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

Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 218 posts

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#161

Post by smirksirlot »

debt wrote: post #156
potatolicious wrote: post #11

Wow. This is low. The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics." No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that". I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.

You hire a sales team to sell your product. They're the least invested in the overall business, they have the highest turnover rate of any other department. Typically, they're young, inexperienced, right out of college. Typically, this isn't their only job. Most care less about the overall viability of the company or the company image then they do about making a sale and a commission. The balance between sales and th…

When the Uber NYC General Manager is doing it I would hardly put it on sales.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#162

Post by 30thElement »

icebraining wrote: post #54
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #33

One man's dirty tricks is another man's free market - http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?

No one; higher fees due to state-enforced limited supply are more than enough to keep the poor from riding taxis. "Nearly half of [NYC taxi] passengers have a household income of $100,000 or more a year." (2014 Taxicab Fact Book)

Quite honestly, I'm surprised it's that low. 37% of households in Manhattan make over 100k/year[1]. Take into account that taxis are mainly concentrated in the high income areas (read: not Harlem) and the "nearly half" works out to basically the demographic split of the area, not the result of trying to keep poor people out of cabs.

Also, before anyone points out that the limited supply is keeping taxis out of the poorer areas, there recently introduced boro cabs[2] are meant to solve this specifically, with limited areas where they can pick up passengers and a much cheaper medallion ($500/year instead of ~$200k/year).

[1] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boro_taxi

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#163

Post by doktrin »

eridius wrote: post #154
doktrin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's obvious Uber was not intentionally trying to disrupt Gett's business. That's certainly Uber's stance, but it's not "obvious" at all : > [OP] "In some cases, Herman said the Uber employees waited until the cars had showed up to cancel the order. Uber said the orders were all canceled immediately." Deliberately waiting until the last minute to cancel a ride would certainly indicate intent to disrupt. That Uber i…

> Deliberately waiting until the last minute to cancel a ride would certainly indicate intent to disrupt. Sure, if they actually did that. At the moment this just seems to be Gett's word against Uber's, and since doing that would not in any way aid Uber's goal of harvesting phone numbers, I'm not inclined to believe Gett just on their word. The most benign explanation is that the drivers simply didn't check their pho…

> since doing that would not in any way aid Uber's goal of harvesting phone numbers

You're just making assumptions about Uber's goal.

It's Gett's word against Uber's, and the latter is the one who has admitted engaging in immoral and possibly fraudulent activity.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#164

Post by HillRat »

doktrin wrote: post #147
eridius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

> I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud" How exactly is this not fraud?

I'd say it's more of "tortious interference." If true, this was -- to paraphrase Fouché -- worse than a crime, it was stupid. It seems that Uber is so blasé about the tidal flood of lawsuits it's facing that it is willing to court more.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#165

Post by jjh42 »

mattmcknight wrote: post #157

I think there is an interesting contrast between this recruiting approach and the Google/Apple/Intel/Intuit non-recruiting agreements people were complaining about yesterday. Yet here, the weight of opinion is on the other side, while I see them as roughly equivalent.

I don't thin the issue is Uber recruiting drivers. The issue is DOSing their competitor to do so.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#166

Post by Dylan16807 »

avalaunch wrote: post #124
eridius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

It's not fraud to order a bunch of pizzas and then cancel the order 30 seconds later before they even put anything on the first piece of dough.

It's dickish, but no actual harm is done.

And if it cost $1 per cancelled pizza they would actually profit off of it.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#167

Post by bowlofpetunias »

I'm sure it was a "local" decision, but from everything I read and hear, lack of ethics is part of Uber's DNA as much as lack of hierarchy is part of Steam's or Github's.

Calling it "a bit too ambitious" is just further proof of Uber's structural lack of values.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#168

Post by goldenkey »

eridius wrote: post #159
avalaunch wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

They're paying cancellation fees. If I order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut in order to find out who the drivers were, and paid for them , then there's no issue. Even though I don't intend on eating the pizzas, I still paid for the service. In this case, Uber is paying the cancellation fees for the privilege of booking, then cancelling, a Gett ride.

With the intent to disrupt business. They can be easily sued for this practice. This isn't a consumer doing so, this is a company having their employees vehemently attack a competitor.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#169

Post by hangonhn »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #166
avalaunch wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

It's not fraud to order a bunch of pizzas and then cancel the order 30 seconds later before they even put anything on the first piece of dough. It's dickish, but no actual harm is done. And if it cost $1 per cancelled pizza they would actually profit off of it.

"It's dickish, but no actual harm is done."

In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it cost people time and real customers may not be served in time. Maybe not for this particular case with Gett since they're automated.

Re: Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics

#170

Post by Dylan16807 »

yapcguy wrote: post #80
livejamie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate; how would you have had them handle the New Year's Eve situation better?

Did you read their statement? They were more worried about being associated with the accident than the accident itself. Lots of weasel words and excuses in trying to claim that the driver didn't work for them, or that the driver wasn't active or doing a trip. If I worked for Uber, I would have posted something simple and left it at that e.g. "We have been informed by law enforcement that there has been a traffic acci…

There are tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year.

Of course they care more about being associated with this particular incident than about the singular victim.

Are you going to call them out for not expressing condolences for the other hundred people that died to cars that day?

Post reply on HN