Uber’s Worst Screw-Ups | Hacker News Reader

Uber’s Worst Screw-Ups

techcrunch.com

75 pointsnilmonibasak40 comments

Uber's a super aggressive company. They need to be in order to (A) expand a non trivially scalable business model this fast and (B) Confront the legal barriers, ambiguities and opposing interests in so many different jurisdictions. Hyper aggression is almost certainly (in my eyes) a prerequisite here.

But building up such an aggressive culture can have side effects. They could get blinded to the fact that some laws and regulations are appropriate and blindly fight instead of complying with good laws. They can develop an asshole culture internally where smashing through barriers evolves into smashing through people.

I think this kind of aggression is culturally dangerous.

I think it comes from the fact that they want to be seen as "disruptive" and cause massive, revolutionary changes. In itself that is not a bad thing, but I think some more careful deliberation would've been better.

Uber's a super aggressive company.

You could even say that they are uber aggressive.

> I think it comes from the fact that they want to be seen as "disruptive"

I think it comes from the fact that they need to be fast-moving. Uber is a global first-mover in a market largely defined by local network effects and economics. Not moving quickly risks being boxed in by a global proliferation of me-toos.

The requisite freewheeling aggression reminds me of my prior work environment, the trading floor. Both are high-power, high-pressure worlds. The steam they each produce is hot, and effective. But someone needs to keep a constant eye on keeping the lid from blowing off.

Uber seems to still be evolving this risk-management function. Their long-run success may come down to whether Kalanick can devolve a critical amount of power to someone who can say "no" to him when absolutely necessary, but no so frequently that it prematurely bleeds them into a shop of suits.

Does that strengthen my original point? Trading floors are also known to produce the occasional asshole.

I'm not trying to be snide. Is the asshole stereotype founded? Do you the think it's a consequence of (necessary) aggression?

Cough, cough: http://www.nature.com/news/banking-culture-primes-people-to-...

Techcrunches worst screw-ups:

1) Slideshows 2) Scrollbars on slideshows 3) Link baiting as a business

Thanks for the warning. I hoped the deslider would work. Unfortunately:

>Sorry, the deslider doesn't know how to parse slideshows from that site (A parser has yet to be written or assigned to deal with sites hosted on "techcrunch.com")

http://deslide.clusterfake.net/

Benedict Evans's weekly newsletter had a pretty concise synopsis of Uber's approach to business:

"Uber raised another $1.2bn at a $40bn valuation, wrote a contrite blog post saying it had to become more humble, and (following the standard go-to-market strategy) launched in Portland in breach of the law."

Didn't make the cut:

• Customer data protection issues (internal "god view", etc.): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/01...

• Travis Kalanick (Uber CEO) drawing parallels between his company's drivers and the people of Ferguson, Mo.: http://pando.com/2014/11/20/on-stage-at-goldman-sachs-event-...

Wikipedia's obligatory "Controversy" section has more links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_(company)#Controversy

Any time you're hiring an army of contractors across the world, you're guaranteed to have some problems.

I'm impressed that after six years in business, tens of thousands of drivers, and a $40b valuation that one of the top-10 worst things about Uber is that they refunded money to some people as they were figuring out their pricing model.

I'm amazed that this is all TC could dig up.

Edit: I really don't see how all of this paints the picture that Uber = evil. Sure, some of their management and some of their drivers may not be great people, and like any company with massive growth, they've had their share of horrific issues and accidents. I just don't see that the company is going out of its way to screw people over. Remember that the alternative is getting in a Yellow Cab.

One of the top-10 worst things about Uber is that they refunded money to some people as they were figuring out their pricing model.

The screw-up wasn't in "refunding money to people." The screw-up was in picking one of the most festive, care-free nights of the year to drop the eye-popping fares (sometimes as high as $400, according to reports and tweets) on people's heads in the first place.

I'm curious: does the app tell you that their surge pricing is in effect before you request a ride? A little googling found this: [1]

"Using the latest version of the Uber app for iPhone you can estimate your fare before requesting a pickup. Just tap the 'Fare Estimate' option after you've set your pickup location and enter your destination address.

"After entering your destination address, you will be given a fare estimate. Note that fares may vary due to traffic, weather, and other factors. Estimate does not include discounts or promotions."

The terms "latest version" and "traffic, weather, and other factors" are worrying. Also the fact that you specifically have to request it seems off-putting.

[1] https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/201830936-How-do-...

None of the surge pricing is ever "dropped" on anyone. You are notified it is in effect and even have to verify the current multiplier on your phone to ensure you know what you are committing to. Most people complaining are just upset they had to pay as much as they did, but none of it was done without their knowledge.

I don't think it was nearly clear enough. Here's an article discussing the design of the notification:

http://startingup.me/post/15141134089/redesigning-the-uber-s...

It might be acceptable if this screen showed up every time and allowed you to get used to it, but when you use the app for months without it and suddenly there's an extra step, it's going to be way too easy to tap "Ok" without seeing the relatively small "6.25x" up above, especially if you've had a few too many because it's New Year's Eve.

When you're suddenly charging people almost an order of magnitude more than usual, you need to make it more clear than that.

Not that I think this is particularly terrible. They screwed up, but it was not a big deal and I imagine they've improved the notification since. But I don't think it was completely fine.

Those notification screens can't be any clearer. This is just complaining because no one likes to pay 6.25x their normal fare for a cab, but it can't be any more obvious than what those screens showed. Now you have to even manually type the multiplier out to let them know you are really sure.

How can you say the screens can't be any clearer, and then immediately give an example of how they were subsequently made clearer? I mean, come on.

Since so many people have complained just for complaining sake that they are pissed their cab ride was expensive (that they already acknowledged they understood), Uber added another option to keep the minority of people who would complain anyway from using it as another reason to gripe?

If a huge screen telling you your cab is going to be 6.25x more expensive than normal and you don't understand how that works, there is no other excuse other than your own stupidity.

It looks fine to me. I'm sure it could be better but everything could be better. It's not deceptive in any way. Having an unusual pop-op would make it more obvious not less.

It's starting to feel like the animosity towards Uber is somehow coordinated. I get that a bad joke (with the sinister undertone of being not so much a joke) from a C-level hit home with journalists. But there is supposed to be a standard of no-bias from journalists and that should extend to matters that include journalism. Where is his side of the story? Acting like he doesn't have one is part of the problem.

Every article on Uber that I can remember reading feels like a negative hit piece. It's like Uber isn't greasing the right palms or something. It is scary annoying that who you know and how effectively you stroke the egos of journalists still accounts for more than the quality of your service and the soundness of your business.

I just get the feeling someone is trying to send Uber a message. Something like: "pay-up or the hits will keep coming".

I think there's some truth in what you say about stroking journalists egos, but remember, nobody is forcing Uber to play so aggressively; they're doing it for the sake of growth.

Revolutionary, fast-growing, successful companies are going to be scrutinized no matter what. It's up to the Uber exec and PR teams to decide when to put on the brakes--at the expense of growth--to avoid it.

Certainly there are other groundbreaking companies (e.g., SpaceX) that haven't found themselves in Uber's position, and it's likely due to their leadership, not their ability or willingness to pay off journalists.

>Every article on Uber that I can remember reading feels like a negative hit piece..... Something like: "pay-up or the hits will keep coming".

If every article is negative so as to extort money then that's quite a grand conspiracy amongst the worlds journalists going on. Maybe the simpler explanation is their just not liking companies behaving like dicks?

Cui bono—“to whose benefit?”

Perhaps there are some disgruntled investors who feel they missed out on the chance to participate in the $100 billion super-unicorn of the decade.

Starting? It really has been. Even Al Franken nonsensical public email or whatever. I'm assuming that competition is really reaping the benefits.

Didn't sound like much of a joke to me.

Not trying to defend Uber, but I can't remember any positive PR about them, apart from raising a huge amount of cash. So, honest question: any good stories about them?

I use them almost every day. In cities all over the country. They are better than Taxi's in literally every single way. I actually have nothing but positive things to say about them.

In the early days, Uber was just about the coolest thing you could do with your phone. You could press a button and a black car would arrive in minutes to take you wherever your group wanted to go.

In the 30 or so times I've used them I've had a good story to tell others and recommend their service since it is fast, cheap and efficient.

There was a time, not too long ago, when Uber was held high here on HN and most tech sites: Uber represented the democratic, egalitarian alternative to the evil taxi empire. Out with the old king...

As an aside, quite some time ago I canvased a number of taxi companies in the Toronto area to gauge their interest in creating essentially an open platform Uber -- a product that would offer a rich user experience similar to Uber (not copying Uber, but naturally the functionality will converge), but integrated with their dispatch systems and so on. Running a contract development shop, I was essentially pitching a researched, well considered solution to the Uber threat. There were no biters (even though those same companies seem to have endless time to petition in the media and government), and it remains a silo'd world of terrible apps, and still a fertile ground for disruption.

Not sure how the market works in Toronto, but in many US cities, the taxi business pays the bills with direct government support (Medicaid taxi) and makes money off of drunks and business travelers whose circumstances prevent rental of a car or use of a hotel shuttle.

It's also a cash business that doesn't benefit from a clear audit trail of work activity.

In Israel we have these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GetTaxi

They're OK, I guess.

My wife used Uber for the first time during a recent trip to Tampa and couldn't rave about it more.

Comparatively, here in Vancouver, we are massively underserved by the taxi monopoly to the point that even when I have free taxi chit from work, I still end up taking transit. But talking about how terrible taxi companies are isn't really news.

Worse (and most expensive) taxi ride I every had was in Toronto recently, absolutely shocking service. Is that common in Canada?

Ontario governments have a serious cultural problem with regulatory capture. Government-supported private monopolies aren't really seen as a failure of government, and so the economy suffers a bit from the proliferation of them.

I'm perfectly happy with Big Government or free market solutions, but we seem to take the worst-of-both-worlds approach here.

For the most part, the ride system works well. Which, I suppose, proves that word of mouth is more powerful than negative PR.

Anecdotally, at least, the negatives do seem to be making some impact (at least here in Denver). I've met an increasing number of people who have heard of the $500 rides who are scared to touch Uber.

Yes! After the negative Uber story yesterday I asked if there was a compiled list of their wrongdoings. Apparently, TechCrunch was listening. :P

>Apparently, TechCrunch was listening

...to Lyft's PR team.

Not that that invalidates the story - but they're clearly making full use of it this week.

The days that I respected TC as a tech blog with authority are long over. These days they will do everything for the party waving with the biggest ads-pay check. Just looking at their website, Ghostery was signaling double digits of trackers getting blocked, I decided to turn off AdBlock. That is something you do 1) when you want to support a site with ad displays or 2) if you want to check how bad a website has spiralled out of control.

It is a mess. The worst part is that right know I don't know whether this is journalism or a PR-piece by an Uber competitor. An advertorial, maybe? I don't know.

It's like someone issued a command from on high to write story after story about how bad Uber is. They've made a lot of missteps but I'm starting to wonder if all these articles are justified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com