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

A profound apology

newsroom.uber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 406 posts

Re: A profound apology

#371

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

gingerbread-man wrote: post #291
lazyasciiart wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of well off programmers who absolutely believe that the only reason anyone isn't a well off programmer is laziness and poor character. Don't know how you're making your class divisions, but I certainly wouldn't call them lower middle class or below.

Many lower-middle-class Americans look down on the poor because they see themselves on equal footing, and believe that "If I can work two jobs and make ends meet, so could s/he if s/he had the work ethic." The most arrogant programmers I know seem to think the exact opposite: that they are among the elite few graced with the gift of true programming intuition. (Not true.) They don't think the poor are lazy, they thin…

Sure, but those are just two different ways to achieving the same goal: a feeling of superiority.

Re: A profound apology

#372

Post by yazaddaruvala »

pyrale wrote: post #297
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making the correct short-term business decision without fully understanding the long-term market forces in that domain, can still be a bad long-term decision. It is the business owner's (investor's) responsibility to understand and plan for the long-term. Not planning for the long-term is exactly what happened here. I do not believe this man should have been disrespected, however, his decision to buy a car he could n…

So you're saying making sound decisions regarding driving for Uber requires good economic skills, long-term planning capabilities aswell as insider information regarding Uber's policy ? This sounds like an unrealistic expectation. One would argue Uber was either disloyal or disillusioned if they rely on such people to advance their business.

I'm saying, making sound investments[0], requires good economic skills, long-term planning capabilities, and an understanding of the risks.

Here Uber changing policy or pricing is a risk! In this case, to make a sound investment, you need to calibrate the rewards against that risk.

Only looking at the potential upside, not realizing that the risk exists, is foolish.

Faulting Uber, for being flexible to market forces, is naive. Not faulting the driver for making an uneducated investment, that is unreasonable.

[0] Either to facilitate driving for Uber, or something else

Re: A profound apology

#373

Post by nstj »

tyingq wrote: post #367
nstj wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh for sure - I don't doubt the guy is upset, and clearly something caused that, there just seemed to be some kind of consensus that the actual driver receipts per mile/per minute on Uber Black had gone down given the numbers in the Bloomberg article which seemed to be drawing conclusions. If the guy had yelled "You are making me accept Uber X fares which is making me make less money" then it would be easy to see whe…

It appears that the Uber fare cuts do directly affect what drivers are paid. "Lower fares mean that drivers make less per ride. Uber said lower fares will attract more riders, which should increase the number of trips per hour. 'We care deeply about driver earnings,' Macdonald said. 'We actually find that a lot of drivers understand why we do this. They’ve been through price cuts before.'" [1] So, they try to explain…

No mention of Black in that article though?

Re: A profound apology

#374

Post by tyingq »

nstj wrote: post #373
tyingq wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears that the Uber fare cuts do directly affect what drivers are paid. "Lower fares mean that drivers make less per ride. Uber said lower fares will attract more riders, which should increase the number of trips per hour. 'We care deeply about driver earnings,' Macdonald said. 'We actually find that a lot of drivers understand why we do this. They’ve been through price cuts before.'" [1] So, they try to explain…

No mention of Black in that article though?

No. Just Uber saying that the pattern of lowered fares means lowered payouts is something drivers are used to.

Re: A profound apology

#375

Post by dnautics »

gingerbread-man wrote: post #296
dnautics wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just the fare reduction, it's also the loss in business as customers stopped using UberBlack in favor of UberX. Having driven for Uber and Lyft for a year and a half (even during the "good years") - the rate of new hires was most definitely a major concern and there were definitely rocky times. I was lucky to be able to mitigate this by moving to San Francisco from San Diego. While in San Diego I saw my take…

Recognizing that you may not have been the prototypical Uber driver, I'm curious what kind of research/ evaluation (if any) you did before/ while driving for them re: the financial prospect. How much did you "take home" after gas, repairs, taxes, etc...? Did you have an estimate of that beforehand? My suspicion is that many people who begin driving for Uber overestimate their net earnings and underestimate their defe…

I didn't do a formal estimate beforehand. by feeling, I underestimated my net earnings. Take home was probably somewhere in the 50/yr range. Keep in mind that I didn't "buy a new car" - I drove with my own car that I'd had since 2010. The whole thing put on about 100k miles; but the car is still running more or less fine, a year and a half later.

Re: A profound apology

#376

Post by crestedtazo »

_xhok wrote: post #153
_xhok wrote: post #124

Here's the conversation that took place: Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months. Fawzi: It’s good. Travis: You probably saw some email. Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you’re raising the standards and dropping the prices. Travis: We’re not dropping the prices on Black. Fawzi: But in general. Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we’d be out…

Personally, I didn't find this disproportionately disrespectful. The driver makes a couple unsubstantiated claims (perfectly ok--it's a car discussion). Travis does the same. The driver starts making accusations ("you keep changing every day"). Travis asks for clarification. The driver keeps up his attack ("You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.") If someone accused me in such a fashion, and persiste…

I believe that being rich is more important than being a dispassionate truthseeker.

Re: A profound apology

#377

Post by crestedtazo »

burkaman wrote: post #330
cmdrfred wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People relied on Uber For future reference, that is always a bad idea no matter what the company.

Most people don't have the ability to choose not to rely on their employer.

Exactly! Thank you! Some people are in a situation where they literally have no choice but to rely on their employer for almost everything in their lives. This can be especially true for people of color because of the endless social injustices they are forced to endure.

Thank you for your comment.

Re: A profound apology

#378

Post by [deleted] »

geofft wrote: post #319
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then, at some point, you're off stage so to speak when it comes to managing that "impression" for others. You can't always be fake all the time, it gets draining.

Eh, I think that just means the role of the CEO is not one you're cut out for. I know people who spend their entire workday and their entire work-related interactions outside of the workday being fake, because that's what they need to do to succeed at their job. They come out of it completely exhausted, and they have friends they can recharge with, privately. But if they get an urgent email or IM on the weekend, it's…

[deleted]

Re: A profound apology

#379

Post by nunez »

fragmede wrote: post #366
smdz wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why. I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver". This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handfu…

The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a ton to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver. Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber…

Holy shit. That explains why I took a S550 the other day despite it being an UberX ride. This would have been avoided if Uber had never got into the auto loan business.

This is gross. I'm glad to have deleted my account and go full Lyft.

Re: A profound apology

#380

Post by vecter »

AstralStorm wrote: post #335
vecter wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? Or did the market force Uber to lower prices?

Uber could have remained a premium cab company with a fancy app, but everything start-up is rated on growth numbers, not profit, and definitely not on profit of drivers. If not for abusing growth, it would have not raised funding and would have likely failed.

What business incentive would they have to be a black car app, if they can make more money by expanding into UberX? Not to mention, if they had remained a black car app, they might have gone out of business.

Uber is a business, not a charity. They exist to maximize profits. If you understand that point, then you see why your point is irrelevant.

Also, what the heck does it mean to "abuse growth"?

Post reply on HN