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

Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#61

Post by danderino »

kartan wrote: post #11
yeukhon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have revenue, but not profit, lost $3B last year despite seeing growth in revenue . The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. Car service is more direct. Groupon isn't a bad idea either, but the experience isn't as direct and as Uber. You see, emailing me / texting me offers is great, but I don't have time to scroll down and read the same kind of email everyday. If instead at…

> The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. To illegally set up a non-compliant taxi service that doesn't pay taxes, that doesn't pay minimum wage to its employees, that has been banned already in several countries, that ignores human safety introducing illegally self-driving cars, it is not a very good business model.

- Not illegal obviously since they been able to stay around for a long time.

- Their revenue comes from driver fare, and its actually in their best interest to increase rates.

- Have the self driving cars been rolled out? And if they have, how have they been done illegally?

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#62

Post by kyrra »

revelation wrote: post #38

Is the docket for this available somewhere? I hate reports that won't link (or provide) the original source.

I just use this search[0]. I believe this is the latest filing[1]. Full docket is here[2]. Note that many of the filings arent mirrored publicly, so you would need to buy them through PACER.

[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-Motion...

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#63

Post by yawaworht12 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #51
heisenbit wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the argument was that they did not go forward on that design. So they took it, investigated it and did not use anything they learned in the process.

Doesn't really matter whether they went forward with the design or not. Google alleged "You took our lidar design, and you could only have gotten that design if Levandowski stole it." Uber initially: "No we didn't!" Uber later: "Actually, here it is, but doesn't matter because we don't like that design anyway." Uber is playing games that 5 year-olds play when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Let's assume for a moment that this previous design bore many similarities to the google design (which could have happened just because the same people built it not solely because stolen files were used), what if the previous design were only worked on when it was Otto and was discarded when Uber acquired Otto? What would happen then?

Google has specifically stated that their suit is against Uber and not Levandowsky. If this previous design was worked on wholly at Otto pre-acquisition than this lawsuit should be against Levandowsky and in arbitration. This suit is already 1 month old and Uber acquired Otto on September 18th. That's a mere 6 months. If the previous design were scrapped around that date or really only saw significant development before that date, than this lawsuit should be dismissed and focused wholly on Levandowsky and select Otto employees for whom they have evidence to believe were complicit in the alleged acts.

Right now it looks like Google is fishing for an opportunity to hurt and slow down a competitor using a lawsuit instead of being the lawsuit against the person who should have been the defendant in the first place, Levandowsky.

There are hundreds of engineers working on a self driving car effort of their own design for many months even years before Otto was acquired and this lawsuit is wholly unfair to the work those engineers have put in to making that happen. Google is looking a lot like Oracle here using the law to slow down and hurt engineers doing good work.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#64

Post by yawaworht12 »

vertex-four wrote: post #39
yawaworht12 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did the search you suggested. It turned up results, none of which show a single example of blackmail. The best I found was a drunk executive speculatively talking about funding opposition journalism on a journalist who was allegedly extraordinarily critical of Uber. Ironically, it looks like you just illustrated one of my points since I'm pretty sure that that journalist and the journalists who broke that stor…

> In particular, Michael is reported to have singled out PandoDaily editor-in-chief Sarah Lacy, suggesting that he already knew something about her and could have his team of journalists confirm it. First article. It's basically creating chilling effects against reporting against Uber. I'm sure every journalist, and every person, has done something they wouldn't want to wind up in an article of the New York Times - a…

That's editorializing, not blackmail.

Here's an alternate account of that conversation by someone else that was at the dinner that suggests that it was a completely different conversation than was portrayed:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6198250

I did some more research and it turns out Ben works for Buzzfeed, which shortly before that conversation got a $50 million investment from A16Z, which is one of the biggest investors in Lyft. I'm not suggesting Lyft is the one playing dirty here but given all the money Andreessen has poured into journalists I wouldn't be surprised. VCs generally operate on the "no conflict, no interest maxim".

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#65

Post by bsder »

OliverJones wrote: post #29

Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance…

> Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc.

Um, that's fanciful thinking. Especially since early cars were notoriously uncomfortable and unreliable.

Detroit had three things going for it. The first was proximity. Remember, this is 1900. Transport by rail and ship is primary. Detroit is directly on both between Chicago and New York. And the entire Northeast simply dwarfs the rest of the country in population at the time: http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2000/2064/2064.htm

The second was Ransom Eli Olds. Detroit was the Silicon Valley of its day because the equivalent of Fairchild/The Traitorous Eight all spawned out from companies that were associated with Oldsmobile or Olds, himself.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#66

Post by bsder »

OliverJones wrote: post #29

Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance…

> It's going to take 30 to convert the transport network.

Not even close. AI will be better than humans at driving almost immediately. Here's a little inside tip:

Humans SUCK at driving.

It is a boring, monotonous task that demands full attention suddenly and randomly. Humans make very poor decisions in these changeover situations. Bad weather, bad signage, and other bad drivers confound human drivers at every turn.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#67

Post by yawaworht12 »

yawaworht12 wrote: post #64
vertex-four wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In particular, Michael is reported to have singled out PandoDaily editor-in-chief Sarah Lacy, suggesting that he already knew something about her and could have his team of journalists confirm it. First article. It's basically creating chilling effects against reporting against Uber. I'm sure every journalist, and every person, has done something they wouldn't want to wind up in an article of the New York Times - a…

That's editorializing, not blackmail. Here's an alternate account of that conversation by someone else that was at the dinner that suggests that it was a completely different conversation than was portrayed: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6198250 I did some more research and it turns out Ben works for Buzzfeed, which shortly before that conversation got a $50 million investment from A16Z, which is one of the biggest…

Went down the rabbit whole even further and it turns out Andreessen is the first and largest investor shareholder in PandoMedia/PandoDaily with 8%:

https://pando.com/about/

That's the media company that Emil was talking about at dinner. Does it not strike you as odd that one of the most vociferous critics of Uber years ago also has as a primary shareholder, Lyfts's biggest shareholder?

This isn't an excuse of things that have happened at Uber, but I definitely think these conflicts of interest should be receiving a lot more scrutiny since you can make any company look bad by just dedicating more resources to investigating it and painting everything you find in the worst light possible (like what happens with Apple)

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#68

Post by yawaworht12 »

bsder wrote: post #66
OliverJones wrote: post #29

Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance…

> It's going to take 30 to convert the transport network. Not even close. AI will be better than humans at driving almost immediately. Here's a little inside tip: Humans SUCK at driving. It is a boring, monotonous task that demands full attention suddenly and randomly. Humans make very poor decisions in these changeover situations. Bad weather, bad signage, and other bad drivers confound human drivers at every turn.

Completely agree. The second and more important problem is that humans suck worse at legislation and governance. I expect self driving cars to take off in developing countries and forward thinking countries (like Singapore) well before they take off in the United States.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#69

Post by yawaworht12 »

Neliquat wrote: post #58
yawaworht12 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they have to rescue it? The media has gone so overboard that I jumped off the Uber hating bandwagon about a month ago when I realized that it wasn't a pattern of wrongdoing by the company but a pattern of journalistic malpractice. It's interesting to see that many others are now realizing the same.

What if it's both?

I can buy that. I think they have things to address, but it doesn't appear to be any worse than at other companies. It just looks like they've received far more scrutiny the same way Apple does. Take their diversity report, for example. It's roughly in line with the diversity report of its peers, which suggests that it has the same issues to address in the same proportions.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#70

Post by yawaworht12 »

barneygale wrote: post #33
yawaworht12 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Uber the only one burning through VC money? Near as I can tell, all the companies are subsidizing to win market share while they figure out how to control costs and get the most bang for their subsidization buck. Can anyone point me at a single ridesharing company that isn't heavily subsidizing the fares? Assuming they are all subsidizing fares (which I'm almost certain is the case), the question we should be aski…

As per naked capitalism's critique, pouring money into Uber will never make fuel, cars or salaries cheaper. There is no magic point where Uber reaches a certain efficiency of scale and stops needing to subsidise every ride. This is why I use Uber as much as possible: they're doomed, and every ride taken in a redistribution of wealth from silicon valley investors to consumers.

Fuel: not Uber's problem. Any solutions/advances benefit all market participants equally.

Cars: also not Uber's problem. Any solutions/advances benefit all market participants equally.

Salary: very much Uber's problem. Also Lyft's problem. And Didi's problem. And a taxi industry problem. Self driving tech will solve this problem in time.

So the first two will improve over time. The third impacts every player in the market.

Seeing that there is a definite need and this market isn't going to go away, it seems like Naked Capitalism is focusing on the wrong problem (or is focusing on the right problem if the problem is how to drive clicks.

The right problem is who in this market that isn't going away is going to be the best at optimizing for utilization of fixed cost assets (cars), variable costs (fuel/energy) and gets enough IP in the self driving car space to have a defensive patent portfolio.

Uber is really the only player that has a strong presence in multiple markets in addition to human transportation. They have food delivery, courier services, long-haul transportation. I wouldn't be surprised if they go after UPS/FedEx and Instacart at some point. The more diversified they are, the better the utilization they can achieve. To me that suggests that they can play the subsidization game against everyone else much more competively since instead of subsidies, they can provide their contractors with more opportunities to earn when behind the wheel.

To date, I have yet to hear a single argument why Uber is doomed that doesn't apply equally to every competitor. The only way I can see Uber being doomed is if the ridesharing market is doomed. That said, I'd love to hear more arguments about why the entire market might be doomed or why the future might favor Tesla's approach or why one of the other competitors in the market has a better shot. I don't see it. Uber near as I can tell is Amazon, Part Deux.

This biggest question on my mind iswhen investors for all these ridesharing companies tire of this war of attrition and no longer want to subsidize the purchase of market share. When that happens, Uber won't be the only company that needs to raise prices by stopping subsidization.

Again, I would love to hear more arguments that aren't simply driven by dislike for Uber by some astroturfing comment army.

Post reply on HN