Hacker News Reader

Comment by duaneb | Hacker News Reader

They don't need the information.

They care because they are data driven and not personally culpable for their invasions of privacy. Why not collect everything you can without getting more permissions?

View on HN

You seem to be implying that they are violating privacy just for the heck of it. That's ignoring the very obvious value (even to customers) of this specific type of data. As the other commenter mentioned, knowing where humans choose to be dropped off when heading to a specific location is of obvious value.

> You seem to be implying that they are violating privacy just for the heck of it.

Why not both? Why not collect all the information you possibly can, whether or not you immediately see obvious value to it, and then find ways to justify it later?

> Why not collect all the information you possibly can, whether or not you immediately see obvious value to it, and then find ways to justify it later?

Because it's non-trivial and it costs a lot of money to do that, in terms of engineers' salaries, storage, etc.

> it costs a lot of money to do that

Well they _have_ raised $15,000,000,000 in cash: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/business/dealbook/why-uber...

Well-run companies don't waste money just because they are flush with cash -- especially not when that cash represents board members who want their investment to pay off, not be frittered away on something with no business value.

I'm not claiming that they don't collect as much data as possible including data with no immediate use. Perhaps they do. I don't know. I'm claiming that this instance does not appear to demonstrate them doing so.

Data driven and being a giant Hoover isn't the same thing. One is about making decisions rationally. The other is about acquisition for acquisition sake.

Personally, over never seen any evidence that Uber actually knows what it's doing except making a shit-ton of money. Even the self-drivIng car strikes me more as a sideffext of having a bunch of money they needed to spend and it won the rock-paper-scissors contest against rockets.

Doubly so for the "ME TOO!" Doordash / Postmates competitor.

There's no evidence that Uber makes a shit-ton of money. What evidence exists, points the other way:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver...

I stand corrected. It was clear that all these were attempts to extract additional revenue from their existing user base and infrastructure, and weren't very targeted, but for some reason I thought this due to a combination of flattening profits in an grow-at-all-costs VC environment, and being drunk on money. (Google is a company that is drunk on money.)

Well... I still think Uber is drunk on money. Just VC money.

And I'm sure that if Uber does implode, Travis will still come out a hundred-millionare and a reputation of being a business genius, even though he never actually turned the growth into a successful sustainable business. Kind of like Sean Parker and Napster.

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com