Hacker News Reader

Comment by burkaman | Hacker News Reader

What's your opinion of stuff like the Hell app, or intentionally sabotaging competitors?

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/24/uber-hell-lawsuit/

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-re...

That's tough to say, I don't know enough about the entire situation. I think it's safe to say that Lyft and Uber wherein a street fight and were both doing "questionable" things to each other. It reminds me of Thomas Edison sabotaging Tesla, and yet, here we are, on A/C. [1]

[1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/30140/acdc-tesla%E2%80%93edis...

I couldn't find any example of similar actions by Lyft, but I could have missed something. Also, it's not just Lyft: https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/24/black-car-competitor-accus...

Regardless of whether anyone else did it, do you think these are examples of Uber making the world a better place and breaking rules that shouldn't exist?

"Regardless of whether anyone else did it, do you think these are examples of Uber making the world a better place and breaking rules that shouldn't exist?"

You're not really asking a question, you know that anti-competitive behavior is not making the world a better place, it's fighting for market share and dominance.

Anti-competitive behavior is often rewarded in our society with higher profits, valuations, and market dominance. For example, Microsoft forcing PC makers to use Windows 95, or Microsoft using Windows to push IE crush Netscape. Look at Google pushing Chrome via all its products to take 70% market share, much of it from Mozilla, or Google downranking Yelp to push its own products.

Those are all good examples, and I think a pattern of that type of behavior is good evidence of a "toxic culture". That's what people are talking about, not just the recent sexual harassment stories. I'm pointing this stuff out because you said in your comment that you'd never heard of any bad behavior at Uber besides sexual harassment. In fact there's a consistent pattern of bad decisions made by people throughout the organization, and that's why people talk about a toxic culture.

> It reminds me of Thomas Edison sabotaging Tesla, and yet, here we are, on A/C.

Dangerous position to take. This is pretty much saying that the ends justify the means, given enough time. That because winners write history, that in the moment, doing whatever it takes to win is more important than operating ethically.

I'm taking the cynical view.

> intentionally sabotaging competitors?

This only underscores that Uber is a fairly large company. The only difference with every other large company is that not only did Uber get caught, they also sported a festering PR problem which worked as an amplifier.

I think that's irrelevant to the point being made. If every large company has a pattern of harmful behavior comparable to Uber's, then every large company has a toxic culture. Or if you prefer, every large company is a product of and contributor to a larger toxic culture.

I agree that unusually bad PR has amplified the consequences, but again that's irrelevant to examining the culture of the company.

Ha, I didn't think it could be read that way.

What I tried to point out is that actively sabotaging competitors has nothing to do with company culture, toxic or not. It's simply an aspect of a company being reasonably large (iow. they have resources to effectively use underhanded tactics).

I have no doubt that Uber's culture is toxic. (And I do admit to some glee observing them get raked over coals.) But engaging in sabotage is, for me, a null signal in that regard. The capacity for that is simply a result of being large enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com