Hacker News Reader

Comment by dboreham | Hacker News Reader

Something wrong about this: someone in power being held accoutable for their incompetence and bad behavior. Or did he just loose some rich people too much money?

View on HN

What incompetence? This guy built $70B company from scratch in markets which had regulations and very active taxi unions lobbying against the very existence of the company. More importantly, Uber has helped improve the lives of hundreds of millions of commuters across the globe.

What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?

Also, it is important to understand that his "always hustling" and "being ruthless" or "never say die" attitude are a double edged sword. The same attitude has served him very well when taking on local governments to push his service through - but is creating a number of challenges at running a company which has now become quite big.

I would much rather celebrated people who having choice between gain and morality choose morality. Uber behavior made it harder for less law breaking less immoral to succeed for a time.

"Being ruthless" is not double edged sword - it is simply unethical behavior that gives you advantage. That is all there is to it. More ethical CEOs face challenges too, pretty much the same challenges.

It's not necessarily that Travis acknowledges that he acts immoral. After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers. Surely he slipped with the whole UberX and driver's pay going way to low, but that was a necessary measure against Lyft taking up the untapped market. Would be interesting to hear how he feels about that whole thing and whether he regrets doing the thing which he essentially had to do.

In regard to self-driving, Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business if Uber didn't start getting on the same train. In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.

> but that was a necessary measure against Lyft taking up the untapped market

> Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business

That is exactly what I am talking. "I wanted to win against them" might be an explanation, but not a freaking excuse. Having choice between getting advantage and not doing something unethical, Uber consistently chosen unethical. Feeling bad about those things once you get caught is probably nicer then not feeling bad, but does not make all that much difference in real world. How you feel does not changes impact of your actions on other people nor their morality.

> After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers.

But somehow when taxi companies are as greedy as him and as unjust as him, then it is bad. Or rather, this was just populism/propaganda to turn people against competitors and regulators - to gain advantage for himself.

> In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.

Yeah and Paris taxi driver who cut tires of Uber car did what was necessary to fight Uber. Sure he essentially did what he had to do and sure since he certainly feels bad about it after being caught then it is fine.

I mean, if I claim my collegue achievments my own or badmouth him behind back to make him look less capable and put myself up, then I am just essentially doing what I have to do, right?

Does all this begin with the premise that law-breaking is by necessity immoral?

No, I don't think that all law-breaking is by necessity immoral. People who broke the law and printed illegal literature in soviet block are heroes. Or people who helped runaway slaves. Eduard Snowden broke the law and I find it perfectly fine. If you don't stop at stop sign on bicycle, I don't find it particularly immoral.

However, law-breaking in order to get ahead of business competition is far away from the above categories.

People saving me from being scammed are also heroes.

Even if they are breaking corrupt laws passed by the lobbyists working for the incumbents? Regulatory capture is a thing that harms society and Uber has done more to undo that harm than in this industry than anyone else.

If that would be true, they would not push for change in locations where regulations were sane. If they stood for pure market only, they would not sabotage competitors. They have their own lobbyist pushing for whatever suits them.

He's not doing it because of that, though. He's doing it to get money. If he really felt that way, he'd be living to remove those laws.

> was a necessary measure

Ah yes, the favorite excuse of scoundrels. It was "necessary".

Of course it was also "necessary" for Uber drivers to feed their kids. But hey, can't worry about that, we gotta disrupt!

> doing the thing which he essentially had to do

That's not how morality works.

> What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?

It's true, I haven't condoned obtaining the confidential medical records of a rape victim by my direct report, ignored dozens of sexual harassment complaints by my employees, or attempted to suppress an HR complaint about me taking my managers to an escort bar in Korea.

I am being deliberately facetious, but your argument "what have you done lately?" is a double edged sword. Yeah, nobody here has done what Travis did running Uber - including all the shit (both proven and allegedly).

Indeed. Most of this thread comes across incredibly reductionist as if it were possible to categorize someone as good or evil. Surely Travis acts as an effective executive in some cases and a poor one in others. Context has deep importance in evaluating people.

I agree that what Uber have done --and are still doing-- is particularly impressive, and took a particular type of leader and team. There is no current comparison I can think of.

I also agree strongly with another poster that the current vein of media focus on Uber is suspicious. It makes me worry about lazy reporting --any story about Uber gets noticed, no matter how irrelevant-- and also about who is actively funding an anti-Uber PR campaign - big established taxi companies, possibly? As time goes on, the media's approach makes me more and more sympathetic towards Travis and Uber, not less.

However... everyone should have some standards. It should be possible to run a high-achieving company without requiring or tolerating behaviour ranging from sexism to overt harassment. And the recent example of a rape victim's medical records being acquired and shared is particularly egregious - irrespective of their suspicions, that was well beyond a line, and the perpetrator should have been immediately fired.

I'm always a fan of the newspaper test - don't do anything you'd be ashamed of appearing on the front page of a major newspaper. Many of the things that Uber are criticised for, they'd probably be (rightly) proud of being publicised. But not all.

While yes, he achieved a lot, I cannot agree on praising him. This reminds me of all the marketing gurus from 5 years ago that were selling rich quick schemes. They sold a product, they got rich, but in the end they were scamming regular people.

While Travis is not scamming anyone, the methods are similar. Get rich by exploiting barely legal methods, unethical ways and ride to the fame using someone else money.

I'd argue to build a company like Uber, he needed to stay on the edge of law given the archaic regulations and active lobbying by incumbents. Eventually, the improvement in the quality of life of 100s of millions of users who use Uber regularly vindicates his efforts.

> What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence? At the risk of going on a tangent - isn't this ad hominem? Imagine for a second, someone profoundly successful made the statement OP made. Does your outlook change then?

I'd say no because nobody, not even Sergei and Larry, not even the devil incarnate at the database company, not anyone in silicon valley has done what Travis and his team have done.

I was never a fan of ubers because like Dropbox I thought it was too simplistic and too easily replaceable. I've become more wary of the anti uber propaganda lately. I'm more suspicious of the press than ever. When I read some news all I can think of is which ax are they grinding there. The constant onslaught of anti uber propaganda makes me think something is wrong here.

If Travis loses, it will be a teachable moment for other unicorns. What lessons can we learn about what he did incorrectly in stacking the board? How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?

For what it's worth anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't have rung true for me nearly as well had a friend not driven for Uber and reported back how little he got payed.

I know my story is an anecdote but I can't help but feel that it's not an uncommon experience for drivers to feel taken advantage of or that the anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't be nearly as effective if their most visible public faces didn't feel used by the company.

I know mine is an anecdote and should be taken with a heavy grain of salt but I can't help but imagine that if Uber drivers as a whole were happier and better comped, say with in app tipping, that the overall perception of Uber would be better and drivers would be much more excited to recommend the service to their friends and family.

Can you share some numbers, what did your friend make.

I don't remember specifics but it was less than federal minimum wage, partially because the area was over saturated with drivers and partly because the biggest cab route in the city is off limits to Uber.

A driver friend showed me his phone. His best was about $1800 a week. He said he has met people who have had over $2.5k weeks. The hours are horrible though.

I'd say the goal is not to maximize driver earning but rather to minimize rider pain. If drivers make more in the process that's great. If not, it is not our concern.

anti-Uber for this reason is just a specific case of Luddism. Just replace "Uber" in "anti-Uber" with whatever company would have instead driven down salaries in this industry and eventually put drivers out of work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Elevator Operators: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b235dc58a1cfb3bef06fdd...

Switchboard operators: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/23/bc/a4/23bc...

> How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?

Don't give people a reason to dislike you.

Or set up the stock plan in such a way that you're untouchable (e.g. Snapchat's Evan Spiegel).

"If Travis loses, it will be a teachable moment for other unicorns. What lessons can we learn about what he did incorrectly in stacking the board? How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?"

Maybe not foster a culture of sexual harassment? Maybe not hire private investigators to tail reporters?

Seriously, everything bad that's come on Uber lately is no one's fault but their own. They, and no one else, performed these actions.

"[...] in markets which had regulations [...]"

Sounds like some guys during the prohibition if they could have filed for an IPO.

They're now losing market share to Lyft. A lot of it coincides with stuff he has done to bring the company bad PR.

Kalanick deserves respect, undoubtedly. If he is wise, he will also recognize that some compartmentalization or evolution in how he approaches the whole endeavor is a natural part of the growth of an entity entering a more stable and mature phase. You do not fight the same battles in the whole war.

double edged sword and/or two sides of the same coin

Both actually. When the long-term prospects of the company are dragged down because of the CEO, its time for some changes.

The article mentions he still has voting control, so I would stay tuned. The board appears to have no teeth as far as Kalanick is concerned.

It's LOSE, not loose. Sorry, this is apparently the one occurrence that sent me over the edge.

Lose rhymes with news. Loose rhymes with Bruce. If you can say "Bruce is in the news," you're halfway there.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bruce+news&kp=-2&ia=news

You can lose a fight, lose money, lose your wallet. You can fight a losing battle, you can be a loser baby. Rikki shouldn't lose that number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zqf35Rm1Fg&t=00m23s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA

You can be born to lose like Ray Price or Ray Charles. Or you can be born to lose like Lemmy. Or like Johnny Thunders you can be born to lose, but then everybody always wonders if it's really "Born Too Loose." Don't pay attention to that shit yet, that's far too advanced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4fMEJUDhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOmizjm0Xw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWB5JZRGl0U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLowvi4bP18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQoDCEKZyQw

Loose is mainly an adjective as in loose booty, loose women, loose screws. You can hold on loosely, you can bust loose; you have the choice of givin it up or turnin it loose, you can be on the loose, or you can be let loose from the noose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIIErMKNnY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwHi10qX8u8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=921kqkHOHDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7XbV82JfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA&t=00m31s

You can't really loose too many things (as a verb), unless you want to sound somewhat archaic... but if you did, it would essentially mean "turn loose" or "make loose." Like "Loose the hounds" or "Loose the shackles," or "Loose the fury of Hell itself upon those who mix up 'loose' and 'lose.'"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com