
The Uber Conflation - dwaxe
https://stratechery.com/2017/the-uber-conflation/
======
crabasa
_On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much
more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can
lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least
in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety.
If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation
scoring, and the greater availability of transportation options, particularly
late at night — then it is the taxi companies and captured regulators
violating said spirit._

I agree with this. Taxi regulations might have started with noble intentions,
but quickly evolved into protecting a monopoly at the expense of consumers.

~~~
brudgers
Maybe at the expense of consumers, but not necessarily to the detriment of
citizens.

~~~
Zak
Anecdote, not data, but my experiences using Uber have been universally better
than using taxis and the same is true for everyone I know who has moderate
recent experience with both in the US.

There may still be arguments to make that it's detrimental, or at least not
beneficial for other reasons, or there may be data that contradicts my
anecdote (if so, please link it), but I'm glad Uber exists and probably
opposed to any regulation that makes it difficult or impossible for it to
operate in a given place.

~~~
galdosdi
A lot of people say the same thing you do -- their diverse anecdotes agree
that regular cabs are obviously (better, worse) than uber/lyft/etc.

The trouble is, they don't agree which way it goes.

I think the resolution to this conondrum is, it varies based on city/region.
Some areas had traditional taxis that are worse than ridesharing, and some
better.

~~~
xapata
Name a region where taxis provide better service than "rideshare".

~~~
fragmede
It might be hard to believe, but there are urban places, outside the US, where
public transportation works (so Uber and taxis are still luxury items, so
taxis themselves are nice and clean), where taxis are plentiful (so no
problems finding one, even at 3am) and either electronic cash works (ie; not
credit cards that drivers accept), or credit card readers are required (and
effectively enforced so there are no problem paying with credit card), or cash
is still king (if your job is paying you in cash, paying cabs with cash is not
a burden). On top of that, Google maps/GPS/whatever is unfortunately terrible
in many places, so an Uber driver being directed by an app may never get you
where you're going, greatly hurting adoption.

~~~
xapata
Makes sense. However, I travel frequently, but have yet to encounter this
situation. In the US the taxi monopoly results in poor customer service and/or
difficulty getting a ride. In the various countries I've visited outside, the
wealthy countries have had slightly better Ubers than taxis. In the poor
countries, I'm incredibly happy to find Uber has arrived as I no longer fear
for my life or worry that I'm being cheated. And no, I'm not exaggerating.
These are places where the tourism office says to avoid taking public
transport for fear of robbery/murder. Thus my belief that Uber is wonderful.

~~~
piva00
Come to Stockholm, the situation is 90% close what your parent comment said.

And taxis are allowed to be Ubers too, we have Teslas S, Mercedes-Benz E and S
classes and normal VW Passat taxis, all of them probably working also for
Uber.

------
_jal
"Otto having stolen intellectual property are very serious, it’s worth
remembering that the entire industry is basically built on theft"

There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink
being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They
didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much
bullshit.

Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the
culture, he needs to step down as incompetent.

If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down
for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal
term for that...)

~~~
zaptheimpaler
>A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they
did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit.

Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article:

"The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber
too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and
undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that are
utterly ruthless when money is on the line, while cloaking said ambition in
fluff about changing the world."

Soo.. its our fault for enabling this behavior, but we shouldn't punish Uber
for it? Nooo. The majority of us don't create the rules/hierachy of what is
valued, we can only vote with our feet and wallets and we should.

------
JoshTriplett
The most critical quote from the article: "Kalanick’s mistake was in not
clearly defining, communicating, and enforcing accountability on actions that
pushed the line but had nothing to do with the company’s regulatory fight. In
fact, it was even more critical for Uber than for just about any other company
to have its own house in order; the very nature of the company’s business
created the conditions for living above the law to become culturally
acceptable — praised even."

This seems like an excellent description of the problem: if you're going to
run a company that intentionally pushes the boundaries of specific regulatory
restrictions (in order to demonstrate a better result that can only happen
without them, to get popular backing for removing them), then you need to draw
a clear internal dividing line between the risky actions taken in support of
that goal and all the other areas in which the company should act as a model
for upstanding behavior.

------
mikeash
A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to
the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people
(falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law.

I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places.
The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never
considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo
service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that
in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of
the letter of the law, not just the spirit.

Is that true, or am I just misinformed?

~~~
tedunangst
In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they
would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering
upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

~~~
trimbo
UPS and Fedex pay New York millions in parking fines as a cost of doing
business[1]. How come we don't really think of them as scofflaws, but we do
with Uber? (I include myself when asking this question)

[1] -
[http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130526/ECONOMY/305269...](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130526/ECONOMY/305269980/parking-
tickets-all-in-the-cost-of-doing-business)

~~~
wrsh07
That's an interesting thing: in basketball, fouls are part of the game and
used in the last minutes to get the ball back

In most other sports, doing that would be "breaking the rules."

Not sure how such a division arises. (Maybe if the authorities make no attempt
to "close" said loophole?)

~~~
ghaff
In general, in sports there's something of a distinction between fouls that
are simply a violation of a game's rules and fouls that also cause or at least
risk injuries. The former are generally regarded to be just part of the game
and, presumably, penalties are commensurate with the foul. It's not uncommon
for "dirty" play to have consequences in addition to the foul called at the
time.

The basketball example is an interesting one. One assumes that if the league
wanted to eliminate that type of play they'd change the rules to increase the
penalty in some way by docking points or whatever.

------
mandevil
This is one the few times I've felt actually disappointed in Thompson. He is
exactly right that Google (and basically every other company in SV) is totally
implicated with the same problem. But saying that Kalanick should get another
chance to turn around the company? Look back to 2014: Kalanick tweeted out an
apology for one of his execs threatening a (female, natch) journalist, but
decided not to fire the exec in question, because "I believe that folks who
make mistakes can learn from them- myself included." 2014 was his opportunity
to turn around the culture. He failed, utterly and massively- and Fowler (who
didn't join the company until almost a year after that tweet storm) and plenty
of other women paid the price for his failure. We're now three years later and
clearly the culture is even worse, and there is no evidence of improvement.
Again, she didn't join the company until a year after he promised to work to
show "that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community.
And furthermore, I will do everything in my power towards the goal of earning
that trust." Where is the evidence that he should get another chance?
Ultimately, it's that Kalanick is a high performer, the same excuse Uber gave
Fowler.

------
spoondan
One very serious shortcoming of this article is the claim that the theoretical
spirit of taxi regulation is exclusively (or even primarily) rider safety.
Regardless of how we believe it has all worked out in practice, taxi
regulation has long been earnestly pushed for a multitude of reasons: traffic
congestion, driver pay and rights, consumer protection (from fare abuse), road
safety (independent from rider safety), and, yes, the kind of rider safety
that Uber is far better at through GPS tracking and driver reputation.

There are many attitudes to have about taxi regulation. Some would argue that
the market will eventually provide better solutions; even for issues like
traffic congestion. Others might contend that the regulation is necessary
because the market will either not find solutions or the cost of finding those
solutions via the market is prohibitive. Some might take a less principled
approach and consider whether the current regulations are better at solving
problems or creating them. Regardless, we have to honestly consider the whole
story. It's easiest to argue for Uber's approaches when you consider only the
small part of the argument where Uber and its ilk clearly best the entrenched
taxi system.

~~~
wrsh07
This is a good point, but I think regardless reform is in order.

Sometimes the best way to reform a thing is to tear it down, and I think
that's where Thompson's cautiously optimistic post about Brexit landed.
(Perhaps this one? [https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-
possibility/](https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/))

------
gdulli
> Note the easy conflation: avoiding regulators, allegedly tolerating sexual
> harassments, it’s all the same thing. Well, I disagree.

I would say there's an equal danger of conflating their disrupting regulations
with innovation or progress. There's some relation, but it's not equivalent.
Treating them the same is only good for Uber.

Or maybe it's that "innovation" and "progress" are mistaken to be only good
things.

------
not_that_noob
Travis fits the mold of a ruthless kind of CEO, always pushing the ethical
line as far as he can get away with. Bill Gates in his first incarnation as
ruthless CEO has engaged in all sorts of questionable behavior. For example,
interview a bunch of people from a rival, figure out who's key, and hire them
all away at once. Or structure the agreement with IBM to eventually own the
rights to Windows, then screw IBM over by slow-pedalling and malingering on
OS/2, and then release Windows in co-ordination with the newly created clone
PC market, which he relentlessly encouraged behind IBM's back.

Note that I'm not judging - I have come to realize (sadly) that a certain
ruthlessness may be necessary for large-scale success in business, especially
in the tech industry.

------
Tycho
I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take
down Uber. The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous.
There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be
removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? Because SJWs now rule
Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't.

The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video
seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators. And then you
have other bloggers cashing in on the situation by writing these kinds of
posts to get page views.

~~~
st3v3r
"I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take
down Uber."

If there is, it's from Uber itself. Everything that has come out are things
that Uber has done by itself. No one else's fault but Uber and it's
leadership.

"The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an
HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed
despite being an incredibly effective CEO? "

The buck stops there. He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of
his company.

"Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they
don't."

No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously.

"The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video
seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators."

Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame
Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile
workplace environments at Uber before.

~~~
Tycho
>He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company.

The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100%
responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis.

> No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously.

Why?

> Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame
> Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile
> workplace environments at Uber before.

Not an actor, but possibly someone was trawling for embarrassing footage that
otherwise would probably never see the light of day. The blog post was clearly
fake and I'm just wondering if it was part of a viral marketing campaign for
New Balance sneakers, or a party with a grudge, or possibly just a regular
troll.

~~~
st3v3r
Nothing negative that has come out of Uber has been faked. You have absolutely
no evidence to say otherwise. And of course a video of the CEO of Uber
berating one of his drivers was always going to see the light of day.

"The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100%
responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis."

Again, the buck stops there. EVERYTHING at Uber is Kalanick's responsibility.
EVERYTHING. Otherwise he does not deserve the title of founder, and all the
money that's come with it.

~~~
Tycho
CEO has 100% responsibility that his/her company fulfils its fiduciary duty to
investors. They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society"
responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad
behaviour by any of the employees. It would be more than adequate for Kalinack
to simply order a review of HR policy.

True I don't have evidence that the #UberSurvivor blog was fake but there's
also been zero proof that it is real and I would be willing to bet money that
none will ever appear.

~~~
st3v3r
"They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that
puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the
employees."

Yes, they do. Again, they are entirely responsible for their company.

"It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR
policy."

Like the several other times he's done that, and it failed to change anything?

~~~
Tycho
I cited the fiduciary duty which is a widely recognized standard for the
practice of running a company. What standard are you alluding to, exactly,
when you say the CEO is "entirely responsible" for everything that happens
within the walls of their company? Are you just making an arbitrary assertion?
Who exactly does the CEO need to answer to for these kinds of employee
misconduct?

------
brilliantcode
If Uber was trading on wall street it would be shorted to oblivion. When this
unicorn implodes, it's going to change the valuation dynamics.

Downvotes not going to fix Uber.

~~~
civilian
You're getting downvotes for claiming absolute knowledge of a very complex
issue. :P

------
xenadu02
The article makes a good point: Uber seems to have conflated pushing
regulatory boundaries with pushing the boundaries of decent behavior. For a
company trying so hard to overturn regulatory capture they sure did let their
own house become a shambles.

It's like if Edward Murrow went after McCarthy without bothering to double-
check his own staff for anything that could be used against him.

------
socrates1998
This is super interesting. I guess one of the reasons why Uber has been so
successful in taking on powerful regulations and a lot of push back from
different players is BECAUSE of their super aggressive business cultural.

And I could easily see this "fuck the world, we do what we do" attitude
creating a hyper-alpha atmosphere where sexual harassment is scoffed at.

So, one could argue that without this attitude, Uber would have run out of
steam or lacked the hustle to take on the Taxi companies and government
regulations.

Still, regardless of the success that this culture has achieved, you can't
treat your workers like shit and ignore sexual harassment.

I could easily see Uber being replaced by another company after Uber does all
the hard legwork of taking on the Taxi companies and governments.

Especially if Uber lacks the ability to fix its' image.

------
ariwilson
_Moreover, one of Uber’s other “scandals” — the fact that Kalanick asked Amit
Singhal to step down as Senior Vice President of Engineering after not
disclosing a sexual harassment claim at Google — reflected far worse on Google
than Uber: if Singhal committed a fireable offense the search giant should
have fired the man who rewrote their search engine; instead someone in the
know dribbled out allegations that happened to damage a company they view as a
threat._

It's not clear when Uber learned about these allegations of sexual harassment.
I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted
immediately after all the other cultural problems with harassment they seem to
have.

~~~
jimmywanger
> Google at least pushed Amit out as soon as the allegations were
> substantiated.

We don't have any evidence that the allegations were substantiated. We have
some internal, anonymous leaks that claim that Google found the allegations
were "credible".

~~~
ariwilson
You're right, thanks.

------
davidgerard
> There is no disputing that Uber has operated in the gray zone, perhaps
> adhering to the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.

Well, except the bit where they didn't do that either.

------
perseusprime11
Instead of stepping down, it looks like Travis is hiring a COO
[http://www.recode.net/2017/3/7/14843680/kara-swisher-uber-
ce...](http://www.recode.net/2017/3/7/14843680/kara-swisher-uber-ceo-travis-
kalanick-coo-executive-recruiter)

------
freshflowers
Gee, and there was me thinking that the rise of Trump had put an end to the
argument that these types of unethical behaviour are not symptoms of the same
problem.

Defending a lack of ethics with ideology is a nothing more than a cheap trick.
And I'm not falling for it anymore.

------
perseusprime11
I still think Uber's future challenge will be to return all capital it has
raised so far and will raise in the next 5 years.

------
chaser7016
Who cares if Uber is a tad dirty in breaking down down the status quo. The
public didn't cared previously about this until they realized that Uber treats
everyone(their employees, contracted drivers, customers, stealing from their
competitor, the common man driving to work who could get killed by an unproven
Uber robot car and more) like trash and steamrolls over all who is not a
KalaDick bro!

