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

Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

franken.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 147 posts

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#71

Post by shock-value »

kjksf wrote: post #45
debacle wrote: post #28

It seems like a lot of things are coming home to roost right now for Uber. As with many things, I think that Uber is the first player in an arena where the second player tends to survive (because they learn from all the first player's mistakes for free, the groundwork is laid, etc). The barrier to entry for an Uber competitor is quite low and trust is the only thing that keeps Uber afloat. If they don't realize that…

The "low barrier to entry" is repeated on every Uber story and I don't get it. It's a business with a very strong network effects: you need both sides of the market because without drivers, users are not interested and without users drivers are not interested. Uber seems to have a big lead over competition here, is growing like crazy and they raised insane amounts of capital so that they can grow faster than competit…

Drivers often list themselves on both Uber and e.g. Lyft in the same way riders use both apps. So there are no network effects in play. All the drivers need to do is switch the signs on their windows.

It's the reason Uber is taking such extreme measures to scare "it's" drivers into not simultaneously listing themselves on competing apps. See: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#72

Post by johnsmith32 »

It seems that most are commenting on why Uber executive shouldn't be doing this. But none has viewed this from Uber's perspective. If your startup was being threatened by a brown-nosing bonus-loving trigger-happy reporter, what are you going to do? Publish a press statement? Hire more reporter to spread positive propaganda? A cost-benefit analysis would show it is simply cheaper to hire a hitman to take her out. Before you argue with me over ethics and human rights, this isn't the first time a company has did this. Do a google on volkswagon and Glaxo-smith klein cost-benefit analysises and they are equally expedient. So why our society allows large corporations to trade capital for human lives while we condamn a startup for doing the exact same thing?!?

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#73

Post by snowwrestler »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #16

What are the rules here for Uber? Are they compelled to respond or can they just ignore this letter and move on?

They're not compelled to respond but they will, because it's good politics to do so, and it's potentially a good chance to carefully craft a message to defend themselves.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#75

Post by fredsters_s »

shock-value wrote: post #71
kjksf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "low barrier to entry" is repeated on every Uber story and I don't get it. It's a business with a very strong network effects: you need both sides of the market because without drivers, users are not interested and without users drivers are not interested. Uber seems to have a big lead over competition here, is growing like crazy and they raised insane amounts of capital so that they can grow faster than competit…

Drivers often list themselves on both Uber and e.g. Lyft in the same way riders use both apps. So there are no network effects in play. All the drivers need to do is switch the signs on their windows. It's the reason Uber is taking such extreme measures to scare "it's" drivers into not simultaneously listing themselves on competing apps. See: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/

Note this is not an example of "no network effects". This is the opposite. Both services benefit from the shared network effects. The real question is whether the future market for ridesharing is zero-sum, which seems unlikely looking at analogous markets.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#76

Post by DigitalSea »

I actually agree with the letter for the most part. Yes, Uber are not the only company out there with troves of data that is most likely being abused without anyone noticing, but it is just unfortunate that the spotlight is currently on Uber because of the silly words from a man in a position who should know better than to say such stupid things in public (on or off the record, it doesn't matter). He worked as an advisor to the White House, he should know the importance of holding your tongue.

Not to mention all of the lobbyist pressure Uber is experiencing on the business side of things, this is the kind of stuff taxi driver unions and companies/entities threatened by Uber's business model can only dream of getting. They are not doing themselves any favours here.

It seems that Uber have well and truly put their foot in it this time over any of the other controversies and scandals that have involved the company. And yet, after all of this, Emil Michael gets to keep his job? Seems to me the only way Uber can start to make amends and repair their broken image here is to make some effort and fire Emil.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#77

Post by viscanti »

smrtinsert wrote: post #49
downandout wrote: post #38

This is officially the most blown-out-of-proportion story in the history of the Internet. When was the last time the US Senate got involved after you went on a rant at a party? I'm certain that Sarah Lacy is enjoying both the attention and the money from pageviews, but this is getting ridiculous.

As soon as someone jokes at about the potential of putting someones family in harms way, it is no longer a joke. I couldn't stand SL at TC but I'm 100% behind on her this one.

Where were the allegations of putting someone's family in harms way? The initial reports read like it was a hypothetical solution to show bias in tech journalism. SL happens to work at a blog who was funded by a competitor of Uber.

Real journalists give full notice about potential conflicts of interest (especially when they write flimsy attack articles). Exposing that unacknowledged conflict of interest doesn't seem like it puts someone's family in harms way. All it would do is show clear bias in a clearly biased attack article.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#78

Post by at-fates-hands »

Aeolun wrote: post #74

Why is everyone so surprised that Uber is tracking information about their users, or that employees have access to that information. I just think it's incredibly naive to think that they wouldn't use it in any way possible.

This.

I'm actually more surprised if I find a company who is actively supporting users privacy. In this day and age, you just have to assume a company is tracking everything they can to find out more about you and your preferences.

Also, if you don't like being tracked using Uber, make a statement with your wallet and don't use the service - problem solved.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#79

Post by jemacniddle »

marincounty wrote: post #58

Yes--the Boober made some asinine statements. Let him dig his way out of his utter foolishness. Now to Uber. I was shocked what they expect you to buy and drive in order to become a Uber Driver. Nothing less than a 2008 vechicle? And the list of acceptabe cars? After insurance it just dosen't add up--unless your sleeping in you car, or your in a brand spanking new market. In all reality, maybe he said these things ju…

Do you have a link to the original 'boober' transcript? Haven't been able to find one, context is everything so I'd rather have the full backstory before making any assumptions.

Re: Senator Al Franken's Letter to Uber [pdf]

#80

Post by JackFr »

DigitalSea wrote: post #76

I actually agree with the letter for the most part. Yes, Uber are not the only company out there with troves of data that is most likely being abused without anyone noticing, but it is just unfortunate that the spotlight is currently on Uber because of the silly words from a man in a position who should know better than to say such stupid things in public (on or off the record, it doesn't matter). He worked as an adv…

> He worked as an advisor to the White House, he should know the importance of holding your tongue.

You'd be surprised . . .

Post reply on HN