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

Uber's New CEO

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Uber's New CEO

#21

Post by puranjay »

dannyw wrote: post #4

This is a thoughtful analysis into the whole Uber CEO opinion, but it is opinionated. Aggregation theory is one way to derive Uber's value, but you can make a compelling argument that supply drives demand. The reason why I don't use taxis in Australia is partly because the experience is far better with Uber and the cost is cheaper, but also because Uber is the most reliable. Without drivers and such reliability, I ca…

It's very interesting in India where you have enormous supply of auto-rickshaws ('tuk tuks') available in most public spaces.

Often, when I'm in public, I'll choose an auto-rickshaw instead of an Uber because the rickshaw is right there. I don't have to wait for it, don't have to give it directions to find me.

The service is worse - I have to haggle about prices, endure bumpy rides and dangerous driving - but the easy availability makes me choose them.

Re: Uber's New CEO

#22

Post by cjCamel »

dayaz36 wrote: post #13

why they want a 98 year old running uber is beyond me

Age is just a number and should be meaningless in any discussion to do with employment.

Also he's 48. Travis Kalanick is 41. Would you have preferred they got someone in their 20s or 30s? Why?

Re: Uber's New CEO

#24

Post by bbarn »

dannyw wrote: post #4

This is a thoughtful analysis into the whole Uber CEO opinion, but it is opinionated. Aggregation theory is one way to derive Uber's value, but you can make a compelling argument that supply drives demand. The reason why I don't use taxis in Australia is partly because the experience is far better with Uber and the cost is cheaper, but also because Uber is the most reliable. Without drivers and such reliability, I ca…

> the company offers a compelling service for riders, an economically attractive one for drivers (who drive by choice), and makes the cities within which it operates better.

Incredibly opinionated. It's a pretty disputed claim that more single passenger traffic improves a city.

Re: Uber's New CEO

#25

Post by [deleted] »

puranjay wrote: post #21
dannyw wrote: post #4

This is a thoughtful analysis into the whole Uber CEO opinion, but it is opinionated. Aggregation theory is one way to derive Uber's value, but you can make a compelling argument that supply drives demand. The reason why I don't use taxis in Australia is partly because the experience is far better with Uber and the cost is cheaper, but also because Uber is the most reliable. Without drivers and such reliability, I ca…

It's very interesting in India where you have enormous supply of auto-rickshaws ('tuk tuks') available in most public spaces. Often, when I'm in public, I'll choose an auto-rickshaw instead of an Uber because the rickshaw is right there. I don't have to wait for it, don't have to give it directions to find me. The service is worse - I have to haggle about prices, endure bumpy rides and dangerous driving - but the eas…

[deleted]

Re: Uber's New CEO

#26

Post by FussyZeus »

bravura wrote: post #19

'Khosrowshahi will be leaving behind a ton of money at Expedia, though presumably for three tons of money at Uber, if all goes well. But I assume it's not just about the money. If you want to be the CEO of Uber, presumably it is because you like the CEO game, and want to play it at the hardest possible difficulty setting.' https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-28/tender-of...

He should start a hedge fund called Dark Souls Management.

Re: Uber's New CEO

#27

Post by feedjoelpie »

morgante wrote: post #16
erikb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With "driving demand" you don't mean "creating demand" but "directing demand to my business instead of the competitors", right? Because it sounds a little like you want to say "creating demand", but your demand to go from A to B is already created before you choose between a Taxi and Uber. You don't decide to go to B because Uber exists.

> You don't decide to go to B because Uber exists. Actually, I absolutely do. I've gone on many trips that I simply wouldn't have gone on pre-Uber. On a regular basis I'll decide to go somewhere (ex. a party in Brooklyn) which I wouldn't have bothered with if it meant a slow and unreliable taxi (or an even slower subway ride).

Just curious: What makes you call Uber fast and taxis unreliable in NYC? I would agree with you in almost any other market, but I find getting a taxi in NYC using Curb just as fast and reliable, yet cheaper.

Re: Uber's New CEO

#28

Post by malandrew »

bbarn wrote: post #24
dannyw wrote: post #4

This is a thoughtful analysis into the whole Uber CEO opinion, but it is opinionated. Aggregation theory is one way to derive Uber's value, but you can make a compelling argument that supply drives demand. The reason why I don't use taxis in Australia is partly because the experience is far better with Uber and the cost is cheaper, but also because Uber is the most reliable. Without drivers and such reliability, I ca…

> the company offers a compelling service for riders, an economically attractive one for drivers (who drive by choice), and makes the cities within which it operates better. Incredibly opinionated. It's a pretty disputed claim that more single passenger traffic improves a city.

Uber at least always shows you both Pool and X trip times and prices at the same time when ordering. This at least gives every X passenger the opportunity to consider a Pool trip first.

Re: Uber's New CEO

#29

Post by cwilkes »

erikb wrote: post #17
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your demand to go from A to B is already created before you choose between a Taxi and Uber In the Bay Area and New York City, for me, this is untrue. Distances feel smaller when you can cross them with the press of a button. That, in turn, makes peripatetic schedules realistic. Case in point: I took a Lyft Line from Berkeley to Mountain View yesterday. If that wasn't an option, I would have (a) taken the train or (…

Many comments say it as yours. After reading them I have to agree. I spend most of my time in areas with highly developed public transport. I assumed in the US at least taxis would offer a similar level of flexibility, but apparently not.

In Seattle the taxis usually gather at designated pickup spots, in fact I think there's a law about them only being able to pick up from there or if they are called vs hailing from the street.

In the past I've helped tourists by directing them to these locations which aren't noted anywhere. So it can be really confusing plus inconvenient.

That's one of the reasons I like Uber and the like: I don't have to know what to do.

Re: Uber's New CEO

#30

Post by tashoecraft »

feedjoelpie wrote: post #27
morgante wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't decide to go to B because Uber exists. Actually, I absolutely do. I've gone on many trips that I simply wouldn't have gone on pre-Uber. On a regular basis I'll decide to go somewhere (ex. a party in Brooklyn) which I wouldn't have bothered with if it meant a slow and unreliable taxi (or an even slower subway ride).

Just curious: What makes you call Uber fast and taxis unreliable in NYC? I would agree with you in almost any other market, but I find getting a taxi in NYC using Curb just as fast and reliable, yet cheaper.

Cabs in NYC are simply a terrible experience that needs to step up. Since they don't really care about you, I've had refusals to turn on AC, them blasting music or talking loudly on the phone, and even one guy pulling his emergency brake and telling me "my brakes aren't working you need to get out" because he didn't want to go from battery park to Williamsburg. I will go out of my way to not use a cab, I'll pay more, deal with more inconvenience because cabs are just a terrible experience that I don't want to deal with anymore.
Post reply on HN