
Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics - JimWillTri
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/
======
potatolicious
Wow. This is low.

The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City
team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales
tactics."

No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves
consequences larger than "hey, stop that".

I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad
the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.

~~~
eridius
It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers
(why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt
to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this
"fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

~~~
samolang
And they paid cancellation fees.

~~~
epipsychidion
If drivers keep getting requests cancelled, they will be less prompt and
enthusiastic about actual ones. The cancellation fee is calculated on the
assumption that frequent orders will not be deliberately placed to be
subsequently cancelled.

~~~
samolang
I agree that they may have violated the spirit of the contract. But the
contract specifically handles the case of cancelling an order (including some
restitution), so I would hardly consider it fraud.

~~~
epipsychidion
Running into the path of a moving car isn't fraud? End result is the same for
when it's an accident.

~~~
samolang
Running into the path of a moving car is only fraud if you claim the driver is
at fault. If you admit responsibility and pay for any damages then it is not
fraud.

------
hristov
That is not only morally wrong but it is flat out stupid. Uber is the leading
firm in a growing market with network effects. They should be worried about
growing as fast as possible first and above all and not about competition. The
network effects will take care of the competition.

The worst thing a company in a leadership position like Uber can do is take
actions that acknowledge their competition. Even if they are trying to screw
over their competition they are doing them a big favor by acknowledging them.

It seems that Uber may lose their first mover's advantage by their greed and
small mindedness.

~~~
icebraining
_The network effects will take care of the competition._

Will it? Why? Unlike social networks, I don't see why would Uber benefit
particularly from network effects; it doesn't even have switching costs, since
the consumer can use both concurrently.

~~~
hristov
Each Uber user benefits when there are more Uber drivers. They can get rides
faster and more conveniently. Each Uber driver benefits when there are more
Uber users. They can get clients faster and closer to their current position
and thus make more money with less downtime. These are the network effects.

A consumer can use Uber and a competitor. This, however, is not unlike social
networks, it is entirely like social networks. A consumer can use two social
networks as well. However, in practice if one car service or social network
does a good enough job the consumer is unlikely to use another.

~~~
icebraining
_Each Uber user benefits when there are more Uber drivers. They can get rides
faster and more conveniently. Each Uber driver benefits when there are more
Uber users. They can get clients faster and closer to their current position
and thus make more money with less downtime. These are the network effects._

As nickpinkston said, those are economies of scale, which is a related
concept, but not the same.

 _A consumer can use two social networks as well._

Yes, but this is where the difference highlighted above kicks in: in a social
network, the total number of users is not as relevant as the number of
connections the user has, so the user can be "stuck" even if he feels the
product is _not_ good enough. In a product like Uber, there's no such effect;
people can switch as soon as they feel like trying the alternatives.

~~~
hueving
>As nickpinkston said, those are economies of scale, which is a related
concept, but not the same.

This is still network effects, just with two different parts. The drivers
benefit when there are more users, and the users benefit when there are more
drivers. It falls clearly into the definition of network externalities when
you take the drivers into account.

------
pmorici
It's interesting that all these ride services are so aggressive about
recruiting drivers. I looked into driving for them to make a few extra bucks
and the one thing they could do to get a leg up on their competition is
clarify the insurance situation.

They all essentially claim that a driver's personal auto insurance is good
enough and combined with the companies umbrella policy provides sufficient
coverage. But then if you go and read their fine print that really isn't the
case and if you were to be involved in an accident while driving for them
there is a good chance no insurance would cover damage to yourself as the
driver or your car.

~~~
yapcguy
Maybe this will be resolved in a court of law.

Just in the past few weeks...

"Uber Driver Arrested in San Francisco Crash That Killed Girl"

[http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Uber-Driver-Arrested-
in...](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Uber-Driver-Arrested-in-San-
Francisco-Crash-That-Killed-Girl-238491691.html)

"Lyft Driver Hits Elderly Woman in San Francisco Crosswalk"

[http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Lyft-Driver-Hits-
Elderl...](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Lyft-Driver-Hits-Elderly-
Woman-in-San-Francisco-Crosswalk-240944161.html)

~~~
eridius
Interesting, an Uber driver hits someone (while not even on a trip), they
release a blog post that starts with condolences to the family, and apparently
a lot of people (i.e. hacker news commenters) get upset at Uber.

A Lyft driver hits someone (while active on a trip), Lyft doesn't issue a blog
post (a news story contained a paraphrased "statement from Lyft", but I see
nothing on Lyft's own blog), and hacker news doesn't seem to care.

This strikes me as pretty strange.

~~~
smackfu
An accident that kills someone vs. an accident that I'm surprised got an
article written about it.

~~~
eridius
You're right, Lyft's accident was much more minor. It's clear it was only in
the news because of the connection to a car service. My point was basically
just that hacker news these days always seems intent on painting Uber in the
worst possible light, even when they issue a public statement that starts with
condolences to the victim's family, but they don't seem to care about what
happens with other car services. It seems only recently that everyone was in
love with Uber, but I guess now it's the goliath that needs to be taken down?

------
defen
Between this and how they handled the girl who was killed by an Uber driver on
New Year's Eve in San Francisco...my opinion of them has taken a decided turn
for the worse in the past few weeks. And for both, I can't help but think that
company culture is set from the top.

~~~
livejamie
To play devil's advocate; how would you have had them handle the New Year's
Eve situation better?

~~~
yapcguy
Did you read their statement?

They were more worried about being associated with the accident than the
accident itself. Lots of weasel words and excuses in trying to claim that the
driver didn't work for them, or that the driver wasn't active or doing a trip.

If I worked for Uber, I would have posted something simple and left it at that
e.g.

"We have been informed by law enforcement that there has been a traffic
accident in San Francisco involving an Uber driver. We send our deepest
condolences to the family and victims of this tragic accident."

The end.

~~~
redthrowaway
Just to play devil's advocate, would you apply the same standard to Musk's
handling of the Tesla fires? His primary concern there seemed to be to disavow
responsibility and blame the driver. While it's _true_ that the fires were
driver error, that doesn't change how combative he is about criticism (see:
top gear).

~~~
epipsychidion
No one died/was seriously injured in the Tesla fires. That makes it a
completely different situation.

------
RockyMcNuts
One man's dirty tricks is another man's free market -
[http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-
shrugged/](http://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/)

Who needs pesky Taxi and Limousine Commission busybodies to ensure people
aren't arbitrarily blacklisted from being able to call a cab?

~~~
icebraining
No one; higher fees due to state-enforced limited supply are more than enough
to keep the poor from riding taxis.

 _" Nearly half of [NYC taxi] passengers have a household income of $100,000
or more a year." (2014 Taxicab Fact Book)_

~~~
jellicle
That's why Uber came along, the service for the common man, dedicated to
reducing the price of taxis. Right?

~~~
icebraining
I'm not defending Uber.

------
JonFish85
I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, but when Uber itself is a business that
seems to exist on the border of legality, this type of stuff isn't that much
of a surprise to me. Uber et al. specifically skirt around regulations that
cab companies have to abide by, which, at least in my opinion, sets the tone
at the top that legality and ethics are somewhat secondary to the mission of
the company.

IMPORTANT: I've used Uber, and the experience has been great. All I'm saying
is that I don't love the cavalier attitude towards city regulations on taxis,
and that I think that attitude flows down the chain.

~~~
ajju
I think it is important to draw a distinction between challenging local
regulations like million dollar medallions that hurt both drivers and riders
and laws that prevent companies from hurting their competitors to steal their
supply, the way it happened here.

There are many companies challenging the first kind of regulation that
wouldn't indulge in the breaking the second kind of law. Disclaimer: I started
one of them - InstantCab, which competes directly with Uber and Gett.

~~~
aestra
>million dollar medallions

As far as I understand, the only thing that medallions offer as an advantage
in New York City (where they cost a million dollars) is the ability to pick up
people who hail a cab off the street. Other car services exist for prearranged
rides, and are called car services, not taxis.

------
untog
I'm not even sure that 'accuses' should be in the title given that Uber have
already admitted that they did it. Pretty shady, IMO.

------
Gorbzel
Lots of bantering about whether or not it's ethical / low. tl;dr: It probably
is; Travis probably doesn't care.

Honestly, since all that really matters to Uber is $$ and being forced to deal
with the law (and even then only barely), Gett should just sue them. It's
clearly illegal (putting aside differences between NY/CA law) and it proves
the point in a way they'll be forced to notice.

~~~
eridius
Is it actually illegal? That seems to be very much a question, not a matter of
fact. It's obvious Uber was not intentionally trying to disrupt Gett's
business. They were trying to harvest driver phone #s (so they could later try
to hire away the drivers; while ethically dubious, this part does not seem
illegal). Furthermore, they paid cancellation fees to Gett for doing this. It
does not seem clear-cut to me _at all_ that you could label this as fraud,
which I believe is the only way to claim this is illegal.

~~~
doktrin
> _It 's obvious Uber was not intentionally trying to disrupt Gett's
> business._

That's certainly Uber's stance, but it's not "obvious" at all :

> [OP] "In some cases, Herman said the Uber employees waited until the cars
> had showed up to cancel the order. Uber said the orders were all canceled
> immediately."

Deliberately waiting until the last minute to cancel a ride would certainly
indicate intent to disrupt. That Uber is denying having done this should not
exactly come as a surprise.

~~~
eridius
> _Deliberately waiting until the last minute to cancel a ride would certainly
> indicate intent to disrupt._

Sure, if they actually did that. At the moment this just seems to be Gett's
word against Uber's, and since doing that would not in any way aid Uber's goal
of harvesting phone numbers, I'm not inclined to believe Gett just on their
word. The most benign explanation is that the drivers simply didn't check
their phone to see that it was cancelled until they'd arrived at the address.

~~~
doktrin
> _since doing that would not in any way aid Uber 's goal of harvesting phone
> numbers_

You're just making assumptions about Uber's goal.

It's Gett's word against Uber's, and the latter is the one who has admitted
engaging in immoral and possibly fraudulent activity.

------
colinbartlett
I love the doublespeak in the statement: "Our local teams can be pretty
determined when spreading the word about Uber and how our platform opens up
new economic opportunities for drivers"

"opens up new economic opportunities" is that what we are calling "sales" now?

~~~
freehunter
To me it says they open new economic opportunities by bringing black car
service to the masses and fairly cheaply (I compared Uber to a cab for a trip
I'm taking soon, UberX was much cheaper). AFAIK, black car services weren't
very accessible by the public not that long ago. Services like Uber or Gett
let the drivers make money in a new way, which sounds about spot on to me.

------
sp332
_Order forms provided to CNNMoney show that more than a dozen Uber employees
were involved, including community managers, operations managers, Uber 's
general manager, and the company's social media strategist._ So much for
blaming "our New York team".

Why does the bit at the end discuss California law? This happened in New York.

~~~
pmorici
Because for whatever reason CNN decided to call a CA based law firm to
interview them and of course a CA lawyer is going to know first and foremost
about CA law.

~~~
shadowfox
Could it be because Uber is a CA company? I don't know how the jurisdictions
are supposed to work though.

------
pshin45
Gett probably should sue Uber, but what sucks is they (Gett) would have to
divert precious money, time, and resources to fight a much bigger company with
deeper products and better lawyers, which takes focus away from product and
growth, which decreases their probability of success long-term.

Very shitty, lose-lose situation for Gett. The fact that they got "free PR"
out of this CNN article is probably small consolation.

------
k-mcgrady
Really scummy behaviour. Warrants a much stronger response than: ""Our local
teams can be pretty determined when spreading the word about Uber and how our
platform opens up new economic opportunities for drivers," Uber said in a
statement. "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious
and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics.""

------
j_s
This type of behavior is often swept under the rug in the startup world, eg.
Airbnb hijacking Craigslist:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=261024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=261024)

~~~
SyneRyder
Until the link above is fixed, try this article for an overview:

How AirBnB Became a Billion Dollar Company [http://davegooden.com/2011/05/how-
airbnb-became-a-billion-do...](http://davegooden.com/2011/05/how-airbnb-
became-a-billion-dollar-company/)

TLDR: Dave Gooden setup a honeypot on Craigslist to test whether AirBnB staff
were creating fake Gmail accounts to spam Craigslist users & suggest they
should post their vacation house listings on AirBnB instead.

------
leephillips
Just this morning there was a story on NPR about how Uber has price-gouging
built into their system: during a snowstorm you may pay something like 5x the
normal fare.

~~~
smoyer
If you're going to call it "price-gouging", let's at least admit it's a
natural part of business. Take a look at hotel rates when there's a near-by
convention, air-line ticket prices over the Christmas holidays or even the
prices quoted by corporate sales at businesses like Cisco, Oracle, etc.

There's not a law that says you have to charge everyone the same rate - just
that you can't base it on certain types of discrimination.

Note: I'm okay with calling all those practices "price-gouging".

~~~
leephillips
It's not my term, it's defined by the statutes of many states, including NY:
[http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/GBS/26/396-r](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/GBS/26/396-r)

The idea is that jacking up prices to take advantage of adverse conditions or
emergencies is not the same as normal supply-and-demand based pricing in
response to seasonal variations, etc. I don't know if Uber's practice fits the
definition in the statute or if they're being investigated for it.

~~~
smoyer
Uber has stated that their pricing is based on the number of people requesting
rides (within some time slot if I remember correctly). So a snow storm might
be deemed a natural disaster, but it might also lead to more people requesting
rides (also triggering the price increases).

Yes, if there's not an increased demand during that snow-storm but they're
caught with 5X prices, I think they'll be in trouble under those "price-
gouging" laws.

------
blackdogie
In a world where you generally only get one chance with a new customer, I
wonder how many people decided not to use Gett because there wasn't
availability at the time that they wanted to try it.

As much as I love über I think these tactics aren't going to win them fans.
Competition in the market should be a good thing, right ?

------
scelerat
This is one of the reasons traditional cab services are heavily regulated: to
avoid these sorts of battles. It's in the interest of a municipality to have
stable, predictable, reliable public transportation. Price wars, selective
service, and tactics like these disrupt that stability.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Uber mostly found traction in SF where they started because regulation _did
not_ deliver reliable transportation. Street hails mostly worked if you could
find one and didn't need them to accept a credit card, but if you called a cab
company for a ride, you could easily waste an hour waiting for a cab that
never shows up at all.

------
bowlofpetunias
I'm sure it was a "local" decision, but from everything I read and hear, lack
of ethics is part of Uber's DNA as much as lack of hierarchy is part of
Steam's or Github's.

Calling it "a bit too ambitious" is just further proof of Uber's structural
lack of values.

------
mattmcknight
I think there is an interesting contrast between this recruiting approach and
the Google/Apple/Intel/Intuit non-recruiting agreements people were
complaining about yesterday. Yet here, the weight of opinion is on the other
side, while I see them as roughly equivalent.

~~~
jjh42
I don't thin the issue is Uber recruiting drivers. The issue is DOSing their
competitor to do so.

~~~
mattmcknight
Yes, the lawyer mixed in the bonus offer into the complaint, but that would
appear to be a good thing for drivers, if not for Gett.

I guess the question is whether sending requests and cancellations to 100
different drivers over 3 days (about 33 different drivers per day, maybe 4-5
per hour in a workday) really constitutes a denial of service. It seems
exaggerated, but it is working as Gett is getting attention.

Definitely a bad idea though.

------
tlrobinson
A friend who works at a different Uber competitor is banned from using Uber. I
think now I know why...

------
brianmcdonough
Dear Uber,

I guess I shouldn't have expected much from a company that was founded on the
principle of giving their customers the experience of being a baller.

I only wanted a consistent and yes boring, non-baller experience.

I'll be looking to find a boring company that just shows up, doesn't try and
and cheat me during peak period and has respect for other organizations.

I once loved you, but now I'm leaving you.

Sincerely, Brian McDonough

~~~
jaredsohn
Some of what you wrote is unfair to Uber.

>I only wanted a consistent and yes boring, non-baller experience.

You can use the Uber app to get cabs or lower cost UberX. UberX is actually
cheaper than most cabs while providing the convenience of ordering
electronically, knowing roughly how long to wait, and paying electronically
(with receipts.)

>doesn't try and and cheat me during peak period

There have been some interesting discussion about this on Travis Kalanick's
Facebook page
([https://www.facebook.com/traviskal?fref=ts](https://www.facebook.com/traviskal?fref=ts),
December 24, 2013) which basically say that the alternative to surge pricing
would be not being able to get a ride at all. Some people on that thread
suggested that the Uber client could be improved to let people get notified
when the rate goes back down and other UX improvements and Travis said the
team would consider those changes.

------
kinsho3
What a dirty act. It's unfortunate that these type of tactics likely do
succeed and furthermore go unpunished. But that's the cutthroat nature of
business in today's world.

So I guess I say this with a disgusted sense of admiration - kudos to them for
figuring out a new way to beat the competition.

------
johnobrien1010
"Gould's railroads began to cut down Western Union connections and replace
them with American Union's. (This was pure vandalism, and directly violated
the 'no exclusivity' court decision Gould had celebrated.)"

\- p. 146, The Tycoons, Charles R. Morris, ISBN:1429935022

------
jacquesc
I almost remember when Uber was the good guy. Stories like this keep popping
up everywhere.

It's a competitive market, but there's better ways to grow than attacking
competitors and banning developers (earlier story) who try to do interesting
things to extend your service.

------
rdl
This makes me really angry as a happy Uber customer. I wish there were a way
to express my displeasure to Uber without having to give up a great car-on-
demand service.

------
JohnTHaller
Just thinking out loud, but couldn't this be interpreted as falling under that
nebulous 'unauthorized access of a computer system' law?

------
abhigupta
If Gett isn't taking legal action against Uber, then this just sounds like a
good marketing ploy to get attention.

------
jonathanmarcus
Seems like the offline equivalent of a misguided 'Growth Hack' gone wrong.

------
snarfy
Fraud is a felony.

~~~
dangrossman
"Fraud" isn't a singular thing. The Penal Law of New York State defines around
40 separate types of fraud, most of which are misdemeanors.

[http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/index.htm](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/index.htm)

------
newisland
why Gett can't sue Uber in this case ?

------
EvanL
I love it, great scrappiness from the local team. As CEO i'd have a good
chuckle, and tell them to tone it down a bit.

Generous of the article to refer to Gett as a "rival" and not a clone.

~~~
untog
_Generous of the article to refer to Gett as a "rival" and not a clone._

Because Uber is so crazily innovative that no-one else would ever think about
doing it? Come on. It's a car service with a smartphone app. There's a reason
there are at least a dozen companies doing it.

~~~
highace
Because they saw the success Uber has experienced and wanted some of the pie?

~~~
potatolicious
Non-taxi on-call cars have existed for many, many decades before Uber.
Especially in NYC where this article is relevant, car services are a dime a
dozen and have been a regular part of city life for decades.

The difference is between picking up your phone to get one vs. using your
smartphone. Uber was first to market, but it's silly to pretend that without
them it wouldn't have happened. That's like calling the Pizza Hut app a clone
of the Domino's app, because they both order pizzas and Domino's came out
first. Ultimately Uber is a newfangled (and more convenient) front-end to a
service that has pre-dates itself by a wide, wide margin.

The extension from "call the car company to get a car" to "use an app to get a
car" is a pretty obvious innovation, particularly in NYC.

~~~
xux
So what? You can say that about any large tech companies.

Google wasn't the first search engine. Apple didn't make the first music
player. Facebook wasn't the first social network.

Being unique doesn't matter a single bit. Only thing that matters is that
people are using them. And that's the case with Uber. Judge however you will
their shady tactics, but it's ridiculous to downplay their success based on
that.

~~~
icebraining
Who is downplaying their success? The point is that it's not ridiculous to
call Gett a rival instead of a clone.

~~~
xux
>The extension from "call the car company to get a car" to "use an app to get
a car" is a pretty obvious innovation, particularly in NYC.

Sounds like downplaying success to me. Everything is obvious once it's done.

~~~
potatolicious
You're reading dismissiveness into my post that was not intended. Uber has
done something remarkable, but it is not so novel as to justify calling
everyone doing the same thing a "clone".

Not to mention Uber is _not_ the first GPS-based car-hailing app. They were
the first ones that were able to gain mass traction - which is an achievement
in and of itself, to be certain, but also makes claims that "X cloned Uber"
somewhat laughable. If we're going to split hairs about who copied whom, Uber
is on the wrong end of that statement.

~~~
xux
But it's precisely because Uber was able to get such traction, that other
companies followed into the field. Lyft and Gettit may not be "clones", but
I'd wager the followed the industry leader (Uber) in the the field.

Gettit is as much a clone of Uber as Androids a clone of iPhone. Not an exact
copy, but probably wouldn't be existing without the other paving the path.

