Hacker News Reader

Comment by kinkrtyavimoodh | Hacker News Reader

Happy for him. I can only imagine how much being ousted from a company he created and raised to its current level must have hurt.

I do not look fondly at what a pain local transport was in cities without public transport (and even those with), and it is Travis (yes, Travis first, Uber second) that led this paradigm shift.

We can debate about Uber's business practices until the cows come home, but this is undeniable. And yes, other so-called 'nicer' / 'ethical' rideshare companies who didn't have to get their hands dirty because they profited from the ecosystem that Uber created exist precisely because of that.

View on HN

You imply that being ousted from the company he created is not a direct consequence of his actions.

You imply that unethical behavior was helpful to Uber defeat awful local transport lobbies in some cities and improve transportation for the people.

I strongly disagree with both assumptions. I believe he was ousted for legitimate reasons that he is 100% individually responsible for and I believe that unethical behavior at Uber did nothing to help them win the battle against local lobbies (only to win against competitors).

I don't see that the GP implied his ousting wasn't a direct consequence of his actions.

Anyway, it's not hard to imagine that Travis, despite being aware of how his actions resulted in consequences, may feel hurt, and maybe even remorseful.

It would be a mistake to believe that people who act poorly all lack empathy.

Yeah, actually you are right. GP did not implied it and my disagreement on this point is wrongly stated.

It would be more properly stated that I do not personally feel bad for Travis being ousted (because is, IMO, a deserved consequence of his acts). And in this case it is not actually a disagreement, just a difference of our reactions.

Ok, cool, thank you.

Yeah, I don't feel bad for the guy either. I hope he feels discomfort for the wrongs his enacted. That would, at least, make him human.

Great point, Bad things happened under his leadership, which lead to his exit. Uber was his baby and his actions has created doubt about Uber in the hearts of many. He probably feels really bad about his actions. He probably feels like selling his share might help. Lets cut the guy some slack he's only human.

he's responsible for his actions, but the way you word that makes it sound like he's the only person responsible for the morally reprehensible things Uber has done, which is not true.

He's was the CEO!!! He oversaw all the morally reprehensible things Uber did and did little to stop it.

If he is not responsible, then who is? I'm sorry but CEOs can't have it both ways. If you want to be paid at the (insane) current levels you have to take responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. The only other entity that might have some responsibility is the board for not getting rid of Kalanick sooner.

> If he is not responsible, then who is?

Befehl ist Befehl.

"I was only following orders."

Are you implying that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust?

The person following the orders certainly shares some of the responsibility, but the person giving the orders bears even more of the responsibility.

From what I've heard, Kalanick was a much more hands-on CEO than is typical. He certainly holds a large amount of responsibility for Uber's actions.

Uber has fired enough leadership that clearly he wasn’t the only one. But he was CEO, and he could have removed bad actors. It’s true that each of them is responsible for their own choices, but if he’s a bad actor and allowed or encouraged other bad actors, I think it’s fair for him to share some of their burden.

What exactly did he or Uber do that is morally reprehensible?

To me "morally reprehensible" implies something quite extreme, like, say, genocide, callous violent crime, rape, etc.

They illegally obtained medical records of a rape victim. If that's not morally reprehensible, I don't know where you draw the line.

That's a pretty high bar. So then every single thing that pretty much every single monopolist has done is totally fine since, you know, it wasn't genocide?

Uber did lots of, if not ethically grey, completely unethical (and unlawful) things. Least of which includes tracking regulators and government inspectors, and also surveillance on their users and celebrities based on the rides they'd take. That's not even counting all the bro culture and sexual harassment that seems to have been rampant.

It does come from the top. A lot of those people that were fired, were hired by Kalanick.

Nobody's shedding a tear for a jerk like Kalanick, especially not after his multi-billion dollar payout. He'll be just fine. In fact, by any stretch of it, he's being HANDSOMELY rewarded for his behavior.

He has simply no reason to change.

> So then every single thing that pretty much every single monopolist has done is totally fine since, you know, it wasn't genocide?

What? I didn't say that it was "fine". I'm just trying to get a handle on the scope here. When I think of things that are morally reprehensible, I think of the things I mentioned in my post.

Clearly, I don't think Uber is there, so I disagree with the notion that they acted in a "morally reprehensible" way.

Do I think that they behaved unethically, even criminally so? Yes, I think that you can make a strong case for that.

Maybe I'm making a semantic argument? If so, I think I'm getting weary of our constant 24/7 media stream of outrage, and for that I apologize since that's neither here nor there...

In today’s politically correct environment, the masses are wont to instantly discredit and discard the entire career of anyone whose personal failings happen to become public. Travis spent a tiny fraction of his time being a jerk. The rest of it was spent creating one of the most impactful companies that the world has ever seen. Give credit where credit is due.

”Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done” - Bryan Stevenson

Edit: I should have used the word valuable instead of impactful. I’m leaving it in because the Uber critics responding below have all jumped on my use of the term, and those replies would no longer make sense if I change it. That said, I do believe Uber has been a very impactful company and will continue to be.

Personal failings are one thing, but that hasn't been the downfall of Travis Kalanick. His professional failings have been his downfall.

I disagree. The video of him talking down to a driver seemed to be the catalyst. Once that came out, everyone that disliked Travis, stood to benefit from his dismissal, or just hated Uber, piled on with story after story. As an executive, he was aggressive and didn’t play nice with competitors or politicians seeking to limit his business and/or put their hands in its pockets. Show me someone that has built a $40+ billion business out of thin air that isn’t constantly pushing the limits like he did.

Airbnb was born out of Craigslist spam. Facebook only grew because of a contact spammer that is still in use to this day. In Facebook’s early days, Hotmail temporarily blocked Facebook invite spam and their growth instantly dropped by 90%. Uber used Greyball to avoid giving rides to those in violation of its terms of service, some of whom were undercover law enforcement personnel looking to disrupt its business.

These big businesses don’t come to fruition by accident, and the one thing they seem to have in common is that most of them broke the rules to get where they are. It may not be pleasant or politically correct, but it’s a fact of life.

> Uber used Greyball to avoid giving rides to undercover law enforcement personnel looking looking to destroy their business.

Uber used Greyball to evade municipal laws.

Yes, they were denying rides to undercover law enforcement personnel looking to destroy their business.

Or regulate Uber the same as any other taxi service in their community.

Look, I'm a fan of Lyft and Uber. They shook up an ossified taxi industry. But let's not sugarcoat what Uber did - they broke laws and constructed systems to aid breaking those laws.

The rest of it was spent creating one of the most impactful companies that the world has ever seen.

Are you talking about Uber? More convenient, cheaper taxis? Sure, I like that as much as the next person, but it's hardly one of the most impactful companies in history.

We’ve entered an unquantifiable mish-mash of superlatives but I’d reckon that uber, as a mainstream pioneer of the contemporary sharing economy, has had more of an impact than you’re willing to admit.

To compare it with the most impactful companies that the world has ever seen, I compare it to companies that did things like, for example, pioneer electricity distribution across the US (and other countries), or turn antibiotics from an exotic, expensive lab experiment into something that could be economically manufactured in quantity. They had top tier impact. By comparison, Uber is basically invisible.

Certainly excellent at marketing the idea that selling services to people should be called the "sharing economy".

And that marketing it as "selling services" to someone is a great way to avoid a minimum wage for that service.

'The rest of it was spent creating one of the most impactful companies that the world has ever seen.'

I don't think Uber is this, even if 'impact' is purely taken as a morally neutral statement. It's just clearly not the case. Train companies, underground, shipping, airlines, have all had a much bigger impact and that's just looking at transport.

And yet Uber is worth significantly more than nearly all of the companies in the specific verticals you mention.

"worth" being valuation based on debt. We don't know their worth because they aren't public.

It’s worth what people are willing to pay for it. In this latest transaction, people are willing to invest billions at a $48 billion valuation. This money isn’t even flowing to the company, but rather to individual shareholders. That means it is currently worth $48 billion.

That worth is the worth paid by people who don't know all the information, sold by people who didn't give all the information.

Uber also wasn't worth $70B in the last round, investors didn't know that sexism was rampant and the culture horrible, which would have surely made them not invest if they had talked to female employees at uber.

However, they didn't know that the culture is horrible and not able to grow another 10x under these conditions and conquer the autonomous driving market.

They also didn't know that Uber had all these patent problem, but they did.

Now, investors have invested at a $48B valuation, but they still overpaid, because they don't know all the information. Maybe they didn't care, because Uber told them, they will definitely be able to bloat up the company to $100, so that SoftBank makes their 2x. Surely they also have liquidation preference.

So, they actual valuation of Uber, including all the bad that no one knows, is probably only at $10B.

It could also only be $1B, since Uber probably won't compete in the autonomous car market and can only make $50M profit per year after stripping away all its overhead. But most people don't know this.

He built a company with a culture of theft, harassment, graft, hubris...

He spent his time building THAT place I just described

Besides, ride shares isn’t that novel. The math exists. The market itself already exists! It’s just poorly managed

He found rich people to invest in “doing it at scale in the cloud.”

I don’t really give credit for outcomes that anyone with a bachelors in math, and web dev skills could come up with conceptually if not scale

The trickiest bit is getting money and navigating the administrative shitshow that is our society. But that’s easy when you just bribe ...pay... sycophants to do it

He even said himself he has a lot of growing up to do. No need to defend him as simply misunderstood

I don’t really give props for his accomplishments. He lived a contemporary life and got handouts from vultures who saw $$$ while looking at Travis

'The rest of it was spent creating one of the most impactful companies that the world has ever seen.'

I really don't think a marginal improvement on taxis qualifies for that title.

The use of Uber and services like it has dramatically changed the lives of some people. Go ask a blind person if Uber has had an impact on their life. Even in the case of normal day-to-day users, I think it’s disingenuous to say that it’s a “marginal improvement on taxis”. Your bias, likely based on your dislike of Travis or the company, is showing through.

Uber's true innovation was creating a very effective model for monetizing the exploitation of a labor force. They've convinced their drivers (labor) that using their own inventory and capital to generate large amounts of revenue for Uber in exchange for a nominal fee is worth it because "flexibility" and "side hustle".

I love how you completely gloss over Kalanick’s pivotal role in building one of the worst company cultures in SV, and how the tech culture at large suffered for it both in terms of PR and furthering the spread of douchebag ideology.

To be fair SV does a pretty good job at spreading douchebag ideology, with or without Kalanick.

> I do not look fondly at what a pain local transport was in cities without public transport (and even those with), and it is Travis (yes, Travis first, Uber second) that led this paradigm shift.

How about we improve public transport? I know it’s unpopular to propose “socialist” ideas, but public transport works elsewhere in the world, why does it have to be so horrible here? Why does someone have to profit for something that you agree is a “pain?”

There are a lot of practical challenges here because this country was already built for cars as the universal form of transport.

Over the last 50 years American exceptionalism has morphed from: "We are the greatest country on earth, unique in our ability to achieve." to "We are the most special snowflake country in the world, unique in our inability to improve healthcare, public infrastructure, or reduce deaths by firearms." It's really quite sad, I hope you guys get our of your rut soon.

Hyperloop, if it isn't just hype, is a step in the right direction.

Hyperloop is another private service for the wealthy. It won't help connect communities like locally-owned public transit does.

Electricity was also once only for the wealthy.

Cars also.

Considering actual firearm violence has actually shrunk a lot in recent decades, I feel you have just a hint of bias based on a political agenda there.

It's shrunk a lot relative to the US peak [1]. Relative to other western powers it's still in a league of its own [2]. I think your comment is more indicative of a political agenda than mine.

And for the record, if the United States as a society decides that gun ownership is important enough to let the mass shootings continue that's OK with me. What bugs me more is the perennial argument that gun control wouldn't solve anything or that it's impossible for the US to address its gun violence problem even if it wanted to.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-...

There is no USA (only Zuul). The USA is a country of states each with various characters, economic sizes and problems (Miami and Minneapolis are vastly different environments).

No one holds Germany responsible for EU partner Croatia's outcomes, yet USA wide outcomes are - despite massive local variations. In a lot of areas of US policy (excluding defence) local budgets will dictate results much more than federal ones.

That's the real challenge for the USA, how to cope with inequality that is as much a factor of geography as politics.

As someone who has grown up in the South, and who has visited San Francisco, Philadelphia, DC, NYC, Boston and other places, I agree public transport is amazing, and I wish cities in the South could pull it off. I also recognize it's incredibly difficult, and expensive, to do so. And even if we had the money and ability to build rail along freeway lines, and build stops at popular social and residential hubs, how do people get to the rail station? Vehicle. And for many people, the question will then be, "Why drive to the station, wait 15 minutes, take a train with multiple stops, etc. when I can just drive?"

At which point you talk about incentives against driving, at which point you piss off millions of people, and potentially punish those who legitimately couldn't use rail due to work or scheduling circumstances.

You're really blowing off something incredibly difficult, more difficult (politically and financially) than putting someone on the moon. And your snark isn't even conceptually consistent; we thought we were a snowflake in the 60s, we just really were one of the greatest countries in the world. Firearm issues are there but over hyped/more complex than you want to admit, and if anything, we really should let states take the reins at healthcare, because it'd be a lot easier for regional governments to pull something off and get the ball rolling than to constantly fight at our crippled-by-two-national-parties Congress.

> And even if we had the money and ability to build rail along freeway lines, and build stops at popular social and residential hubs, how do people get to the rail station?

In places that have good rail systems, most people get to the rail station by walking. In the other places, it is usually because they have disallowed dense construction near transit stations through zoning.

> You're really blowing off something incredibly difficult, more difficult (politically and financially) than putting someone on the moon.

You're probably right, but I also think that the main roadblocks are political, not financial. The US has one of the highest GDP/capita in the world but consistently fails to apply this economic power to helping its own citizens or does so in extremely wasteful ways like creating jobs through military spending.

Edit: Also public infrastructure isn't just transport. There are cities in the US that do not have safe drinking water. It's shocking.

Isn't part of the problem that the appeal of the south is different to the north? SF and NYC are very different climates to New Orleans, with very different amounts of living space per person. You can either have a lot of living space, or a lot of good public transit options, but not really both.

Boo hoo. Do you think Medieval cities like those in Europe were built for public transport as well?

They certainly weren't built for widespread individual use of automobiles.

I think it fits better with public transit. They are much more walkable and people scale.

> Boo hoo. Do you think Medieval cities like those in Europe were built for public transport as well?

That’s actually a pretty great point. They also weren’t devised for internet, flight, or dna sequencing. Time to roll those back as well.

I would say that public transportation doesn't always work, here or elsewhere.

Subways and buses usually have schedules that don't always line up with when you happen to need it. Also, there is a mental tax in having to navigate it.

For instance, I really have a hard time reading subway/train maps and schedules, and God forbid I need to connect to a different line during the route.

Sure, plenty of people are totally comfortable navigating it, but you could make the same case to advocate the Imperial system over metric.

In those cases, Uber and the like not only provide an option that is cheaper than traditional taxis, but also a way to travel that doesn't involve wasting hours because you're visiting somewhere and ended up taking the wrong train.

I like the idea of public transport, but even the best ones are not necessarily the best option in every context.

> Subways and buses usually have schedules that don't always line up with when you happen to need it. Also, there is a mental tax in having to navigate it.

There's no need for any difference between navigating by car in Google Maps or navigating by public transport in Google Maps.

Meaning, in Netherlands Google Maps show the estimated arrival times of everything, transfers, etc. It'll take into account delays, cancellations, service announcements, etc. All easily within Google Maps (plus a few other apps; the information is publicly available).

Traveling by bike/car/foot/public transport is all the same complexity.

Am from Amsterdam, have lived in the States, will second this: the Netherlands has a great public transport system and 90% of the time the only consideration when choosing between driving/cycling (predictable/personal transport) and PT is the cost.

Sometimes there are routes that take significantly longer with PT, and in those scenarios it's just another argument for taking my bike.

There are a few scenarios in which I take taxis, but they're rare and usually when it's the only reasonable option (caused by time or availability of PT like at night).

I found Berlin even better. Very cheap, great service (and they speak German and English), great connections, easy app (Google Maps shows it all as well), tourist friendly tickets, and the best of all: no mandatory NFC card!!

It also depends on where you live in NL. Every 10 min a train to Ehv is neat, and I got a bus from Ams to my home city every few minutes whole day long, but the rural areas don't have such luxury. The joke for the trains goes, that "they don't drive on time, they drive on rails."

I agree. Also some public transport companies have their own application/web portal able to provide the same kind of service that Google Maps. But I disagree with "bike/car/foot/public transport is all the same complexity": public transport add a factor you can't control.

I would say there is one difference, which is that you may or may not have data access. I've been traveling internationally for over 10 years now, and never had cellular data when I would travel (thanks ATT), and most airports would have wifi, but different subways/trains etc don't. And I've been in a situation of relying only on GPS and hoping the app doesn't shut down while I'm walking somewhere far too many times.

Google has improved here with their offline maps, but even then, it's not 100%.

I'm not saying that PT is worthless or that we shouldn't improve it, but IMHO, Uber and the like fill a very critical "last mile" kind of problem that I think pairs nicely in cities with public transportation.

>>How about we improve public transport?

That sort of costs money, hence taxes. Which no one can agree upon, as everyone has their own list of what's important for them.

>>Why does someone have to profit for something that you agree is a “pain?”

Because people have to get paid, infrastructure and operations have to be expanded and world needs to run.

> That sort of costs money, hence taxes.

Indeed. And Uber is no different. The cost of our cheap rides is still paid by the wealthy, in this case VCs and other investors.

Working is a relative term here in France for public transport. This week a tree fell on a railway deserving the St-Lazare train station in Paris, reducing the service to three train one a line used by tens of thousands of people daily. Still I appreciate having a good network here in Paris (and in most of France).

There was a company in Mexico that tried to do that ( https://angel.co/caravana ). Unfortunately, the government still won't let it be.

If You think Taxi's are a mafia, the public transport (bus) system in Mexico is ten times as dirty and corrupt. It is a real shame.

Thank you for providing a balanced view that’s so often missing on anything Uber related on HN. There is no denying that Travis threw ethics out of the window and took his paranoia way too far and never matured into a peacetime CEO. But every time a HN user takes an Uber, Lyft, Via, Grab, Ola etc etc you can thank Travis for his ruthlessness in fighting some of the most powerfully entrenched politicians (DeBlasio of NYC as an example) to get you a product type that’s loved by millions.

That's not entirely true. Lyft paved the way for UberX.

Just because Lyft entered some cities before Uber did does not mean they eventually paved the path for legalization. Most of the battles that occurred once local governments realized the magnitude of ridesharing were led by Uber.

Yes! there was an a16z podcast which interviewed someone from Lyft. They commented that they were very conservative in their decisions, leaving other companies to push the legalization issues.

Sidecar invented the driver using their own car, leading the way to Uberx and lyft.

There's no evidence that the unethical behavior was necessary or even helped.

> powerfully entrenched politicians (DeBlasio of NYC as an example)

DeBlasio is entrenched because he was elected by a majority of his constituents. The people get to write the rules, called laws. Who voted for Kalanick? What gave him the right?

>Who voted for Kalanick? What gave him the right?

You could say people voted with their wallets.

> You could say people voted with their wallets.

You could say it, but that's not how democracy or legitimate government and lawmaking works. And in Uber's case, the wallets voting are a few investors who subsidized the customers.

What makes a government legit? People support it.

What makes Uber legit? People support it.

Although I guess a government doesn't need the support of the people to maintain legitimacy, it just needs to be able to maintain a monopoly on violence. And if Uber had a monopoly on the taxi industry maybe it wouldn't need the people's support either.

It's not hard to gain support when you're selling dollars bills for half price.

> What makes a government legit? People support it.

> What makes Uber legit? People support it.

Really? Uber has the legitimacy of government? Wow.

For better or worse, thats how it should work. Failure of centrally planned economies all across the globe says something.

Markets don't have elections and most politicians/bureaucrats don't exactly have the competency to decide what should be good for everyone. Letting people vote with their wallets has largely worked.

Of course no system is perfect, but this is as fair as it gets.

The centrally planned NHS achieves similar public health outcomes to the US for less than half of the cost.

The excellent Cuban health system achieves the same for roughly 1/10th the cost.

Which part of "double the price same product" counts largely "worked" and why do you want me to give up my cheaper system for yours?

Well, this isn’t my point of view but the US largely subsidizes the medicine and research for the rest of the world when it comes to health. Just look at the number of medical innovations year coming the rest of the world COMBINED vs the US. Clearly there’s some free riding happening by the rest.

Furthermore, don’t ever say “excellent Cuban” anything. There’s a reason why people try to cross shark infested waters on dingy rafts from Cuba to Key West, Florida. People vote with their feet and wallets.

We can discuss the efficiency of a market-based health care system when such a thing exists. The current system is as artificial and corrupted as the taxi medallion situation.

If only I could walk into a health care facility and see the prices posted on the wall for various procedures, or get an estimate upfront, the way I can at any auto garage...

No true scotsman...

> For better or worse, thats how it should work. Failure of centrally planned economies all across the globe says something.

This issue has nothing to do with central planning. Free market theory does not support legal anarchy. It really should work that businesses can do whatever they want, irrespective of the law? Can they murder? Steal? Damage your property and life? It's absurd.

>>Who voted for Kalanick? What gave him the right? >You could say people voted with their wallets.

Money should never overwhelm the will of the people. I say this even though I hated the way taxis used to work, with the artificial limitation, and I love a chance to take a much more convenient app based ride, I really despise how they got away with violating at least any standard of reasonable behavior, but also they were apparently violating the law literally - one example being paying the hackers not to hack and not telling anyone.

Everything you say is true, but the vested rent-seeking interests of the medallion holders that for years caused untold costs to people who needed transportation, and to the economy as a whole, was also despicable. Money was already overwhelming the will of everyone who couldn’t get a cab, who had to buy a car they didn’t want to own, and who had to put up with a higher percentage of drunk drivers. Just because it was that way for decades and few imagined it could be different, it didn’t make it right.

It’s like the quote from the Chronicles of Riddick, “sometimes the only way to stop evil is not with good. You must confront it with another kind of evil”.

I think Goldman Sachs took an Uber stake around the time it dumped it's medallions.

So the identity of the rent seekers at the top hasn't even changed. But you use an app now... so, yay?

I think anybody who takes a rent seekers' side over even the most despicable politician doesn't deserve to live in a Democracy.

As a rent seeker, democracy protects me.

No, as a rent seeker donations to politicians and think tanks protect you. More democracy puts your rents at risk.

> untold costs

This really turns taxi service into some great horror. Uber didn't cure cancer or even invent the Internet (nor is it cheaper than cabs in cities I've been in); they just made a marginal improvement in one form of transportation, partly by using massive wealth to take on losses and by imposing externalities on others: The cost of cars on the drivers, safety on the passengers, traffic on the rest of the city (a big reason for medallions, afaik, was to avoid the traffic jams that Uber creates in cities). Cabs worked fine for many years, and still do.

> It’s like the quote from the Chronicles of Riddick, “sometimes the only way to stop evil is not with good. You must confront it with another kind of evil”.

Evil? Cabs are evil? If we're getting our philosophy from the Chronicles of Riddick, it suddenly all makes sense. The better sources of philosophy would disagree.

So should anyone who wants be able to break laws and abuse people? If the only justification you need is that cab service isn't great, what good are laws?

> You could say people voted with their wallets.

Problem is some wallets are empty and some are full, whereas in a democracy every vote has the same weight.

I can understand people arguing for the rule of law. Yes, we have laws, and they should be followed. Breaking them carries the risk of punishment.

What I can't understand is the moral grandstanding, e.g. "What gave him the right?" Are taxicab medallions worth it? I never take it seriously when someone starts talking like this about the marriage between taxis and local governments, like it was some holy industry that didn't deserve to be disrupted.

Imagine how long it would have taken for local governments to "fix" something like that. Can you explain to me what it would take for a city council to (1) identify a problem (and in a timely manner, instead of twenty years of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"), (2) come up with a solution, and (3) somehow prioritize this ahead of all of the other important things they work on?

You are correct, no one handed Travis Kalanick the "right" to change something, but I'm okay with the fact that he took it upon himself.

What, exactly, has been fixed? What leads you to believe that the supply of Uber driver's will exceed zero once Uber can no longer lose over a billion dollars a quarter in subsidizing trips to pay these drivers more than minimum wage? Uber spun up self driving cars because it realized that it does not have a product or a business model.

Well again, people will vote with their wallets.

Which ever way it goes, its fine and fair.

> Are taxicab medallions worth it?

I'm in favor of the rule of law. If I was in favor of the rule of law when it did good things and not when it did bad things (and I ready admit that the medallion system is one of the bad things), and wanted outside companies with private capital to ignore the rule of law to fix the bad things... I wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law at all.

The ultimate question is who we choose to decide whether things are good or bad. If you support the rule of law in a democracy, you have the democratic process. If you support companies outspending and outmaneuvering local governments, you're entrusting capital with making these decisions, and they probably won't reflect the will of the people. It is, to be clear, an entirely legitimate political perspective to believe that we'll get a better society by letting the holder of the most capital make decisions instead of letting the people each have one vote. But that's a very strong claim that should be made clearly, and those who believe in democracy even when democracy happens to produce occasional bad outcomes are not particularly grandstanding, just believing in democracy.

Except medallions are goverened by rules and regulations, not so much law. Violating the medallion rule isn't breaking a law. You pay a fine. If you're good with that, then go ahead; we all pay fines of convenience from time to time (late payments, overstaying in a parking space etc).

So I'm fine with rule of law, and fine with getting fined for violations of medallion regulations.

Uber violated laws well beyond medallion regulations.

It doesn't have to be black and white. The purpose of democracy is to reflect the will of the people, but it's not efficient. If more people agree with Uber than some antiquated laws, I have no problem with supporting Uber. Tesla also broke laws by selling their cars without going through a dealership, but I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

Those cars were sold over the Internet; buying a car from another state is regulated by federal law.

I agree that not every law is just, but some are less just than others.

> If more people agree with Uber than some antiquated laws, I have no problem with supporting Uber.

How do you know if "more people agree"? Has there been a public debate and a vote?

If there was a vote, it would be direct democracy, which has some serious drawbacks. One is that most people have very little time to become informed on these issues; that's why they elect representatives to deal with them.

Finally, straight majority rule is just mob rule. Someone said, 'democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. What if the majority wanted to take your house away? Take your business away? Stop someone from speaking? Stop the minority party from accepting donations? That's why we have the rule of law, not the rule of the majority.

> DeBlasio is entrenched because he was elected by a majority of his constituents

The majority of New Yorkers did not appear to support his views in respect of taxis. That is why Uber was able to organise a grassroots opposition.

> What gave him the right?

The Constitution and culture of civil society that gives the EFF “the right” to organise constituencies of grassroots support.

> The majority of New Yorkers did not appear to support his views in respect of taxis.

Under the law, which is how every modern society is governed, the mayor makes these decisions irrespective of majorities (if they exists) on particular issues; that's on purpose.

> EFF

The EFF does not violate laws and claims no right to do so. It does claim a right to organize people and speak about issues; Uber has that right too. Uber does not have the right to break laws it doesn't like.

Try looking outside your bubble of the US.

In Australia, after the local regulator/government started fining UberX drivers for illegally operating a taxi service (rightfully so IMHO), Uber told the drivers not to worry, continue driving and they’ll pay their fines for them.

Fines are not for breaking laws, but for torts. Violating rules. People do it all the time, and its not unethical? Like paying a fee for filing taxes late. Folks in a bind do that all the time. Getting a parking ticket because you have to be by your spouse while the baby is being born. Renewing your driver's license late because you forgot/got busy.

This seems to be the relevant law for New York, as an example, found under 19-506 of the New York City Administrative Code, which was passed by the city legislature, which was given its power by the Constitution of the State of New York:

Any person, other than a person holding a driver's license issued pursuant to section 19-505 and a New York state class A, B, C or E license, neither of which is revoked or suspended, who drives or operates for hire a licensed vehicle in the city except a commuter van, shall be guilty of a violation, and upon conviction in the criminal court, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Obviously courts can impose fines - do you honestly think the only thing a court can do is throw someone in jail? Fines are not for torts - penalties are, and there's very strict rules around penalties (they can't be punitive and can only be used to recover costs incurred by failure to perform a contract). You have no idea what you're on about.

The process of fining you is literally a court procedure. The city official doesn't have any authority to fine you - they bring a prosecution against you in court, and provide you with the details by which you can either plead guilty in front of that court (possibly via mail or an online form) and take the sentence that the court gives you (which is most likely to be a fine unless the judge has more information), or plead not guilty and make a defense. Anything else would be a violation of due process.

Right; I overstated. The difference is civil vs criminal. Often (but not in NY so I withdraw my assertion here) medallion violation is a civil matter.

In which cities? Is it part of a contract you agree to when you get your driver's license? If so, what happens when you have a driver's license from out of state?

> Fines are not for breaking laws, but for torts.

Again, try looking outside your bubble of the US. This is certainly not the case in countries outside the US.

In London Uber has lost their license to operate, and that decision will come into effect this year.

They cite passenger safety concerns, but there's been not-too-subtle protests by Black Cab drivers who simply refuse to change their archaic business model and a very stark lack of actual Uber users concerned about safety. Not only is it far less convenient than Uber, calling a Black Cab means you need to venture onto the street and if you're not in central London you're basically stuffed. There's also the matter of cabbies being many times more expensive than Uber - a £20 Uber would be £50, at least.

The Black Cab drivers are being petulant children about it. I'm sorry their livelihoods are under threat but they either need to evolve or die. They literally blocked off a major London road right outside my offices in protest against Uber a few months ago; right off Blackfriars Bridge they parked horizontally in the middle of the road, causing absolute mayhem. Usually I'm fine with people striking, but there was no legitimate grievance here - a better competitor came along and instead of embracing change (and progress) they simply threw their toys out of the pram and demanded the politicians (who are in their union's pocket) simply get rid of their competition.

The politicians didn't take much persuading, and just like that we rolled back to Black Cabs (which half of Uber users were priced out of in the first place). Unions are generally a force for good, but this was just a shameless attempt by the Black Cab union to have the competition erased, where previously they operated in what could easily have been described as a monopoly - previously they only faced competition from minicabs and Addison Lee, which largely had an entirely different customer base.

Does Gett or similar not work very well in London? It seems to work perfectly in Edinburgh, even for rides going most of the way out of the city.

They lost their license for not being 'fit and proper'. The regulator also cited corporate responsibility and Uber's use of Greyball. It wasn't just about public safety.

There's always been competition in London though. It's not like your only choice is uber or a black cab.

The fact is that Uber came in, heavy handed, and used it's usual "fuck the rules, we're here" attitude towards running its service. It's hardly surprising that it fails to get license renewals when it's not only shown scant regard for the rules and regs, but open contempt about changing so that they fit them.

You can't really change the world if you're always coloring inside the lines. There is such a thing as creative destruction; when structures get ossified and corrupt, they've got to be burned down and swept away.

Craigslist and zimride (lyft) started carpool rides. Uber then launched the black car service. And then sidecar launched a service where people used their own car to drive customers. Uber did not invent the space on its own.

The question is if this paradigm shift was more valuable than all of the negative things he did. If he didn't come up with it, how do we know someone wouldn't have done it a year later? We shouldn't rewrite history, but I don't think he deserves all that much credit for thinking up an app for cabs with drivers not needing a permit and using their own car.

As an Uber employee who has seen the company fight one battle over another for the last 4 years, he absolutely deserves most of the credit (and conversely all the blame from the fallouts). Uber formulated the following approach to get ridesharing in the hands of everyone:

1. Operate in legal grey areas to get a product infront of consumers. Build a large enough network of riders and drivers to prove the product market fit.

2. By the time, politicians and the connected taxi cartels realize the magnitude of the change and seek to outlaw it, rally their own voters to back Uber.

3. Under pressure, have politicians clear the path for legalization. This has played out in more cities than I can remember.

Step #1 before #2 is what made TK and Uber different. The level of ruthlessness it requires, I’d have a hard time substituting others in his position.

Many businesses have 'disrupted' industries, and almost all without behaving like Uber and Kalanick. Airbnb is a simple example.

Your description left out buying off politicians and breaking the law.

> taxi cartels

The picture of taxi owners as powerful doesn't at all match what I know. It's a shibboleth promoted by Uber.

> The picture of taxi owners as powerful doesn't at all match what I know. It's a shibboleth promoted by Uber.

You should read this then - https://priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the....

You may be confusing taxi drivers with taxi companies owning and selling medallions for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Taxi drivers have traditionally been thoroughly exploited from having to either put all their wealth at risk from buying an overpriced medallion, or through having to work the first x hours a day simply to break even from mandatory fees. Ask a former yellow cab driver in NYC who converted to Uber to understand which company treats them better.

> You may be confusing taxi drivers with taxi companies owning and selling medallions

No, I'm not. In cities I know, they are politically weak. Also, when I talk to drivers, they all would rather drive taxis where they make more money, but have little choice when Uber is taking all the business. They almost universally say Uber pays less, treats them poorly (e.g., they have to supply their own car), and leaves them powerless (Uber can change rates and increase the supply of drivers any time it wants).

> for hundreds of thousands of dollars

Is this big number supposed to be impressive? Let's not forget Uber's 40 billion dollars and lobbyists who used to advise Presidents, if we want to talk about political power. It's laughable to compare taxi companies with Uber.

AirBnb didn't disrupt anything. people have been subletting their flat since the dawn of time.

> The picture of taxi owners as powerful doesn't at all match what I know. It's a shibboleth promoted by Uber.

the city where i live (a 12 million people city) taxi cartels are so powerful, the leader of one of those has dinner with the governor. he has meetings with senators. there is recording of him calling for taxi drivers within his "association" to violently attack uber drivers and nothing was done.

also, taxi medallions are so damn expensive (with some coming to the price of a house) that the owners become powerful.

> the city where i live (a 12 million people city) taxi cartels are so powerful, the leader of one of those has dinner with the governor. he has meetings with senators

Do you think Uber's leaders might do the same?

> Many businesses have 'disrupted' industries, and almost all without behaving like Uber and Kalanick. Airbnb is a simple example.

That’s actually a bad example. Airbnb has tons of legal troubles just as Uber. In many cities it operates illegally. I have traveled around world and used Airbnb a lot and in about half the places I was told it is a grey area or straight out illegal.

Hotel lobby has been busy pushing governments to legislate against Airbnb. It’s just that sharing economy company like that is hard to fight as there is not a bunch of hotel buildings you can go and close down / inspect. It’s hundreds or thousands of either normal folk trying to make extra buck from their unused rooms or speculators buying flats just to rent them via Airbnb.

A very good parallel can be made between Uber vs entrenched taxi industry & Airbnb vs hotel industry. Both companies disrupting old industries using any gray area or straight illegality if it’s hard to enforce.

Uber has it's faults, but the degree they had to fight tooth and nail in every municipality over something that was so demonstrably better than what was there before is absurd and should be a lesson for every other industry.

And yes, voting with one's wallet is often the most effective form of voting we have.

Cashing out for several billion probably helps dull the pain.

Why? He was sitting on a goldmine and fucked it all up due to his own arrogance.

And all the unethical, getting-their-hands-dirty shit you mentioned seems of dubious value and certainly moreso now that he's been fired from his company; seems like all the same could've been achieved without hiring a team of assholes and without being one himself.

> I can only imagine how much being ousted from a company he created and raised to its current level must have hurt.

The market doesn't care about the feelings of executives. He was a net liability for Uber by the end, and if he couldn't mamage to keep himself valued by the market, that's on him.

That knowledge does nothing to alleviate the potential hurt he may feel.

Knowing you messed up doesn't necessarily make it any less painful.

Which cities is Uber serving that didn't have public transport?

Seeing you write his name out just made my mind create a connection between him and Travis the taxi driver from "Taxi Driver".

Life has an interesting sense of humor.

>We can debate about Uber's business practices until the cows come home, but this is undeniable.

This is really strangely dismissive. Does the "paradigm shift" justify any and all of Uber's unethical actions? If so, why do you think breaking the law and harassing rape victims is either acceptable or laudable? If not, why bring it up, unless you're perpetuating some kind of entrepeneur business-worship over basic moral decency?

Steve Jobs was, on balance, likely a horrible person and needlessly cruel. I’m still very happy he did what he did. These people are human, and are not without sin. Entrepreneur worship is weird, I agree, however I wouldn’t dismiss the additive things otherwise miserable people did for society.

Jobs is a great point, for the other argument. Jobs didn't break the law, but he disrupted multiple industries from computers to phones to music to retail.

You’re absolutely right. And Travis needs to be criticized for that (and he is). If the question, though, is about judging a company’s contribution to society based on how morally upstanding the founder is I think the point I’m trying to make still stands.

> contribution to society

I think it’s too early to judge Uber’s “contribution to society” when the investors are basically footing the bill for all of Uber’s customers. Let’s see Uber make a profit and it still be less costly/better service to what consumers get now and then we can talk about their contribution to society.

Making a profit isn’t a fair standard in this case. I left LA recently, but uber made social interactions in that city I’d otherwise pass on totally possible. It honestly opened up moving around LA County in a way that public transit never could. So, no, it’s not too early to judge. We’re already seeing the benefits.

I personally tend to think that I'd value ride sharing services even if prices increase to parity with traditional taxis. After all, just getting a cab in many cities is a real pain point. I also think that ride sharing services are here to stay, and that both individual consumers and society as a whole are better off for it.

However, the parents point is more general and I think you're talking past it. You can't evaluate Uber's societal contributions based on short term and possibly ephemeral benefits. For example, if ride sharing services suddenly disintegrate once VC funding dries up then they can't be said to have made a meaningful impact. Sustainability is actually crucial.

> If the question, though, is about judging a company’s contribution to society based on how morally upstanding the founder is ...

Far more than Kalanick's behavior, it is the company's practices that are the problem. They willfully broke the law and they also mistreated many people from employees to drivers to rape victims.

I’m agreeing with you, if you can’t tell.

> Jobs didn't break the law

Jobs often took an “ask for forgivenss” approach. Copying Xerox [1], screwing Wozniak [2], the naming schtick with the Beatles, et cetera.

[1] http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple...

[2] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/steve-wozniak-cried-jobs-kept-atari...

> screwing Wozniak

This is an unpopular opinion, but if it weren't for Jobs, Woz would have remained an unknown HP engineer.

> This is an unpopular opinion, but if it weren't for Jobs, Woz would have remained an unknown HP engineer

I completely agree. I also think Steve Jobs was a great man. Part of his greatness was knowing which rules he could bend, which rules he could break, and deftly negotiating the aftermath.

> greatness was knowing which rules he could bend, which rules he could break, and deftly negotiating the aftermath.

Greatness isn't hurting other people, but finding ways to get things done that benefit all stakeholders, including society and community.

>> Jobs didn't break the law

> Jobs often took an “ask for forgivenss” approach.

So we agree: He didn't break the law. Being a jerk to his co-founder is not at all comparable.

Not the poster, but I don't think it "justifies" and of the bad stuff that happened.

But I think it is important to recognize both the bad and the good stuff that happened.

Exactly this. People sit comfortably in their morals while enjoy the huge benefits brought about by Uber. Things are comfortable because people like Travis were willing to take the blame on the wrong side of history and forge ahead anyways.

We all sit comfortably in the Bay Area because our ancestors murdered and stole lands from Native Americans. They also build an entire ecosystem that gained wealth from exploiting laborers and immigrants. History is messy, but they did these things so their children can sit around in comfortable homes enjoying these highly philosophical debates without any physical danger

I've heard people justify war crimes this craven way, saying the survival of their nation was at stake, and those people usually and rightfully go to jail. I've never heard fraudulent business practices that someone cashed in on justified this way.

Capitalism blood-lust.

> those people usually and rightfully go to jail

Exactly my point. They got punished for it, but their children lived to enjoy the fruits of their labor, without any blame or punishment.

Wait what?

Murdering people and stealing land turned out great for the murderer's ancestors so it's all ok? Not from the point of view of those who were murdered.

Using that logic - if space aliens came and murdered all the technologically inferior humans and took Earth for themselves, it would be all ok. After all, they are building a more technologically advanced and superior society on Earth for their children.

I didn't say it's ok, that was exactly the opposite of my point.

I'm saying they did something NOT OK, and their children get to enjoy all the fruits of their immorality without any of the blames.

>"Things are comfortable because people like Travis were willing to take the blame on the wrong side of history and forge ahead anyways."

Wait what? What did he take the blame for exactly? Were the sexist comment making, the berating of his own Uber driver, or Greyball things that were necessary for ride sharing to become successful? I think most people are quite capable of being able to separate ride sharing the technology from a ride sharing technology company's CEO. Ill feelings for the latter do not imply ill feelings for the former.

>"We all sit comfortably in the Bay Area because our ancestors murdered and stole lands from Native Americans."

"We all?" Wow. You live in quite a bubble if you really believe that everyone who reads HN lives in the Bay Area or is an American. Or has ancestors that killed native Americans. What an incredibly outrageous statement and comparison. Speak for yourself.

> Or has ancestors that killed native Americans

It doesn't matter if your ancestors were Americans. The prosperity and safety of the Bay Area, which you enjoy, was made possible by people who murdered and stole land. You enjoy that privilege everyday without taking any of the blame.

The fact that you're outraged speaks to your privilege because you've no understanding of what a bloody mess history is, and the amount of indencency it took to get the U.S. to the prosperous nation it is today.

Two points:

1. You write as if Uber has solved the transportation problem sustainably. The end state of an Uber job is that it will pay less than minimum wage. Why? Because the barrier to entry is the same as most minimum wage jobs (assuming you have a car made in the last 10 years) and it is more desirable than minimum wage jobs (flexible hours, no boss). The pay may look better on paper, but when all the hidden costs are accounted for it will be less than minimum wage. Uber is operating in an unsustainable bubble. Sequoia and Softbank are subsidizing your trips.

2. My guess is that if your mom was raped in an Uber and one of Travis' lieutenants got (somehow, possibly by stealing/bribing - not by asking her permission) your mom's medical records to prove to himself that she really was raped (to determine Uber liability and that it wasn't staged by a competitor), then you might feel differently in your respect and admiration for Travis Kalanick.

Wow, you do realize that you can mention the Uber rape case without trying to make it so personal to the OP, right? he's not defending him in that regard at all.

All he's saying is that he brought about the concept of ride sharing (debatable since there was, for instance, Sidecar before the advent of UberX) to the public and that he understands the pain of being ousted by your own company.

The saddest thing about Travis Kalanick's story is that he was ousted because his greedy investors were afraid they wouldn't see a 20x return on their investment, and not because of the ponzi-scheme fundamentals or ethical compromises that appear in tech rags every week. He was ousted by Benchmark, not by law enforcement. He's walking away with over a billion, rather than a go-to-jail card.

We've seen many HN commenters lose their manners if not their minds when posting about Uber—this very thread is full of it. But "if your mom was raped in an Uber" is off the charts: uncivil and utterly gratuitous.

Had you posted other uncivil comments I'd ban you, but since you haven't, we'll treat it as an isolated lapse. Please don't do it again though. If you can't remain scrupulously respectful of the person you're replying to, please don't post.

If you'd read the HN guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it. That spirit is intellectual curiosity: considering things for the pleasure of considering them. That doesn't fit with flamewars and is incompatible with personal attack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com