The fact that they publish a book and have written negative things is not particularly relevant. Especially if those negative things are about Uber, which was and is doing a lot of negative stuff.
I disagree. Everyone has a bias or agenda. It's useful to know what they are. Hence the common HN trend of including "Disclaimer: I work for $relevantThing". Isaac's book summary leads with: "A New York Times technology correspondent presents the dramatic rise and fall of Uber." He clearly has an agenda. If Uber does well, his book and its prediction of Uber's demise will be wrong.
Looking at the Isaac's NYT titles and summaries (https://www.nytimes.com/by/mike-isaac), the GP has a point. None of the articles are positive. That said, I think it'd be difficult to find anyone praising Uber over the last few years.
- How Uber Got Lost
The once-swaggering company is losing more money and growing more slowly than ever. What happened?
- Two Top Uber Executives Are Out as CEO consolidates power
A month after Uber’s rocky I.P.O., its chief executive laid off two members of his executive team: the chief operating officer and the chief marketing officer.
- How the Promise of a $120 Billion Uber IPO Evaporated
- Uber's Stock Disappoints, Capping a Rocky Path to Its IPO
- Uber IPO is Expected to be Priced at Midpoint
- With Uber's IPO, Dara Khosrowshahi Is Taking Travis Kalanick's Company Public
The C.E.O. wants to prove that the start-up has evolved past a raucous, and profligate, tech-bro culture. But Uber’s past is simply not that far gone.
There is zero chance someone digs in as deeply as he has and doesn't find anything to contrary to their foregone conclusion.