Uber, Mired in Corporate Scandals, Sees Uptick in Bookings | Hacker News Reader

Uber, Mired in Corporate Scandals, Sees Uptick in Bookings

nytimes.com

90 pointscarlchenet93 comments

Of course Uber sees an uptick in bookings. None of the people using the service in almost 200 countries worldwide are tuned into the daily drama of Silicon Valley.

Normal people want to get from point A to point B in the most comfortable, efficient, cheap way possible. If that means Uber then so be it. If that means Taxis then so be it. If that means Didi Chuxing then so be it.

It just turns out that Uber is well positioned and offers a compelling service in many countries around the world and so enjoys the resulting growing business.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of the events transpiring around and within Uber - they are unprecedented and important to varying degrees. But most normal people won't even have a cursory understanding of those events when it's all said and done. The world is vast and people are busy.

By the same token the issues which Uber faces really have very little to do with publicity and everything to do with operating at a substantial and constant loss, all bet on a dream of automation which is probably decades away. Uber with drivers simply doesn't work as a profitable business, and the self driving cars they need are simply not going to be here in time to save them. The rest is more or less academic.

Doesn't Amazon operate on a loss? Doesn't it not matter as long as there is a long term potential for profit?

People have said the same about FB and Amazon. I agree that they wont be able to stay at loss for ever, however once the cheap cash runs out there's nothing stopping them from bumping up the rates a bit and/or growing less aggressively.

Yes, they will loose x% of users, but the ones that stay will be served at a profit. At this point, Uber is likely too big to fail.

Anecdotally, I have used Uber from the beginning and never even bothered to install anything else just because there was no compelling reason to, I don't see that be different for many users.

I would recommend installing Lyft as well if it's available in your area. Depending on where I am, usually one service or the other is cheaper, sometimes significantly.

Fair viewpoint. I agree with you that this looks like the longer term business plan. However, multiple rounds of investors disagree and have come to the table and bet their cash.

This will be interesting to watch unfold. To extend the runway will cost an increasing amount. However, as the investment from influential investors increases so does the ability of Uber to influence government policy and actually push through self-driving.

So true. Most people just don't care.

I've used this to my advantage over the past few years, as soon as a "big corporate scandal" breaks the stock tends to fall. Check their financials, buy the stock if it looks good, then wait a few months for it to all blow over.

My most recent was Wells Fargo during their opening accounts scandal. Bought early Oct, Sold late Jan. 20.06% profit.

There were so many headlines calling for boycotts of Wells, and to teach them a lesson with your wallet. In the long run people just don't give a damn.

For every one person saying: "Uber is evil, don't use them" There are ten saying "Meh, its cheap and convenient."

Even those who care, might not have real alternatives. The real benefit I see from Uber is exactly that: opening the markets up so we can avoid the bad actors. But for now, many of us still only have the choice between "new and corrupt" and "old and corrupt". Thankfully, more competition is coming, after Uber broken the barrier down.

(And yes, I know other places already had good working systems. Good for you, doesn't help me, though)

How's Via and Sidecar doing?

sidecar shutdown long ago and via sold to an israeli company

>For every one person saying: "Uber is evil, don't use them" There are ten saying "Meh, its cheap and convenient."

I guess there is actually an 11th person saying, awesome I can financially support this evil company in the short term and make a quick buck.

I've been talking a lot about boycotts lately on HN to curb unwanted corporate behavior, in particular as it relates to a lot of the recent 1st Amendment issues and concerns (because 1st amendment is a limit on governmental power, not private entities).

No doubt boycotts are hard, and I'm not sure there was ever a time in history where anyone ever felt real change was easy, or ever a time where the people seeking change felt others/the world cared.

From MLK's quote "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing". To Gandhi's, "be the change you wish to see it this world." Maybe above all people just need to be inspired, and some historical perspective of what people can accomplish working together.

And as disheartening as a comment likes yours is, it's truthful, and I personally find it motivating and inspiring. I guess it's sort of like telling someone something can't be done and that being the catalyst for action. I'm pretty motivated at this time to create an organizational platform for boycotts in a crowdsourcing-esq style without need for funding.

If you don't mind, I guess like a sort of prelaunch feedback, what would it take for someone like you, willing to profit on bad corporate behavior, to instead become a leader for change?

I created my HN account 2884 days ago and this comment is the first time in a long time I’ve felt this forum has had some serious conversations about the conflicts between ethics and profits. I am so glad to see people questioning the means leading to financial ends. Thank you for directly bringing the dynamics of how financial incentives are impacting the reality we live in into the conversation. I sorely hope the person you responded to manages not to feel too attacked and gives a frank and truthful answer on where their line is with respect to not wanting to profit off a corporate scandal. It is going to be important to understand. Activism is going to have a tough road of making an impact on corporations if there’s no market response or impact to help dissuade when companies engage in immoral, unethical or downright bad dealings.

Except Uber didn't do anything deserving of a boycott.

May be, but may be not. So I'll take a purely Florida example, in many counties Uber was operating illegally, to the extent they trained drivers how to evade police detection, in some instances they even recruited drivers out of counties that they were operating legally to counties they would be operating illegal (unbeknownst to drivers) resulting in the arrest of drivers (criminal records). In Miami Dade county for example, if you were to have been pulled over you would have gotten two civil tickets resulting in over $2,000 of fines, a third citation converts the charge to criminal charges, Uber would fire driver for not evading authorities effectively enough.

Uber also had a secret program that in part helped them break the law by denying rides to users suspected of working with law enforcement (called Greyball). Another issue is Uber provided a lawyer for drivers (not an actual traffic criminal lawyer, but a Uber lobbiest), in legal terms that is a conflict of interest, plus very few of these fines have been paid after years and last I checked Uber (drivers) still owe millions to the county.

Again I'm not saying this is a boycott I would pursue, but perhaps it's worthy of discussion, and at minimum I could see boycotts getting Uber to take responsibility and pay these fines.

Here is a link that includes a copy of the Uber email instructing drivers to more effectively break the law: https://uberpeople.net/threads/welcome-to-miami-internationa...

what exactly would be deserving of a boycott?

>I sorely hope the person you responded to manages not to feel too attacked and gives a frank and truthful answer on where their line is with respect to not wanting to profit off a corporate scandal.

Nope, never felt attacked. Takes a lot to get me riled.

I don't go seeking companies that break laws to enhance profits.

However, I did notice a long time ago, that constant publicity will have an effect on stock price. This is fairly common knowledge. Bad publicity and "public outrage" will frequently result in lower stock prices. So I take a look at their underlying business, see if its sound, then make a bet (buy shares) that the public will move on shortly.

Is that profiting on corporate scandal, or market (public sentiment) overreaction? Up to you to decide.

> Is that profiting on corporate scandal, or market (public sentiment) overreaction? Up to you to decide.

Who cares? What's wrong with profiting on evil.

Here's a crazy idea, how about worrying about not supporting and fighting evil rather than getting drawn it these philosophical debates.

It's important to recognize that that perspective is the default and it won't be changed. People assume that as long as you're on the market, it's fair and valid to do business with you. This is ultimately for the best; we shouldn't be raking people over the coals for every perceived moral or political slight. That's not a meritocracy.

What it does mean is that if you want to activate change, you must comply with the unaccommodating defaults, which are, broadly generalized, "no one cares". The people who accept this and work with it are successful. The people who don't aren't.

The difference in agility between insisting that everyone else should conform to your thought pattern as compared to learning to accommodate multiple styles so that your goal/cause/product meets a critical mass of demand is huge.

How is buying a company's stock "financially supporting" them?

Directly

How? Buying stock doesn't transfer any money to the company (unless it's newly issued stock)

The act of buying stock signals demand and reduces supply, which will effectively cause the price to rise. Indirectly, rising stock prices are a positive indicator for the health of the company. Directly, if the company chooses to sell stock, it will be able to sell it at the higher price.

Companies, and the people that run them, own a lot of that stock. By buying some, you're increasing the demand, and therefore the price, and therefore the amount of value owned by the company and its leadership.

Decreasing the company's cost of equity capital...

You might be interested in suitocracy.com

You can't wish away a tragedy of the commons. All you're doing is rewarding bad behavior.

As to your first point I don't disagree, but are you saying taking steps to organize boycotts is trying to wish away something?

I was thinking organizing boycotts would have been an affirmative step towards turning wishes into action. Therefore, could you explain how organizing boycotts to address (at least) bad corporate actors behavior would be rewarding bad behavior? Is that a any press is good press argument or am I missing something else?

Boycotts only work for goods with fixed demand. The stock market is designed to be maximally responsive. You can't boycott a stock for moral reasons; you're effectively just donating money to people with no moral qualms.

You have to realize that the stock market is an engine for predicting profit. If you're boycotting something for reasons that are not represented in profit, then all you're doing is turning yourself into the sort of damage that the stock market is best at routing around. The only way to punish companies is to impact their bottom line, and boycotting their stock does not have that effect unless you control enough of the market that the rest can't pick up the slack, and if you don't have that influence then the effect will be negligible.

If, as they say, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, then certainly the market can stay rational longer than you can stay obstinate.

> I guess there is actually an 11th person saying, awesome I can financially support this evil company in the short term and make a quick buck.

Well, unless you belong to the minority of people on this forum with no assets in the stock market whatsoever (either directly or indirectly via a bank account, pension fund, etc), you are part of the system that profits off corporate activity. The only exception is if you traced your holdings in such companies (Wells Fargo is the example given here) and where they are getting used to within reasonable limits (some activity may not be disclosed to you as a member of the public for instance), and divested from all of them. A priori, I would find such a situation highly unlikely.

All that the grandparent commenter did was to allocate/deallocate to get a better return, and is honest about it as you point out. What more can one ask for or expect? Full divestment to within information limits as outlined above?

And as you point out, changing the system is super hard.

> And as disheartening as a comment likes yours is, it's truthful, and I personally find it motivating and inspiring. I guess it's sort of like telling someone something can't be done and that being the catalyst for action. I'm pretty motivated at this time to create an organizational platform for boycotts in a crowdsourcing-esq style without need for funding.

I am very happy to see people with energy for these sorts of things; feel free to email me to discuss more.

> If you don't mind, I guess like a sort of prelaunch feedback, what would it take for someone like you, willing to profit on bad corporate behavior, to instead become a leader for change?

I can give you mine:

1. I need enough savings to live on a "student budget" for the rest of my life in the United States. Until such an amount is reached, compromises will be made, such as what you term "finanically support this evil company in the short term and make a quick buck".

2. I do not wish to do this full time at any stage - there are other things in the world that interest me far more (chiefly scientific questions, usually from mathematics/applied mathematics). For example, if you provided a list of such-and-such companies engaged in such-and-such, and provided a summary of why you consider such a boycott worthy, I would evaluate it. Once upon a time I would have done the research myself; but I no longer have the energy and have a different set of priorities. On these lines, I have found http://www.givewell.org/ and more generally the "effective altruism" movement fantastic.

> Well, unless you belong to the minority of people on this forum with no assets in the stock market whatsoever (either directly or indirectly via a bank account, pension fund, etc), you are part of the system that profits off corporate activity. The only exception is if you traced your holdings in such companies (Wells Fargo is the example given here) and where they are getting used to within reasonable limits (some activity may not be disclosed to you as a member of the public for instance), and divested from all of them. A priori, I would find such a situation highly unlikely.

As appealing as it is to just use Vanguard index funds for my retirement account and be done with it, I have so far resisted the urge to do that for this reason. If I don't want a company to exist, I don't want to own that company, even if it only makes up 0.05% of my money. I think cheap, broad, cap-weighted index funds are the best way to invest in stocks, but I want the ability to exclude stocks of companies I find unethical.

There's an opportunity for a roboadvisor to replace all index ETFs with directly-replicated indexes. Vanguard TSM has around 3500 stocks and the international index also has thousands. I'm sure it was impractical and not cost-effective a few decades ago to buy thousands of stocks in fractional units for each customer account, but I think the large roboadvisors could pull it off today: they have scale, automation, and the ability to aggregate and batch all customer trades daily (minimizing trading costs). Wealthfront's direct indexing is a good start, but it's only for US large-cap stocks, and the lack of support for fractional shares means a 6-figure minimum account balance and potentially meaningful tracking error.

The only boycott in recent memory that I know of with a meaningful impact on the corporate bottom line, ironically, was the conservative boycott of Target over its public support of transgender bathroom rights. http://www.businessinsider.com/target-ceo-blindsided-by-boyc...

To be blunt, your efforts to improve corporate behavior are better spent elsewhere.

The fact that boycotts never work isn't just a moral shame in the abstract; it has real, practical policy implications. It's one of the main reasons why I'm dismissive of libertarianism and its conviction that government regulation is unnecessary because consumer behavior will fix wrongdoings.

You say you want to build a platform to organize boycotts, but consider: your network can't possibly become larger than Facebook (with 2 billion users), and I see constant attempts on Facebook to organize boycotts, to no effect. There's nothing you can do to significantly improve on this outcome.

Honestly, if you really want businesses to behave better, your best ROI would come from advocacy both in favor of more government transparency, and against libertarianism (especially among developer-types, where it has spread like a highly unfortunate mind virus).

>If you don't mind, I guess like a sort of prelaunch feedback, what would it take for someone like you, willing to profit on bad corporate behavior, to instead become a leader for change?

I think it would take a few things, and I'll try my best to elaborate on why.

1. Ability to affect change. I like to be successful, its one of my primary drivers in life. If I spend X hours working on some task, I want to see the results. Changing large swaths of people to do anything, is a challenge. So there exists this function of needing to wield enough influence over a large enough population that you influence corporate choices. Until you reach that critical mass, you are insignificant. A company by law exists to make money for shareholders, so expect them to ignore your small voice for a more profitable choice until your voice is large enough that ignoring you is no longer profitable. Same mindset applies to corporate fines. "We the ORG hereby fine your company $100k for this practice allowing you to profit $10MM" Cool... so we made $9.9MM we otherwise wouldn't have made. "So hit me with a fine. We can afford it." -Jaime Dimon. Back to my original point, few people want to devote their working hours towards a problem they don't feel they can succeed at. You want me on your ship? Convince me my effort has a measurable effect. Make sure the effect is worth my effort.

2. Unified Direction A centralized boycott platform sounds great in theory, but there are people that want to boycott everything, for every reason you can think of. I guess you'll have an upvote system or some filtering mechanism so the most popular ones get visibility/funding, but you will far eclipse the reasonable number of companies to protest. Everyone has different thresholds, but I doubt I would want to live a life where I'm boycotting your platforms entire top 10 list. Remember the Occupy Wall Street protests? Tons of headlines all over the place, even Presidential comments. Without looking it up, what were their goals?

3. Passion I would have to care about the issue. Am I going to boycott YCombinator because their CEO built their house on an endangered sand flea population? No, I couldn't care less about the fleas. Would I boycott YCombinator if they decided my murder my family? Yup. Every issue falls somewhere on the scale of "does this matter to me." Its hard to become a leader for changes you don't care about. Some people are selfish, some aren't. Everyone decides for themselves.

4. Fads This one is almost what I directly referenced in my original comment. Its popular to hate a company for a month, then something else pops up in the news and steals attention. How long do you expect to keep the boycott strong enough to matter? I don't want to be a leader hopping on the latest headlines every 4 months.

You solve those problems, and I would be the "leader for change." However, if you've solved those problems, you have no need for me.

Thanks for the response, it's thoughtful and well reasoned.

>However, if you've solved those problems, you have no need for me.

You would exactly be they type of person needed, based on the very idea of what you did/have been doing, you are smart, informed and most importantly not afraid to act(literally put your money where your mouth is).

If I could build a platform that successfully addresses these issues it would be nothing without people, same goes for platforms like Uber or even Facebook and Google. The pre-internet examples would be individuals like Gandhi and MLK who obviously solved problems to effect change, but even they were just leaders who relied on the support of people.

I think this second comment of yours is as encouraging/motivating as the first, it just reinforces my belief the opportunity is really about changing attitudes and thoughts about these power dynamics, rather than the power dynamics themselves.

"to instead become a leader for change"

he is leading the change. by exploiting swings in prices driven by emotional (over)reactions, he flattens the price and excludes the emotional component from it. good for investors, good for everyone.

Um, the "for evil to triumph" quote was Burke, not MLK.

Remember the movement to get out of big banks and move to credit unions.

Same thing - all the furor died down over time. Doubt there was a seismic shift.

> I've used this to my advantage over the past few years, as soon as a "big corporate scandal" breaks the stock tends to fall. Check their financials, buy the stock if it looks good, then wait a few months for it to all blow over.

Why aren't there any financial firms doing this and consistently beating the market?

Thanks for that tip. Very clever, noticed it too, just never capitalized.

Also not to downplay the issues with sexism in tech, but the level of uproar is somewhat reminiscent of the Ellen Pao situation and how much Twitter/HN/SF exist in an echo chamber.

I'm sorry I don't want to march on the streets because a group of billionaires are acting like total assholes towards an aspiring billionaire trying to play the game of thrones with that court. The rest of us have-nots have real problems to worry about. Cry me a fucking river.

The Uber boycott is not about the ousting of Travis, it started before that, back in January, after the kerfuffle surrounding the infamous executive order, the taxi union's decision to refuse to pick up drivers at the airport, and Uber's tweet that they had disabled surge pricing.

It then gained more steam after allegations of having a cutthroat workplace, accusations of sexism and sexual harassment (over which they fired 20 employees after an internal investigation), and allegedly colluding to rip off Waymo. Oh, and the accusations of misleading drivers, over which they ended up paying $20M to the FTC.

They actually made a joke to this effect about Uber and Lyft on the last episode of Difficult People.

That might be true but it still got the CEO fired. It's not quite totally inconsequential.

One thing that I've wondered about with Uber is if they're so horrible to their drivers, why don't those drivers switch to Lyft? Does Uber really have that many more passengers? Or is the almost constant barrage of negative stories about Uber part of some attack campaign and the majority of them are overblown? Maybe there is a Boy Who Cried Wolf factor to the negative Uber press?

how do you know they're horrible to their drivers? AFAIK, they actually have more driver friendly features than Lyft

I mostly use Lyft, and 95-99% of the drivers who pick me up work for both. So far, everyone single one I've asked has said they prefer Lyft.

In most places outside the US, Lyft does not operate.

in these places, alternatives definitely exist. addison lee, hailo, ola, grab, didi, some traditional cab companies also have their own hailing app.

„...drama of Silicon Valley...“ sounds like the Majority illusion applies to SV.

[i] https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03022

I'm tuned into the daily drama but really don't care. I want something reliable and quick. Lyft had a bug for a few months where they wouldn't accept my credit card anymore (no reason, just a generic system error). I've used Uber exclusively since.

Here in the east bay, I've gotten 50% off in the past two weeks in Uber. So hell yeah take my business. Thanks VCs!

Same. I wonder if they timed it for this very report..

Yup - they've been heavily subsidizing rides recently (even more so than usual) to pull booking numbers up!

Suddenly the headline seems less amazing...

Losses as a percent of gross bookings: Uber: 8% Lyft: 13.5%

Lyft is the one buying marketshare, not Uber.

Both are buying, right?

sort of, but lyft's market share costs 50% more than uber's market share

Why?

Yup. And United's business was unmarred after the Chicago PD violently removed a raving doctor from a flight. No surprises here.

There is weird regulatory capture in these markets. Taxi cabs are universally bad. Black cars are better but have always been expensive and harder to use b/c of pre-booking.

Hotels/Motels offer dubious over-priced quality. They hide behind no-refund policies and maintain in general poor standards.

So I support airBnb, uber, and lyft b/c I'm tired of being ripped off.

>Black cars are better but have always been expensive and harder to use b/c of pre-booking

They also offer a consistent experience and pre-booking is often a feature. I use black cars to go back and forth to my home airport way more often than I use Uber/taxis/etc. when traveling.

>Hotels/Motels offer dubious over-priced quality.

Again consistency and reliability. I don't generally love the chains but I also don't have complaints about them which is what I care about most of the time.

The value proposition of Uber is so good that with an empty C-level suites they are pretty much running on an auto-pilot of sort.

Honestly, this is a tremendous feat. In that case, they should get their CEO from inside rather than outside.

It's only a tremendous feat until they run out of cheap VC money to burn. They lost $650 million this quarter.

For me it’s because Lyft continues to get dramatically worse.

I’d love to use it more (and I hear drivers prefer it) but between the app UI being so poor, booking taking longer, frequent cancellations by drivers, etc... I only check it second if there are no Uber drivers around.

It’s a shame as I really like parts of it more but the overall experience has always been worse for me

This remembers me how in Russia possible investors "test" local social networks. They make a scandal, ask the police to start an investigation and so on. TV, Radio, whole internet discuss this. In a month someone will buy shares in the company.

I liked (and still like them in UK/NL/TH/US) Uber; it was more convenient and nicer than cabs. Cabbies in the countries I frequent are downright rude, their cars filthy and beaten; Uber was a welcome change. But in most of them now they are forbidden or mostly forbidden or on their way out. Some companies made their own horrible apps which half of the time do not work (in Barcelona I tried them all and none of them managed to get a ride, one of them simply crashed at startup etc) or are 'old' as in you have type a time and date when you want a ride and cannot order for 'now'. I have not seen one where the gps actually works so you see if your ride is actually coming and ofcourse, because usually they are made by a big taxi corp, no ratings, so back to rude, smelly drivers in crap cars.

In HKG there seem to be issues, the prices went up and drivers often cancel (more so than in other countries I noticed); I do not think it should be possible for a driver to just cancel because they find the trip too short. I should be able to rate them for that. But still more convenient than cabs who you wave over, tell the location and then they drive off for the same reason.

Another gripe is payments; in some countries payment card A works, in some B works etc. Paypal als payment doesn't work in Thailand. Still, while annoying, it is better than 'only cash mate' that often happens in cabs.

Anyway more competitors would be good ; any way to get all rides on an acceptable level. In countries like Spain where they now are forbidden, I was happy to see them in hopes they would fix the issues with cabs in general (especially in the south) but nope, it just returned to the comfortable bad behavior of always. Last weeks ride from Malaga airport had a cabdriver loudly burp garlic for 20 minutes. Can only complain by filling a form no-one will ever look at.

'Uber, mired in corporate scandals, sees an uptick in PR spend (again)'

this isn't PR spend, the author has been a thorn in uber's side through all the scandals and broken a bunch of big stories. Follow him on twitter @mikeissac

Fair, but any publicity is good publicity...new leadership launch pr blitz/new leaf turned/lessons learned etc will launch in the fall...

Frankly the outrage against Uber makes me more likely to use the service. Before it became politically incorrect to mention Uber, I was entirely impartial. I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

Well, it's probably just as politically incorrect to let your post with its rebellious attitude stand with positive vote count, so I upvoted it.

+1 thank you uber for triggering the entertaining outrage

Do you use this approach with everything?

"Poop tastes bad." "How PC, I'll eat some!"

Are you more likely to use Google products now too?

You sound like someone who angrily voted for trump.

Things need to get worse before they get better?

I normally agree with this sentiment. In this case, in my opinion, the Uber situation was so inexcusable that I took my business elsewhere.

Me, and not many other people, it seems.

This is the first down voted to absolute transparency comment I have ever seen. Although what he is saying is very extreme. There are certain scandals which I was pretty pissed off about but there were other "scandals" i felt were very unfair to them. For eg. the whole delete uber for providing service to JFK when people were protesting was absolute horse shit. They even cancelled the surge pricing, promised to help out drivers stuck abroad etc. The issue here was people were outraged without any logical reasoning behind it. Lyft did not stop the service but hell no one deleted lyft that day. Second one being when Travis being on Trump's board, come on every major tech CEO was on the board. Once people decide to hate a particular thing they seem to think little about what they are getting angry about. Having said that, they do or have done some shitty things as a company and I hope they work that shit out.

Mere-Exposure Effect?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

no one care about drama. just cheap rides home. good buisness model.

Dear Lyft, you're screwing up your chance.

When Uber started to have a bunch of scandal, I tried to switch to Lyft. I really did. But, stuck at a hospital after an emergency room visit, trying to get home at 10pm, I sat there for 45 minutes, watching a driver go from 4 minutes away to 5 minutes away to 8 minutes away, then no driver, then a new driver is 4 minutes away, then 4 minutes away, then 5 minutes away, then no driver, then a new driver is 12 minutes away, then no driver...

Come on.

Raise the price if you have to, but making me wait while these drivers decided I was too far away?

Screw that, and screw you, Lyft.

Lyft is screwing up in more ways than one. I only use these services when I'm out traveling. I switched to Lyft because a couple of drivers in Honolulu mentioned that they liked Lyft better. Fine, didn't matter to me. Until months later when the Lyft app started spamming me with notifications of ride credits and it wouldn't stop. Looking at their support information, the only way to get these spam notifications to stop is to completely block notifications for that app. But of course, if I do that, the notifications for actual ride information will be blocked, too. Deleted the app, will use Uber instead.

I guess this brings up the question: Is uber succeeding in its goal? Their value prop is that they can monopolize the taxi business, maybe they're actually pulling it off. Could explain why Lyft is starting to lag.

I think Uber is succeeding. But the goal is less obvious: burn cash to push through regulatory changes, loosening up the transportation market in preparation for self-driving taxis and logistics.

Imagine a new startup trying to convince you to switch your taxi for a new self-driving car? No way.

But an entrenched vendor that you have trusted for 5+ years? Ok, maybe next trip I'll accept your discount and try one of those self-driving cars.

This has happened to me on both services. It's inherent to the whole concept and has nothing to do with Lyft. If you ride enough it will happen to you to. The other day I ordered an uber, it was 5 minutes away, it drove to an entire different city, but uber wouldn't let me cancel without charging me, until 20 minutes had passed.

In Victorian times, people didn't mind paying more for a shirt if it meant it was child labor free. These days, nobody cares if a company is a hotbed of discrimination and shitty practices if it means cheaper rides and an easy to use app. Same goes for Facebook, Google, Amazon - nobody cares.

I think comparing Uber employees who get paid over 100k+ to child labor is quite ridiculous

They are comparing it to Uber the company, not the drivers or employees.

None of my friends/family outside tech have any idea of what is/has been going on inside Uber. A bit unfair to say "they don't care".

Everyone that I've told still doesn't care.

i think the long and sordid history of industry would suggest nobody has cared for a very long time. when it comes right down to it, moral consumerism is a luxury good.

Are you comparing child label to a a shitty corporate environment? And where did you get "hotbed for discrimination" from?

There were plenty of people who minded then, and there are plenty of people who don't mind now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com