Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolba | Hacker News Reader

Why is a company that is losing money and having what's left of their lunch taken by a gorilla of a competitor (Uber) throwing away $1M like this? If I were an investor in Lyft I'd sue them.

View on HN

$1M just got them the best PR campaign they could have hoped for.

Exactly; I've just installed the app now. I don't use Uber a ton, so it won't be a big hit, but I will certainly try Lyft first.

There are ridesharing apps that integrate with local taxi fleets, too! I heard of Curb and Flywheel, which I'm going to try out soon.

By pissing off half the country?

By choosing the right half to piss off.

Keep in mind that the American election system is such that only 20% of Americans (or 30% of eligible voters) voted for Trump in order to get him into office. So it really does not follow that a move against Trump would anger half the country. Trump famously lost the popular vote as well, and he has one of the lowest approval ratings on entering office of any President in modern history.

Finally, who's more likely to use Lyft? Trump's support base is shockingly hard to truly pin down, but certainly a lot of his base resides in rural areas, not cities -- areas where Lyft (and Uber) may not even operate or, if they do, the volume of rides is far, far lower. My impression, in fact, is that there's almost an inverse correlation between number of heavy Uber/Lyft users and Trump support in the area -- it'd be interesting to see someone actually try to verify/debunk that impression with real data.

Using your math/logic, what percentage of Americans voted for Obama?

Good point.

30.79% in 2008 [0]

28.05% in 2012 [1]

[0] 0.582 x 0.529 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

[1] 0.511 x 0.549 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

Per http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/2012-voter-turnout/ in 2008 there voted 62.3% of eligible voters in total; Obama won with 52.92% of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Barack_Ob...), that makes 32.96% of all eligible voters.

In 2012, turnout was 57.5%, of which Obama won 51.06%. That makes 29.36% of all eligible voters.

The problem is that it's really, really hard to get numbers on the question "how many people did not register themselves for voting rights, even if they could legally have done so?".

You can usually get stats on turnout as both % of registered voters and % of voting age population. Neither of those is exactly % of legally-eligible population, but together they bracket it.

I can only comment anecdotally, but I went to like six bars in a conservative southern town last night (long bar hop, don't drink, so don't judge too harshly) - people were discussing this at every single one

I'm wondering if that half is part of their demographic? It seems to me that it wouldn't be.

If they had said "Hillary Clinton is the best thing ever", that would have pissed off half the country.

Trump wasn't popular; he was just popular enough, and it's for a variety of reasons, not just one.

Deserved or not, Uber has (and perhaps even takes pride in) a reputation for being amoral and Ayn-Rand-inspired. And this is a topic which has a strong moral component. Lyft would have been fools not to capitalize on the moment.

(FWIW I think Uber deserves that reputation and I consider the strike a legitimate protest against an immoral action. But my statement above is dispassionate and should stand even if you have the completely opposite opinion on these issues)

Personally, I had already been favoring Lyft over Uber for just that reason for long-term consumer self-interest and this issue as well as Ubers involvement with the Trump administration just personally justifies doubling-down on my preference.

Yeah, they've earned a boycott long ago

You can easily see this as marketing. I'm certainly more inclined to use their services now.

What about the other half of the country?

Lyft and services like it seem to be intrinsically tied to urban centers, which also overwhelmingly lean liberal.

Overwhelmingly liberal is not 99%. It's more like 66-80%. For example,in very liberal San Jose, Trump got 20% of the vote. It's still a large percentage of the potential customers.

Every Trump supporter I know is embarrassed by the travel ban. So this doesn't quite effect "half of the country".

> Every Trump supporter I know is embarrassed by the travel ban. So this doesn't quite effect "half of the country".

I'm going to guess that your anecdata set size is relatively small.

Well, if other ride-share companies follow suit, Trump supporters will soon have no other choices through which to make a political statement.

Lyft's biggest markets are places where Trump got less than 20 percent of the vote

A little less than half, assuming the popular vote is representative. And considering that the top 3 largest cities were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary it seems very sensible, given that I assume that's who their target consumer is.

> Why is a company that is losing money and having what's left of their lunch taken by a gorilla of a competitor (Uber) throwing away $1M like this? If I were an investor in Lyft I'd sue them.

PR and upmanship against Uber.

They are meeting their moral obligation.

What moral obligation?

To oppose those who would intentionally conceal and obscure objective fact from the public. The administration has publicly claimed a connection between these countries and the attacks of September 11th [1]. This is demonstrably false.

1: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executi...

Corporations have NO moral obligation to oppose people that you happen to oppose.

Lyft should be sued by their investors for misappropriation of funds.

I am not asking for opposition for the sake of opposition; I am asking for opposition because the claims of the administration are factually, demonstrably false.

Yeah again, Lyft's board is appointed with obligations to the company and the shareholders. Companies can have an ethos of social responsibility, but the board isn't there with an obligation to social responsibility, or to oppose politicians. When a non-profitable company is spending company funds based on the board's personal moral code...I'd have significant issues.

The only moral code here is fact: contrary to the administration's claims, the September 11th attacks did not originate in – or have a material connection to – these countries. Citing the September 11th attacks as a reason to restrict immigration from these countries does not follow logically, and therefore must be opposed on a factual basis. The claim is not true.

What's that have to do with Lyft?

It doesn't matter how principled your opposition here is...boards have obligations, and this isn't one of them.

It depends on the purpose of the company. Companies have purposes beyond simply increasing shareholder value: they have goals as to how they're going to run their business, which the board understands. I don't know what the details are in this case. But the argument that everything boils down to pure, unrestrained pursuit of profit is ultimately hollow and soulless and results in all manner of abuses.

Yeah absolutely. I'm guessing that "Oppose Trump" isn't in the memorandum of association though. I'm putting myself into the shoes of a large investor who isn't getting returns.

I don't think it's fair to describe Lyft's donation and letter as broadly as "Oppose Trump". The letter clearly addresses "Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin.… We stand firmly against these actions".

I agree I don't know what's in the memorandum of association. It likely doesn't specifically mention immigration issues, either. It may include language concerning ethics and human rights, which Lyft could choose to interpret as including this action. I think reasonable people can disagree on this.

I recognize that now includes two hypotheticals, so I'll stop there as ignorant speculation degenerates quickly.

Yeah I'm only speculating too, so I'll stop also. My main issue was just with a poster saying that they had an obligation to give this donation. It's really only an obligation to fund social issues if that's what their company was, effectively, somewhat set up to do.

There's every chance that this haphazard donation could blow back in their face, in which case someone will be in a spot of bother.

Buying goodwill. Am attempt to gain market share from Uber.

It's not $1M. It's $1M over 4 years. I doubt they'll last that long.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com