Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one that sees "Uber for X" in a somewhat negative light? In my mind Uber does relate to dominating an industry and getting big, but more in a Microsoft of the 90s sort of way, where there a lot of negative baggage associated with it because of what looks to be unrestrained greed. For example, I'm not sure I would want to advertise my actions as trying to be the next Oracle. That probably only comes across as entirely positive to those that don't know much about Oracle or only care that they make an obscene amount of money.

Is this just me? Or is it perhaps time to retire this idiom?

View on HN

I agree with you.

In my mind, if you have to market your app/service/startup as "uber for X" you've already lost the marketing battle, and possibly the entire fight to get your product to market.

For one, it's lazy. As a consumer - if you tell me your product is like another product, I will automatically and repeatedly compare your product to the original. And no, your product will not ever take the place as the "original", even if they exist to serve different functions.

It's also lazy because you (the dev) can't be bothered to explain your product/app/service in a meaningful, simple way. Instead, you make me (the user) draw comparisons and try to parse what it actually does. This sets the user up for disappointment when the functionality doesn't match up to the "uber" in the equation.

The best way to get around this is to stop using Uber as the golden standard for comparison. "Service platform", "peer to peer service", "on demand service", etc.. are all better choices IMO.

Every time I see the "Uber for X" tagline anywhere near a product I immediately lose interest. It's a shame, because I'm sure there are a ton of good products being over shadowed by the over saturation of Uber in popular vernacular, media, and gossip.

This exclusionary mindset isn't helpful. No matter how much we wish the term would go away, it won't. The article has "Uber for X" in the title for a reason.

The term will go away the same way it came in: through people using it.

Could you explain how it's exclusionary? Not following.

As much as I wish it would go away, I understand it wont because it's low hanging fruit. That's my issue - is that it's lazy marketing at best.

Well, you're looking for reasons to exclude someone. Instead of judging each case on its own merits, you apply a sweeping filter to all cases.

Think of all the things that make you instantly hate someone vs instantly like someone. Which list is longer?

It's easy to argue abstractly that a whole class of ideas are bad just because one instance is unfashionable. But if you only use terms because they're trendy instead of accurate, you're restricting yourself from coming up with the best ideas.

If "Uber for X" is the best way to describe something, then it's the best way. There's no reason to use euphemisms unless you're nervous about public opinion. I think it's more respectable to stick with "Uber for X" even when it's unpopular. People will always hate you for one reason or another, but at least you can resist bullies.

ah I see. Thanks for elaborating.

I get the point you're making, and in general I would agree. However, in this case ("uber for x") the term is so prevalent in tech/start up culture that I find it hard to believe it's the best way to describe every single product it's getting slapped on.

To me it would be the same as labelling every single new fast food chain as "The McDonalds of clam cakes" or "The McDonalds of pizza".

I think Uber for X is a fine term. It's short and conveys the idea unambiguously.

It also filters out people who can't separate their feelings for Uber from the abstract idea being discussed, which tends to be a net win.

The main issue is that Uber for X is very hard to pull off, as the article illustrates. So it doesn't really matter how you pitch it.

Grubhub is Uber for food, for example. Perfect description and no negative baggage.

"Uber for food" doesn't convey anything to me.

GrubHub is a food delivery service, isn't it?

It's used in the context of "convenient mobile on-demand ease of ordering" regardless of complexity or past traditions.

I don't see many looking at is as running a company the same as Uber itself. Either way, it's a tired idiom and hasn't actually described any other company very well.

"Uber for X" became the Uber for analogies and it's definitely not used as much today than a few years ago due to their current situation and issues.

"Uber For X": "Grab as much as you can by playing match-maker for customers and employees you refuse to classify as employees or treat as employees. Works well if the system you're replacing is so terrible and ossified people are happy to see it go even though drivers may well be making less than minimum wage once gas and other costs are factored in."

100% of the thousands of drivers I have ridden with have said they do not want to be employees and that it's one of the primary reasons for driving for Uber.

The job of professional full-time employed driver already exists and has for decades. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing so and Uber specifically has their Uber Black ride class for it.

You mean 100% of those you have asked, right? Or do you ask that question to every Uber driver you ride with?

I've asked all of them except an early few rides in 2012 when it was only Uber Black in Los Angeles. Talking about Uber is almost always how every conversation has started.

they do not want to be employees

If thats all it was, OK. But the reality is they also don't want to pay their fair share for road maintenance or the NHS or anything else the country provides.

What do you mean? Not being an employee doesn't mean you don't pay taxes on income.

Road damage is almost all caused by trucks and subsidized by car drivers (gas taxes go up linearly with axle weight but road damage goes up parabolically).

They may not want to be considered employees, but by IRS definitions they probably are. Uber has too much control over the schedule and manner in which the work is performed to claim they are truly independent contractors.

What control does Uber have over the drivers' schedule?

Then perhaps it's time to make the law around this more clear, the same as transportation rules themselves have to evolve to allow ride-sharing in all places.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com