearly that much money left.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hi...

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#102

Post by icelancer »

ucaetano wrote: post #20
perlgeek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you had a positive experience getting in contact with any human customer support person at Google?

When I'm paying for a product, sure.

I pay for Google Voice International Calls and my account was banned for a full 24 hours, meaning no VoIP calls out or in. No reason was given, no support available. It's hardly a standard across paid Google apps.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#103

Post by throwaway3332 »

This Uber story, where scandals just kept dropping struck me as very suspicious. Like Google just randomly got CCed by a supplier? You want me to believe that?

I was suspicious but who could be behind it, and why? Who is telling people to air the dirt that's undoubtedly very real, but that they have been just sitting on for a long time, at this particular moment?

I recently learned that Kalanick is very close to Trump, and given that this started just after the election that would seem the likeliest explanation.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#104

Post by M_Grey »

kosei wrote: post #87
tyingq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short tenure, job description, and his history makes this bit believable: "Jones determined that the situation at the company was more problematic than he realized."

Not sure if this update came before the HN share, but this is a very explosive statement from Jones: “It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business."

In the most polite and urbane way possible, he's calling them toxic; in a world full of pretty toxic people and practices, he's calling them out.

Until this moment I wasn't sold on the idea that Uber was going to actually die from this, now...

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#105

Post by tyingq »

loudin wrote: post #77

Serious question - why hasn't the Uber board replaced Kalanick yet? While it is indisputable he successfully brought Uber to where it is now, it doesn't seem like he has the good judgement to be leading Uber at this stage of the company's lifecycle. Wouldn't the best thing for the company at this point be a complete overhaul of leadership?

Would be fun for the remaining bro culture if the board ousted Kalanick and installed Marissa Mayer.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#106

Post by [deleted] »

Gargoyle wrote: post #96
kosei wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if this update came before the HN share, but this is a very explosive statement from Jones: “It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business."

Yeah, good luck getting another career corporate exec after someone leaving says something like that in an official statement.

[deleted]

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#107

Post by jaytaylor »

trevyn wrote: post #79
israrkhan wrote: post #24

Given that he quit just in six months, probably he did not even wait for his RSU grants to mature (1 year cliff for stock grants). The situation might be much worse that what appears.

Leadership compensation does not work in the same way as rank and file compensation.

Not necessarily true. I've seen it work both ways, so probably best to leave it at "we don't know the details of the compensation arrangement".

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#108

Post by Anderkent »

ivraatiems wrote: post #80
Anderkent wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" Yep, that's called civil disobedience. As long as they pay the fines, I don't think it's wrong to break a bad law.

Do you believe, then, that Uber breaks these laws as a form of protest, rather than because they want to maximie profit and eating the fines won't hurt their bottom line? What evidence do you have to support that belief, if so?

I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion. And if the fines for breaking the law aren't hurting their bottom line, it's a win-win - presumably the fines are calculated to more than offset any public harm done.

When you hear a company break an actually meaningful law, the outrage isn't "X is breaking the law!", it's "X is doing ". And yes, some of the outrage about uber does take the shape of the latter, and some of it is actually bad. But a lot of criticism is "Uber is breaking in ", and you'd only say that if the law in question is actually ridiculous.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#109

Post by Anderkent »

jcranmer wrote: post #88
Anderkent wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of which would include not using technology to hide law-breaking actions from local law enforcement. I very much doubt there's a legal clause specifying that uber has to provide service to undercover agents. If there was, I expect uber's legal department would not allow that program to go through.

If you're lying to a government agency, that's almost certainly breaking some law. I suspect that Illinois's §31-4 applies here (assuming this were in Illinois): (a) A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts: (1) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants fa…

They didn't lie in response to any official requests by the agency; they lied to incognito agents.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#110

Post by Anderkent »

matt4077 wrote: post #78
Anderkent wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many items on that list aren't actually bad things, they're just described using language with negative connotations. For example >Uber breaks laws all around the world to enrich itself, including allegedly trying to deceive government officials across the world.[4] Detecting malicious users and protecting drivers by shadowbanning malicious users is neither illegal nor wrong. Uber has no legal nor moral obligation to…

> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. There's an established process for that. And on the empirical level, it's not enough to show that customers and drivers are choosing to do business with Uber. If that were the standard, not single law protecting workers, customers, or third parties wo…

> Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken.

Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break.

> There's an established process for that.

And the process pretty much always starts with people deciding to disobey the law, and the law being adjusted later on to match public expectations.

> Also, 'jurisdiction' means something different than you think,

Yes, I meant to type regulation, ~corrected~ (ETA: not corrected because I can't edit anymore) with thanks

Post reply on HN