Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months
theverge.com
theverge.com
The pragmatic reason for this is that the penalties and probability of getting caught for a given crime are often inversely correlated. So if you commit a small crime and a large crime simultaneously, you're likely to get caught for the small crime and then they'll notice the large crime too.
Uber set out to break a set of laws that arguably needed breaking: those that protect incumbent taxi services against competition. Calling their taxi service a limo service to avoid anti-competitive regulations is a small crime. But instead of learning the "one crime at a time" rule, they seem to have learned "Hey, we can get away with crimes!"
I'm not sure if it's really that. It seems that they're closer to having a scorched-earth policy where they intentionally break the rules. If the regulators step in and put some legislation that blocks Uber from operating, it also blocks their competitors from operating as well. If not, then they win by having their way and having a first mover advantage. Either way, they win or their competitors lose.
That strategy seems to have worked very well for them in the US, but not as much in other markets.
A decade ago it was Worldcom and Enron and other giants. It is unfortunate that the founder mythology has shifted some of the worst corporate behavior to start-ups.
say what you will about the tech giants, at least you know what you're going to get paid.
Could employees unionize and threaten to quit en masse unless a company-wide liquidity solution was offered?
While Uber’s buyback approach can help it retain talent, it may also benefit
the company’s bottom line. Using its own money, Uber purchases common stock
for 25 percent to 35 percent less than the price of preferred shares from
its most recent funding round, one person familiar with the matter said. It
can then turn around and sell shares at a premium in a subsequent round.
I personally break a few laws I just don't care for. Drugs laws to name one. Nobody is taking my LSD from me and I imagine there are millions like me.
That said I don't agree with what Uber is doing. They are one company trying to skirt the law.
A million people die every year due to cars. These laws are partly responsible for these deaths.
These laws are not worth the lives of a million people every year.
It's a pretty ridiculous situation.
For some reason, I think their executive team's fondness for self-destructive impulses is far more of an existential threat to Uber than coming in second in rolling out autonomous vehicles.
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14474800/waymo-self-driving-d...
It is Californias loss, and other people's gain. The cars are going to be tested, no matter what.
Self driving cars are already much safer than humans. The recent government investigation of the Tesla self driving cars proved this (ten's of thousands of self driving cars are already on the road right now) .
Try that with a thousand and watch California lose its mind.
It's Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. My only question is if there's a Sancho Panza at Uber to take note.
Uber is just a disgusting company that I wish didn't exist. Fortunately they have far more ethical competition to choose from.