Hacker News Reader

Comment by jboy | Hacker News Reader

OK, so it's obviously a little transparent of Thiel to say that Uber [a competitor to Lyft, a company in which he has invested] is "on the cusp" of going too far, but Airbnb [another company in which he has invested] has "a different feel" and is OK.

But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying their best to achieve such a monopoly.

[0] "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better." -- http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-fo...

View on HN

So, I think you're putting words in his mouth suggesting these comments are anti-monopoly in this sense. I don't think in the abstract he's saying he's against a company like Uber striving for market domination.. he's just saying they crossed a line in that pursuit.

As for AirBnB I think the Uber vs AirBnB comparison is a really fair one. AirBnB is a very similar example of a company doing serious disruption and facing pretty severe friction in the form of established lobbies and laws... but they've not been accused of threatening journalists, hoteliers, or anyone else who's challenged them. That's the distinction being made here.

There are lots of startups that appear to be really riding the line that I think Thiel is identifying here (AirBnB, Tesla, and 23andMe come to mind) by taking risks in the name of getting innovative services to customers, not in the name of providing air-cover for cashing in at the expense of their users.

I don't think that I'm putting words in his mouth. He's become famous recently for beating the "Monopoly good, competition bad" drum, but he's never really laid out a path to get to monopoly (other than "compete effectively, eg, win a niche and expand in concentric circles"). I suspect that a lot of people have (like myself) fit his comments into a larger patchwork of contrarian startup advice, which also includes suggestions to be mischievous (PG), move fast enough to risk breaking things (Facebook), etc.

It's interesting to me (and yes, it seems slightly ironic) that he has now, when discussing a competitor to one of his portfolio companies, discovered a second dimension of what's most important in his worldview. "Two! Two most important things for a startup! Monopoly and ethics!"

(Surely you would agree that he's never previously said "Monopoly is a virtue, BUT ...")

When discussing becoming a successful company lots of us don't consider it obligatory to mention that you also shouldn't threaten people.

I tend to suspect that he was comfortable with the idea that some limits to what's ethically reasonable were assumed.

For lots of us the fact that ethics are a given is what makes them ethics.

Get a patent. Become a monopolist.

Is that unethical?

No.

Build a great product that everyone uses volunatrily.

Is that unethical?

No.

Commandeer the bay bridge and charge tolls.

Is that unethical? Sure

None of that is relevant to Uber.

Uber is involved in regulated businesses.

Those are monopolies by law (eg, taxi medalions in nYc)

the monopoly nature is not by choice of lyft or uber.

the issues about ethics involve how the process to enter those markets is being pursued.

That is not just a business question, but one of pr, lobbying, and legislative changes.

The process is what it is. Has nothing to do with Thiel.

How the game is played is another matter-- that's what he's commenting on.

I watched that presentation and he really wasn't championing monopolies in the sense of no internet or water competition, or even really from a consumer standpoint. He was talking about positioning your company so that you aren't really competing with anyone else, either because you are doing something different, or your product is orders of magnitude better (first iPhone) so you don't realistically have competition.

Airbnb does have a different feel. As a user of the service, there are ways they could make it less frustrating (especially in big cities in peak times), but I never get the impression that they do anything but support their property owners and try to make them better at what they do. When I've had problems, they've solved them and given credit for replacement services.

I haven't heard of Airbnb doing anything underhanded to beat their competition. They are winning by doing the right things, from what I can tell.

And Uber could have achieved the same. Obviously the time is ripe for the service they're offering, but they're hustling (in the negative sense) more than working and that's why it feels different.

Except of course the whole let their users list properties they know are against the law thing. Which if they really wanted to ensure no listings that violated local ordinance were posted on the site they would go out of business.

Yes, that is the obvious parallel with Uber - I assumed that went without saying. I'm talking about how they work with their users and market themselves - there is a clear difference there between the two companies.

Most people aren't swearing off Uber because they are breaking into a regulated industry but because they're being dicks about it.

Don't forget that Thiel is also an investor in Uber through Crunchfund.

Back to econ 101 for you.

Please elaborate.

please see my comment above. I don't think you have a solid handle on what makes a monopoly exist. Nor on the relation between the existence of a monopoly (earned or granted) and the concept of ethics. The existence of monopoly doesn't imply lack of ethics. Nor does the operation of a monopoly imply lack of ethics. That being said, you can un-ethically aquire a monopoly. And you can unethically abuse a monopoly position. But none of that makes any sense vis-a-vis you're approach. You need more resolution in your framework.

I agree, bribing (sorry, I meant lobbying) polticians seem to be the easiest way for Uber to get out of the situation right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com