Hacker News Reader

> Still seems distasteful to sabotage a fellow startup.

I don't see why Lyft being "a fellow startup" should affect any of Uber's business tactics.

Startups don't have any intrinsic motivation to play nice with each other.

I think it's just the idea of "punching up" vs. "punching down". When a scrappy startup takes on a larger competitor they need to pull out all the stops to combat the advantages of their competitor being an established company.

At this point Uber essentially is the #1 established company of car services, so them resorting to dirty tactics to fight Lyft leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

Any established player that doesn't defend its position will be quickly unseated. I'm not saying this is an appropriate way to defend itself, but it's certainly one way.

Sure. But left unchecked it results in Microsoft's "extend, embrace, extinguish" 1990s.

Maybe, but I kind of feel like the difference between making your competitor's employees a better offer and deliberately exploiting a monopoly to destroy any technology you don't control is more than just a matter of scale.

Playing nice with other companies by agreeing not to poach each other's employees? Where have I heard that one before?

Don't tell Uber you're calling them employees, they don't like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com