81–90 of 161 posts
Honestly, how many other companies, government agencies, or other organizations would hold up under the kind of coordinated, orchestrated drubbing that the media has dished out to Uber over the last couple of months?
As a part-time Uber driver in Toronto I haven't noticed any drop-off in ride requests whatsoever. Uber will survive, at least unless someone else beats them to market with an autonomous alternative. I don't get any incentives or bonuses either, just ~75% of the gross receipts from the customer.
I think it's important to remember that Uber users aren't loyal: if a ride isn't immediately available through Uber, they use Lyft; if Lyft isn't available, they go to the next app. While I agree that the service is here to stay, the individual players are likely to shift.
If I made my living (or any sizeable chunk of $$) off rides, I'd honestly be looking at positioning Lyft first if it was possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Elon Musk is the only one I could personally recall besides Travis Kalanick, without looking at an article listing the other members. Not a lot of people seem upset about Musk's presence on the committee, or about anyone else's for that matter. Funny. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence, or karma, or a spontaneous self-organizing feeding frenzy, or something.
Musk has gotten quite a bit of flack (in general and on HN specifically) about it; now, unlike Kalanick, he defended the decision and stick with it rather than resigning on the eve of the first meeting. Now, Kalanick actually managed to draw more attention by creating additional news by his dramatic resignation, but as far as criticism of the initial decision, I don't see any evidence he was treated differently than…
So. What about the other 18 members? Why isn't anyone on HN or elsewhere attacking them?
>Two questions face the company. One is whether Uber will continue prospering under Mr Kalanick’s leadership. Silicon Valley and its denizens may celebrate his type, but ... Well fuck you too, Economist. That seems like an unnecessary and ignorant jab.
"Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter." -Paul Graham in "What We Look for in Founders" http://www.pa…
I suppose I just don't like the insinuation that I (or my part of the Silicon Valley community) support that behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know Steve Jobs is the exception that proves the rule, but still, Apple fired Steve.
"I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. ..... I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it." - Steve Jobs The Steve Jobs Apple fired was not the same man that returned to save the company. The caricature portrayal of him with an…
On the other hand, sounds ripe for some other company not struggling with the same culture issues nor saddled with the sizable VC debt to come in for the kill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'm not sure I disagree with you, devil's advocate here...do you think you'd feel the same way as a founder who could prevent yourself from ever being fired from your own company? I can think of several situations where retaining that kind of control would be hugely beneficial and important (in the right hands of course, which is the whole issue here).
And that's why Google and Facebook (I think) both took steps for the founders to retain control in that manner. So that they would be able to focus on what's important to the company vs. bs next quarter results. And it's worked out well for both of them. But of course, they don't seem to have the "ethics" issues that Uber does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk has gotten quite a bit of flack (in general and on HN specifically) about it; now, unlike Kalanick, he defended the decision and stick with it rather than resigning on the eve of the first meeting. Now, Kalanick actually managed to draw more attention by creating additional news by his dramatic resignation, but as far as criticism of the initial decision, I don't see any evidence he was treated differently than…
OK, so let's say Musk and Kalanick have received a similar amount of flak for associating themselves with the Trump committee. First, that's not even remotely true (and no, I can't be bothered to perform a statistical survey, at least not for free); and second, it would obviously be counterproductive for qualified industry figures to turn down an opportunity to make their voices heard in government, regardless of any…
There are 17 other members.
> Why isn't anyone on HN or elsewhere attacking them?
HN specifically has a tech-industry-startup focus, plus the other people are exactly the kind of people you'd expect to be supporting an authoritarian corporate plutocrat. Their role is a dog-bites-rabbit story.
Here's the money quote: > If Mr Gurley and the rest of the board cannot find an experienced candidate willing to work with Mr Kalanick, calls for him to step down may grow louder. But that is his decision to take. Uber is a prominent example of founders’ power at fast-growing tech firms. On its own, Uber’s board does not have the clout to change the CEO, because of his super-voting shares and those of his co-founder,…
It also raises another good question: how big of a fool would you have to be to take the job Gurley and the board are trying to fill? How do you rein in a CEO who has total, unchallengeable control of the company? (Maybe if they offer enough money, it's worth it even if it's a suicide mission? Though "just cash the checks and wait for your inevitable dismissal" doesn't seem like an attractive offer for anyone who's g…
Honestly, how many other companies, government agencies, or other organizations would hold up under the kind of coordinated, orchestrated drubbing that the media has dished out to Uber over the last couple of months?
I'm not at all a fan of Uber, but at this point it seems like a coordinated smear campaign.