People definitely want to watch Uber burn as some have forever, but something seems to have shifted. I've been seeing facebook ads for Uber engineering for the last 1-2 years but recently looking at the comments on them they're 100% negative. A sampling:
"This is one of those times when steering into the skid might have been the wrong move."
"I think Uber needs to post an ad for a new President more than a Senior Software Engineer..."
"How about UberEatsDicks? Can we work on that product together? It sounds pretty good for you guys. Right up your alley."
I think the big change happened now is because for years Uber has been doing legally dubious things, that were morally defensible from certain perspectives.
IE, They mostly screwed over corrupt taxi monopolies.
Similar to a sort of Tony Stark character, Uber was an asshole, but they were OUR asshole. Fighting for insanely low customer prices and fighting against a bigger enemy, which is the terrible existing taxi industry.
The stuff that has happened recently is about having an awful company/engineering culture, and isn't in any way morally defensible.
First they screwed over taxi drivers, and that was OK. Then they screwed over their own drivers, and that was OK. Then they started screwing over their tech employees, but that's not OK.
I don't agree that they screwed over taxi drivers. In a lot of places (like SF, often cited as the original motivation for Uber) the taxi drivers actively screwed over their customers, and got away with it all the time:
1. Taxis would not come outside of the city core to pick you up. Or if you booked a ride they would find a more convenient fare, take that and never show
2. The card machine was always "broken" and they would insist on cash, maybe make you go to an ATM
3. They would drive people on poor routes to drive up fares. Especially foreigners. I had this tried on me.
4. They wouldn't take you to destinations they didn't want to go to. Try getting out to Yerba Buena Island (I used to
live there)
I'm generally for worker solidarity, and in fact I wish we had more of it in software engineering, but do I feel bad for the taxi drivers in SF? No, they had it coming.
Whereas the city I live in in the U.K. had excellent taxi services - both licenced and private hire. Now the private hire is shit as they barely have any drivers and the licences is still expensive.
London is shit though. Last night I booked an Uber, if I'd been asked to imagine a reasonable price for the trip I would have come up with something a lot like the price I was charged. If it was a normal taxi I'd have been charged at least £20. I don't have any sympathy.
I expect licensed taxis to be expensive. The problem is now I have no choice but to get an Uber because the private hire firms don't have enough drivers and don't show up. And from speaking to the drivers it's because Uber is paying them way above market rates for their first year.
So the private hire drivers moved over to Uber? Is that because they made more money under Uber, or had better conditions (maybe more flexibility?)? And, if so, does that mean that effectively Uber is a replacement for the old private hire system?
A while back I asked a few and they said Uber paid them extra for their first year - basically all the time they were working whether they had a fare or not.
uber offers a way better set of coverage than any single private hire company could, and without any real costs as no "staff" to pay. I suspect the drivers make more because they get more consistent fares?
In some countries (European south) the normality is that taxi drivers will rip off EVERYONE with their meters running anything from +10% to +50% of the fare. In that sense Uber is doing the right think by taking away a big portion of their income.
BUT that doesn't justify all the nasty things they've been doing.
Yes Uber is a game changer but they are not here to serve us, they are here to take over the taxi industry globally and make billions out of it (you need to spend money to make money).
From an economics standpoint it would be best to have an app that showed fares from multiple different companies and they let the consumers pick what they wanted. Hopefully this model would win eventually as it encourages robust competition but currently all the players (taxis and Uber especially) seem invested in creating monopolies
and it was never possible to know the price beforehand.
Unfortunately startups try to cut down prices and screw the providers (see Spotify, Uber, Netflix which clearly aren't expensive enough), but the simple new way of offering a service is already a revolution. Booking a taxi by credit card and without negociating, paying for PopcornTime service, etc.
No, they didn't play us. They did exactly what they promised. Thanks to Uber, I don't get racially discriminated against on a daily basis. Before Uber I did.
Some folks may hate them because of Susan Fowler, but that doesn't change the fact that they've drastically improved the world for consumers.
They're still giving us exactly what they promised - promised not by just words, but actions.
Initially, Uber set itself out as the hero of the day, riding on a shining horse to fight the Evil Taxi Mafia. Anyone who looked closely at how they did that could easily predict that what they want to become is the new, but worse, Taxi Mafia. They've been assholes almost from the start, they continue to be assholes now. That so many people only got angry after sexism accusations, of all the things, only makes me sad about the state of humanity.
As a homo economicus blindfoldus - nothing. Cheaper and better service here right now? Yay, party time!
As a responsible citizen of a civilized society however, one should be interested in how such a service comes to be, and what it means to people involved and the society at large.
--
BTW. I'm founding a biotech startup now; we provide personalized medication for free, OTC, ordered through our mobile app. We can do that because of our innovative manufacturing model, which involves doing BSL-4 level work with pathogens in our garage. I.e. we're disrupting the corrupt dinosaur regulations to provide a cheaper and better service.
You're a HN regular, so you've probably seen pretty much every single Uber misbehaviour over the last few years. I don't think there's more to be added.
I found that to be true at the beginning. But now, Uber drivers are Lyft drivers are taxi drivers. They all use apps now. And evidence suggests drivers adapted and found new ways to discriminate. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-ly... The only difference now is who is taking how much out of the driver's paycheck--and whether or not that company is paying taxes or just extracting wealth from any given city.
I have read the study; there is just no longer a difference. "Traditional" taxis now use apps & drivers now drive for Uber, Lyft and local taxi companies.
In a taxi you can rip off a firangi or fail to pick up a black passenger at your leisure. With Uber, this will cause your ratings to drop below 4.3, or your acceptance rate/cancellation rate to drop below/above whatever threshold they use. Then you get kicked off the platform.
Uber is providing the necessary regulation of the system that governments fail to provide.
Since taxis also operate via apps & the drivers are the same people, this is simply no longer true.
While I'll agree that Uber used to provide a higher quality experience (nicer cars etc), this is no longer the case. The rating system is also broken-eg it now offers too much power to drunk customers. Uber now operates only to benefit itself-not its customers, not the drivers and certainly not the public. Perhaps you'd prefer to be regulated by the whims of a corporation & their pursuit of profit extraction rather than the democratic legitimacy of government, but thankfully, most of us would not. Hence, even if its taken some time for local & national governments to get up to speed, Uber is being banned, taxed, and forced to abide by the public & workplace safety rules every other company must follow.
Perhaps you'd prefer to be regulated by the whims of a corporation & their pursuit of profit extraction rather than the democratic legitimacy of government, but thankfully, most of us would not.
On the contrary, most of us would prefer this. That's why yellow cabs are losing market share everywhere that men with guns don't take away their right to choose.
>"Racism at Uber is vastly smaller than racism via traditional taxis."
And that makes racism more acceptable?
Also I guess you are not familiar with The Atlantic.
It is a 160 year old institution, it is very well-respected. Past writers include Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Harriet Beacher Stowe. It does not trade in Clickbait.
They in no way said it was more acceptable. Just that to the individual, it is more pleasant to have to deal with a company which is less explicitly racist. Certainly there is still room for improvement.
The comment two levels above said that Uber reduces my daily dose of racism to levels far lower than "daily". The comment one level up says that the study your clickbait article cites supports this point.
Yes, a small amount of racism that I don't even notice is far more acceptable than a large amount which inconveniences me daily.
Racism isn't like homeopathy, where any quantity at all has the same effect. More is worse, less is better.
In that study, the median black taxi rider is passed by 2 taxis before being picked up, vs 0 for the median white (see fig A.6). The difference for Uber is not remotely as large.
Oh the tired old accusation of "that's just a ______ fallacy", the rest of my comment is simply pointing to that fact that the publication is not one whose business model is clickbait a la Buzzfeed. There is no claim of "authority" in that.
A venerable institution can fall on hard times and make decisions that reflect poorly on it, but generate revenue. And even in the best of times, a dud can slip through the editorial cracks.
How did you come to the conclusion that the Atlantic has fallen on hard times?
An article being a "dud" is highly subjective, even if you yourself haven't found an article to be a worthwhile read does not qualify qualify an article as "clickbait".
There is nothing sensational in the article, it is simply discussing findings in a study.
The Atlantic has actually fared pretty well:
[1] "The Atlantic saw the highest increase in circulation, expanding slightly by 2% in 2015."
>How did you come to the conclusion that the Atlantic has fallen on hard times?
I haven't. I'm simply pointing out that their venerability doesn't guarantee that everything they put out is of the highest caliber. The bevy of think (or whine) pieces it has published about millennials and safe spaces speaks to that, I feel.
>There is nothing sensational in the article, it is simply discussing findings in a study.
Which is sufficient as a rebuttal to the claim that it is clickbait.
Any revolutionary, disruptor or change agent will be perceived as an asshole. They're looking at the state of things, saying that doesn't do, and then launching into the machinations necessary to replace it. Rooting for "your asshole" is perfectly rational.
"Revolutionary, disruptor or change agent" also matches Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, and various other assholes throughout history.
Disruption is all fun and games when it stays within business context. When all you play with are abstract spending points on your bank account. When you breach that, when you start to disrupt law and social order, that pretty much always end in tears and blood for many, many people. You don't do that unless you're very, very careful or the goal is extremely important. You definitely don't root for assholes who don't give a flying fuck about society, and want to mess things up only to line up their pockets.
Uber is literally behaving like evil megacorp since almost day one. Why people would root for that is something I can't really comprehend. You don't cheer the plunderers that came to the village just because they just slaughtered the neighbour you didn't particularly like - because when they're done with him, they'll come for you.
The problem with 50% savings on transportation prices is that it might only be temporary. Uber might have a _worse_ business model than a traditional taxi company albeit with a better app. There's a pretty long series of articles about this, here's the first one if you're interested: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Uber is profitable in "some" of its top markets, i.e. "New York City, DC, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles" [1]. Those are also markets with competition at both the national, e.g. Lyft, and local, e.g. Juno, Via, et cetera, scales.
Well Uber has been raising more money at higher valuations as a premier unicorn but now they're headed to down round central and the pressure will be on to make money sooner rather than later. Especially with the revelation that the self driving technology that they were counting on was stolen...
Certainly, I agree that there's a savings in not being beholden to the same regulatory fees as a traditional car/taxi service. I guess I see that as also part of a subsidy. I think one reason they feel emboldened is because they know they have a huge pile of VC cash at their disposal form which they can pay legal representation.
I think that's exactly right. A lot of people were caught up by the PR and convenience of calling a cab from their phone.
Tech is full of endless praise of companies including Uber as if they could never do anything wrong. Most people never really stopped to think about the implications of how Uber worked, how it treated drivers, and how it responded to various issues (sexual assault during rides for example). Now there are widening cracks in that facade and people see through.
Started for me when they updated the app to ask for location information 100% of the time a few months back. I remember seeing the notification and thinking to myself "do I really trust Uber with all my location data?" and realizing the answer was no. They made the app much more frustrating to use if you didn't provide that level of location so I deleted it shortly after.
> Most people never really stopped to think about the implications
You seem to suggest that Uber's toxic culture gave them a business advantage. Like, riders got some benefit that a conscientious person ought to have guessed was derived from the suffering of others.
I think what really happened is that Uber successfully assailed a bunch of stodgy monopolies just by taking a modern approach to dispatching. Then others saw the opportunity and there was a goldrush. Today Uber and everyone else are squeezing the drivers (same is true for all the "Uber of X" sharing economy variants). But the crappy backoffice culture surely didn't make it more convenient or cheap to get a ride.
It's not the "crappy backoffice culture" that made them win on the market[0]. It's their decision to just ignore local regulations that made them win. Not the "modern approach to dispatching", because - maybe except the US - that wasn't really innovative (taxis in Europe have been doing apps for years now, crappy as they are). Uber could simply afford to be cheaper because they sidestepped or broke every regulation they could. Taxis can't compete if the other guy is not playing by the rules.
--
[0] - I really, really don't get why people only started caring after information about back-office sexism came to light, like if this was the worst thing Uber is doing; it isn't even remotely.
For my part, I still don't care if they broke laws protecting taxi monopolies in some places. They haven't as far as I know broken any laws in my neighborhood so my opinion is somewhat abstract. But if we did have laws here to draw a special distinction between giving someone a ride and giving someone a ride in exchange for money, then I would be annoyed with the legislators rather than the civil disobedients.
I do think it's stupid we had and continue to have laws that say it's illegal to offer someone a paid ride if you notice that they need one with your own senses ("hailing"), as opposed to via a phone call or app notification.
Maybe many people share this view, and that solves the mystery: people haven't only started caring recently about the local regulations; they started caring about the completely different issues that only recently came to light: backoffice culture problems, reckless administration of the self-driving car project, worsening conditions for unskilled freelancers generally, etc. That explains how it could be that suddenly lots more people are averse to Uber, and yet no more people care about taxi businesses or their legal moats than before.
I think so too. But also, the seeming uptick in negative views voiced with regard to Uber is due to the shifting Overton window. Previously, critics were less numerous and the public was less outspoken; for most people Uber brought low fares and on-demand cab hailing, so critics of Uber's approach were seen as curmudgeonly defenders of antiquated business structures, or people with specific axes to grind.
But a quick succession of PR disasters has made the narrative difficult to control:
November 28, TechCrunch: Uber begins background collection of rider location data [1]
December 1, NPR: Uber Now Tracks Passengers' Locations Even After They're Dropped Off [2]
December 14, TechCrunch: Uber's self-driving cars start picking up passengers in San Francisco [3]
December 14, Video: Driverless Uber runs red light in downtown San Francisco [4]
December 14, TheHill: Trump Names Elon Musk, Uber CEO to Advisory Team [5]
December 16, The Verge: Uber is stubbornly refusing to apply for a $150 permit for its self-driving cars [6]
December 21: ReCode: Uber has stopped its self-driving pilot in SF after the DMV revoked its cars' registrations [7]
January 30, TechCrunch: Lyft surges to the top 10 on Apple's App Store following the #DeleteUber campaign [8]
February 19, Susan J. Fowler: Reflecting On One Very, Very Strange Year At Uber [9]
February 19, The New York Times: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee [10]
February 24, "Amy Vertino": I am an Uber survivor [12]
March 3, The New York Times: How Uber Used Secret "Greyball" Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide [13]
Specifically, the #deleteUber affair stemmed from a series of misunderstandings, but generated more public ire than most of Uber's unambiguously overt actions. This widespread public upset made further revelations about Uber's culture more repulsive, even if they were upsetting enough in their own right. This also makes it easier to pile on less consequential pieces of bad press, like the few we've had in recent weeks about other high-ranking executives leaving for unrelated reasons.
I think the people who wake up every day trolling / hating Uber are not the people riding it. I also sense people are getting increasingly immune to the negative PR because it is becoming clear that someone in media has an axe to grind.
Living in NYC, I've been asking friends and friends of friends (it makes for good social fodder) about whether or not they plan to change and I have yet to hear anyone who actually cares and has changed their behavior (ie shifted to cabs or lyft). Not a statistically significant sample size but NYC is as liberal as it gets when it comes to issues like these.
There is the Uber customers, and then there is the software engineers who might consider working for Uber. I can tell you that after the recent revelations, before which I had no idea about their internal culture, I would absolutely not want to. This may or may not be a problem for their hiring pipeline.
Really? I've talked to multiple Lyft drivers who've told me they recently switched over to Lyft because they've noticed the volume of fares go down driving for Uber.
Also, anecdotally, I can say that in my group of friends a lot of people have switched.
Anecdotally I just switched. The fares were always the tiniest bit cheaper at Uber. Recently it was the sexual harassment + the video of Travis yelling at a driver that made me switch.
It was unprofessional. Once I saw it, I couldn't un-see it. I would understand if it was a personal interaction but if you're leading a company, take feedback and do not respond like that. It was incredibly immature and I couldn't imagine what things look like behind closed doors if that is how he'd be willing to look on camera (he must have known it was a possibility he was on camera)
I actually don't think it was so bad, in fact I kind of credit Kalanick on engaging with the driver, he could have just asked him to STFU and drive.
The worst part about that situation is that the driver made an excellent point: "You have the business model in your hands, but you chose to buy everybody a free ride!"
>in fact I kind of credit Kalanick on engaging with the driver, he could have just asked him to STFU and drive.
We're giving people credit for a minimum of human decency now? I'm worried that we're edging back toward the feudal system. You're talking about relations between serfs and their liege lords here, not between people in a free society.
Honest hypothetical situation: Let's assume for a moment the answer is no (maybe it is, maybe it isn't) would you honestly stay with Lyft long term knowing you would make less? This is the key question really...
NYC is nowhere near "as liberal as it gets" when it comes to these issues. I would say that, anecdotally, I find that "NYC culture" and "Uber culture" have a lot in common.
NYC has huge finance/business/old rich contingents along with 1st generation immigrants from conservative cultures. I find it hard to call the city as a whole liberal.
I signed up long ago and forgot(used it indirectly thought it was cool and my best friend started driving as a 2nd job; also cool) about my account. One day that same Uber account is hacked and 1k is stolen from me.
Immediately I try to cancel my Uber account. Nope your locked in there is no cancel button. Have to wait days to cancel. Uber knows about this hack and their response is it's the customers fault for not using an uber strong password. Then my best friend leases a car from Uber and in the long run he finds out he has leased his car from what it feels like the mafia.. except it's the Uber mafia.
Burn Uber burn.. I will never use your filth again!
They should get in while the getting's good. Uber's settling left and right while their coffers are still full; once things tighten ship it'll be blood from a stone.
Hmm, unless waiting till later makes them feel like they can't afford the legal battle and leads to an easier settlement? Gonna have to brush up on my corporate extortion
I've asked my lyft drivers in san francisco if they've noticed any difference in ridership lately (they almost all drive for both uber and lyft), and heard things like 'yeah, all the women are taking lyft now.'
> People definitely want to watch Uber burn as some have forever, but something seems to have shifted
Is it really as dramatic as all that? Just seems like ragging on uber is 'a viral topic' right now. Likely thanks to the couple of articles this past while that've no doubt made the rounds on FB/etc.
Once it's "old hat" people will go back to business as usual, albeit uber's steadily increasing prices and myriad other issues mean people'll always have that negative aftertaste (and possibly switch to other services or cutting back on ridesharing for a while)
Waves of hate for companies are nothing new; not saying Uber's not going to have enduring hate too but I don't think this is anything "different" than what I'd've expected. Just look at United right now.
I for one am waiting for Uber to finally die, and have been for the past 3 years or so. This is a shitty company led by sociopaths, that has no place in a modern, civilized society. It leaves bad example to follow for future entrepreneurs.
Why Uber is still alive is something that makes me worry about what chances the rule of law has vs. VC money.
I belong to a networking group for CTO's. Pretty much everyone has reported that Facebook ads are basically the best way to find developers right now. Extremely cost effective with lots of excellent results.
I have some concerns about the effect they have on diversity (given how tightly you can target them). But the results seems to be really good.
That's...bizarre. In past surveys over 80% of HN users report using adblock. Anecdotally that's very true of devs I know personally, and of the rest, there are 0% I'd want to hire.
I'm very curious who these developers are that (1) let Facebook show them ads and (2) god forbid, actually click on them
Logically no one. People go to LinkedIn and other work-related sites. BUT facebook being who they are and tracking you in (almost) each and every website on the planet (that silly like/share button) they "know" that you are job hunting and leverage on that knowledge.
Ok, more to the point, do they really expect prospective, quality engineers to click on facebook ads? Especially for someone with the brand recognition (for better or worse) of uber.
My guess: You're targeting people who waste their precious time on Facebook. And if they don't value their own time, they probably won't value yours either.
"This is one of those times when steering into the skid might have been the wrong move."
"I think Uber needs to post an ad for a new President more than a Senior Software Engineer..."
"How about UberEatsDicks? Can we work on that product together? It sounds pretty good for you guys. Right up your alley."
"Facebook must hate me to suggest this post. LOL"
"Haha, no thanks. http://www.theverge.com/.../14664474/uber-sexism-allegations ."