
Uber's playbook for sabotaging Lyft - coloneltcb
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft
======
mikeyouse
I've been mystified how Uber's kept up their "Underdog" mantle for as long as
they have. They've raised over $1.5B in investment from some of the biggest
companies, private equity firms, and VCs on earth. I think you stop being an
underdog as soon as Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, TPG, KPCB, Google, and Jeff
Bezos are invested in your success.

They likely have more cash-on-hand than the cumulative Taxi base they are
'disrupting', they've been caught multiple times sabotaging competitors,
they've been outed for dishonest advertising, and have been repeatedly accused
of hostile actions toward their drivers. They ignore sensible regulations like
maximum hourly workweeks and insurance minimums (do you want your driver
working 90hrs/week without liability insurance?) under the guise of fighting
the taxi cartel.

It often takes a 'push' to get bad laws changed, and Uber's provided much of
that push, but not all laws that restrain business are bad and not all
companies that break bad laws are good.

~~~
rayiner
The whole "taxi cartel" thing is stupid. It arises out of this really
distressing attitude that every dispute must involve "good guys" and "bad
guys." Yes, the taxi companies are trying to shut down Uber and Lyft using
regulation, but they are just trying to enforce a legal monopoly granted to
them by the cities in which they operate. It's a legal right they got in
return to agreeing to measures like rate regulation and "common carrier"-esque
regulations concerning routes.

I personally think most of the taxi regulations are stupid, especially the
price controls. But they're not irrational, nor did these legal regimes arise
out of nefarious lobbying on the part of taxi companies. Rate regulations,
forbidding surge pricing, requiring cabs to serve the whole city, etc, arise
from cities treating cabs as a part of the overall municipal transit
infrastructure. The "last half mile" of transit, as it were. I don't think
regulated monopolies are a good idea, but they're certainly a common solution
when it comes to industries that resemble public infrastructure.

Given that the taxi companies were granted monopolies as part of a larger
regulatory regime, why are they "evil" for trying to enforce that privilege in
the face of companies like Uber taking the high value routes out from under
them, using techniques like surge pricing they aren't allowed to use?

~~~
dmix
As you point out, most people are critiquing the state intervention for being
woefully outdated and not inline with market economics (as they always seem to
end up being overtime thanks to technology). No-one really thinks the Taxi
companies are the "evil" ones because they were handed monopolies on a platter
then got comfortable and fat with their position.

If the local administrators have the power to hand out monopolies, they should
also have the responsibility to retract it when it no longer makes sense. A
repeated and long-delayed failure to do so is harmful to society, whether or
not it was had good intentions at the beginning doesn't absolve it of
criticism now.

~~~
CaptainZapp

      ... for being woefully outdated and not inline with market economics
    

Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first
place?

Most, if not all regulations should serve and protect the citizenship and not
private interest.

That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an
obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes.

~~~
dpatru
Market economics is the aggregate of the deals that people make when they are
not coerced. It's what results when both drivers and passengers are free to
choose their best options. Regulation that disrupts this, by preventing
drivers from offering services (through a medalion system) or prevents
passengers from paying for services (by capping fares) make people worse off
than they otherwise would be.

~~~
jdmichal
You're willfully ignoring the positive parts of the regulations, like proper
insurance and licensing requirements. And even those you listed have both
positive and negative sides. It might be difficult to hail a taxi, but I do
know that once I do, I can expect to pay the capped fare to go wherever I want
to (common-carrier regulations mean they can't refuse you a trip within some
bounds). I fail to see how the alternative, which would be flat-out refusal of
service or drastically increased pricing to go to unpopular places, improves
anyone's life.

------
untog
I know this may sound hyperbolic, but I hope that others join me in finally
getting around to installing the Lyft app today.

Before now I'd considered them too small to be worth bothering with, but hey,
if Uber is worried then maybe I should give it a try. After this, and Uber's
attempts at doing the same with GoTaxi a few months ago, I'll be very happy to
take my business elsewhere.

I'd also be interested to know if the VCs that invested in Uber were aware of
these tactics. It's especially sad to think of good startup investment money
being used to defraud a competing company rather than invest in good customer
service.

~~~
AustinDev
I'd love to take my business elsewhere. Particularly to Lyft however when I
tried to sign up the other day to try it out I got a message that my account
was banned and I had to contact support. I believe it said I had a duplicate
account. I've never used Lyft.

I wonder if action they took against my account was a result of them trying to
mitigate these attacks from Uber. If so the damage is much worse than just the
canceled rides.

~~~
jjoonathan
Or uber "borrowed" your account info and used it for one of their Lyft
smurfs...

~~~
crazypyro
Is there any evidence of this? That is going beyond anything I've read, in my
opinion.

~~~
mpyne
The logic doesn't sound that far-fetched if you've read the linked article and
find the business case plausible.

~~~
crazypyro
You honestly think Uber would risk their customer's credentials to shut out a
competitor they are already trouncing by most accounts? I would consider the
risks of using customer's credentials in such a careless and ridiculous way
many magnitudes higher than the potential rewards. It's much safer to buy
burner phones and assume fake identities. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense
without some evidence to back up it up.

~~~
jjoonathan
Credentials? They would just need a username, unless I'm mistaken?

> the risks of using customer's credentials in such a careless and ridiculous
> way many magnitudes higher than the potential rewards

Are you sure? What are the risks of parking a username? I doubt it's illegal
and I bet they could obfuscate the traffic well enough to make it very
difficult to prove to a court that they were the ones doing it. The only
downside seems to be a bit of slightly negative PR (i.e. the assumptions of
those who jump to conclusions) when Lyft detects the widespread parking.

Meanwhile, the upside is the expected value of their most profitable customers
times the probability that they will switch to Uber+Lyft or 100%Lyft.

Low risk, large upside... I don't think this is as bad a business proposition
as you make it sound like.

~~~
atmosx
Slightly negative PR for having the monopoly in the long term? I'd take the
negative PR any day.

~~~
illumen
Jail time for fraud?

~~~
jjoonathan
Have you seen people go to jail for parking domain names? We aren't talking
about stealing credit card numbers here.

------
cmsmith
Please be sure to read this article before commenting.

It is NOT about Uber ordering fake Lyft rides to keep Lyft drivers off the
street, as was alleged by Lyft last month.

It is about:

1\. Uber using the Lyft service to get in touch with Lyft drivers, then trying
to recruit them to be Uber drivers by presumably paying them more

2\. Lyft trying to block Uber contractors from using Lyft, so that they cannot
do (1)

3\. Uber using burner phones and fake Lyft accounts to enable them to keep
doing (1)

Also keep in mind the uproar here over the past year caused by
Apple/Google/etc trying to increase profits by subverting the free market for
tech worker salaries. Is the only difference that then it was collusion as
opposed to an adversarial arms race? Or does the collective opinion depend on
whether HN readers stand to benefit financially?

~~~
avalaunch
Yeah but they did cancel a bunch of rides and that's the upsetting part. Their
reasons might have been different than originally assumed but that doesn't
change the egregious nature of their tactics.

What it sounds like from the article is that the independent contractors Uber
hires are canceling rides whenever they realize that the Lyft driver has
already been approached. If they had a policy of never canceling rides I don't
think people would be as upset.

~~~
ctl
Lyft says that Uber employees have canceled 5000 rides since last October.
That's like $100k in lost revenue -- it's nothing. Definitely not some big
plan by Uber to undermine Lyft.

~~~
edgyswingset
That's a potential software developer's salary, whose contributions are
certainly worth more than that - I'd call it substantial.

~~~
GregorStocks
That's not all. Let's say that software developer would have produced $200k in
value for Lyft. But that 200k could hire two more software developers! By
induction, Uber has cost Lyft an infinite amount of money.

------
mythz
Can't stomach unethical, morally bankrupt anti-competitive tactics. Sabotaging
a competitor's services distorts the free-market, ultimately harming
consumers. If Uber aren't suitably punished by the courts, I hope at least
their reputation is tarnished in the court of public opinion. Although that's
not clear since "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and Uber's been
getting a lot of that recently.

Either way, I'm at least glad I've never used Uber yet, and now never will.

~~~
BrainInAJar
Sabotaging a competitor is precisely how the free-market operates that's why
we have regulations, because a free market isn't actually free or desirable.

~~~
mynewwork
I'm so tired of people who don't know what "free market" means making up their
own definition and then saying it's a bad thing.

A "free market" is an economics term meaning a marketplace free from anti-
competitive forces such as government subsidies, government price floors or
ceilings, monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, non-compete agreements, etc.

If Google and Apple make an agreement about smartphone pricing, then we might
not have a free market for cell phones. The government could then use
regulations against such anti-competitive agreements to end the price fixing
and restore a free market. In that scenario it was private enterprise causing
a non-free market and regulation that made it a free market.

Regulations can help a free market (breaking up monopolies, preventing cartels
and anti-competitive practices) or regulations can harm a free market
(subsidizing production, preventing new entrants from entering the market).
This notion of "free market vs regulations" is completely misunderstanding
what a free market is and how the systems involved work.

~~~
Vik1ng
I disagree with your defintion in the google-Apple example and so does
Wikipedia. It's pretty clear that if the government regulates it it's not a
free market anymore.

\--- A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and
services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the
laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a
government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)
\---

~~~
jtheory
The wikipedia quote doesn't seem to support your point, though.

It specifically lists "price-setting monopolies" and the like (which would
include price-fixing agreements between Google & Apple, right?) as
interference in a free market. Prices must be set freely by consent between
_sellers_ and _consumers_ , not amongst sellers in backroom deals.

If a government's only "regulation" is to stop monopolies, price-fixing, and
other violations of the natural supply/demand pricing, then you have a free
market.

If no one stops those things, then you do not have a free market.

------
napoleoncomplex
Uber has a culture of breaking the rules. As beneficial as that was and is in
their growth, it's not surprising it mutates in less pleasant ways as they
grow. The same actions that seemed benevolent before, will seem more and more
malevolent as they look less and less like an underdog.

A cheesy line from Batman comes to mind, they will live long enough to see
themselves become the villain. The customers will end up asking for more
regulation in a few years. Maybe Uber will start issuing a limited amount of
medallions in every city. But a lot of money to be made along the way.

~~~
josu
>The customers will end up asking for more regulation in a few years

Consumers hardly ever ask for regulation.

~~~
dalke
Really? My view is the other way around. Customers ask for more regulation and
businesses are against it. Some of the consumer requested laws include
national laws like the Pure Food and Drug Act and Clean Water Act, state laws
like various lemon laws, and local laws like rent control.

~~~
pdonis
_> businesses are against it_

I think some businesses are against it (they tend to be the smaller ones), but
other businesses (these tend to be the larger ones) like it because, while it
imposes a burden on them, it imposes more burden on their competitors. Also,
businesses can often get into a position where they basically write the
regulations that they will have to abide by (i.e., regulatory capture). In
that situation, regulation can be an asset for a business.

~~~
dalke
I speak of course in broad generalities, and not to each and every company or
consumer. To start, all members of a business are also consumers, so there is
no clear cut distinction between the two, and some consumers are
philosophically against all regulations even without being in control of a
business.

------
sah88
IMO Uber's greatest threat is someone coming along and making a similar
service and licensing it to cities so that the cities could control who
becomes a driver, total number of drivers, as well as integrate with
traditional taxi services and take a cut of the revenue. Then all the sudden
Uber et al. are competing with a entity that has the ability to legislate them
out of business.

Underhanded tactics like this is just more ammunition for anyone who wants to
make the argument that the industry needs to be regulated. Uber might be
shooting Lyft in the foot but they're also putting holes in the floor they're
standing on themselves.

~~~
jssjr
[http://gocurb.com/](http://gocurb.com/) has been doing exactly that for many
years.

~~~
foobarqux
And Hailo (?)

But why aren't they succeeding?

~~~
derrekl
They are succeeding, but not to the extent of Uber/Lyft. Regulated taxi
industry pricing is much higher than lyft or UberX pricing. If taxis get de-
regulated and/or UberX/Lyft get regulated then Curb/Hailo/etc will be well
positioned.

~~~
dandelany
> Regulated taxi industry pricing is much higher than lyft or UberX pricing.

Empirically, it's a bit higher, but not much. A few data points from my recent
experiences - I take a cab to work once or twice a week if I'm running late.
The last 3 Ubers (UberX) I've taken were $11.02, $11.45 and $9.79. The last 3
Hailos I've taken were $12.29, $10.39 and $12.09. These are from similar times
on similar workdays with similar traffic patterns. (Edit: this is in NYC and
the Hailo fares include a 20% tip)

I'm thinking I'll pay the extra dollar from now on, worth it to avoid
supporting these business practices. Although my biggest problem with Hailo
has been availability - it's often impossible to get a Hailo near rush hour
while Ubers are always available.

~~~
derrekl
I suppose it depends on where you are using the services. In Los Angeles,
after you factor in tip for a taxi driver, Uber and Lyft are about 40-50%
cheaper. Here's Uber's analysis of the pricing in LA
[http://blog.uber.com/LAuberXpricecut](http://blog.uber.com/LAuberXpricecut)

------
ericdykstra
Price comparison SF:

Uber X: $3 base fare, $0.30 per minute, $1.50 per mile

Lyft: $2.25 base fare, $0.27 per minute, $1.35 per mile

Both have a $1 trust and safety fee, and Lyft has a lower minimum.

I’ve personally had better experiences with Lyft overall, and I’ve taken at
least 100 rides with each service.

~~~
narsil
Anecdotally, I've had better experiences with Lyft as well. Uber's customer
support has been terrible in comparison.

~~~
ToastyMallows
Agreed. I can't even sign up for their app on Android using Google account and
Google Wallet. I emailed their support email a week ago and haven't heard
anything back. The Wallet dialog pops up but I can't click anything. Looks
like I won't be signing up with Uber anytime soon.

------
billyhoffman
Is it just me or does "growth hacking" and having good "hustle" actually means
doing sleazy things and being a dick.

I don't understand why Silicon Valley and Startups think acting like this is
not only acceptable, but should be applauded.

~~~
cheepin
I also don't understand why VCs pick companies that are clearly courting a
huge lawsuit by providing a platform for people to ignore local laws.

~~~
DanFeldman
Probably because they see how well AirBnB is doing in the same vein of
"ignoring local laws".

------
michaelbuckbee
If you set aside the hyperbolic title, this actually is an exoneration of the
worst things that Uber has been accused of: namely they were NOT pranking or
trying to deliberately mess up Lyft.

The hangup calls were the side-effect of their extremely aggressive
recruitment efforts for Lyft drivers - where it seems they'd hang up and call
back later to try and get a different driver that they hadn't already pitched.

While not great, it also doesn't strike me as particularly underhanded or evil
(this is a scenario where the "best" outcome for Uber is paying Lyft for a
ride where they try and give the Lyft driver a phone and presumably a better
paying job).

~~~
crazypyro
Lyft has stated they've had over 5,000 CANCELLED rides, meaning Uber is
deliberately trying to mess up Lyft. If you don't think the cancelled rides
count, how can you say that aggressively recruiting its drivers, and as a by
product, reducing the earnings of the drivers/Lyft, is Uber not trying to mess
up Lyft? I'm not saying its illegal, but its clearly Uber trying to win the
market by shutting out Lyft.

~~~
badusername
5000 cancelled rides over a year does not mess up a system that reportedly has
a millions of trips per year.

~~~
crazypyro
I don't think the argument here is over the scale or the percent of rides that
were fake. The argument here was "Is Uber trying to shut down Lyft, through a
variety of tactics?". I'd have to say yes, they are trying their best to block
Lyft out of the business by limiting the key resource, drivers.

~~~
mayanksinghal
> Is Uber trying to shut down Lyft, through a variety of tactics?

But not through cancelled rides, right? I don't understand how Uber trying to
recruit drivers is any different from any tech company trying to recruit me.

~~~
mkadin
Straight up, this is a key point. Lyft is in 64 cities. 5500 canceled rides
over a year is peanuts. That's 1 cancel per city per 3 or 4 days. I can't
believe this is even a story.

~~~
DanBC
It's a story because it's an abusive tactic. It harms individual drivers to
try to benefit a very wealthy company.

It's a story because Uber thinks they need to do it. Does that then mean that
Uber thinks they can't compete on quality of product and price of product?

------
sremani
Its unfortunate but I am surprised here, aren't there any laws to punish this
kind of systematic sabotage.

Would the VCs like Google Ventures and other VCs self-police and influence
Uber from this tactics. Uber already has first entrant advantage, this is not
childish, this is sinister. Some driver somewhere burned lot of gas and rubber
only to be disappointed that there is no fare there.

I will not use Uber until they make mends, I know I am a small hummingbird but
anything with in my means to discourage this practice.

~~~
acangiano
> this is not childish, this is sinister. Some driver somewhere burned lot of
> gas and rubber only to be disappointed that there is no fare there.

It could be even worse.

Imagine a Lyft driver going to a Uber initiated non-existent fare. Now imagine
him or her getting into an accident and dying on the way there.

~~~
untog
That seems like a needless exaggeration. Traveling to a non-existent fare does
not result in the driver doing anything they wouldn't have been doing
otherwise.

Uber's behaviour is already bad, we don't need to add hyperbole.

~~~
acangiano
Actually, if it weren't for Uber's call they would not have been at the
incident's location at the wrong time. Of course, it's a worse case scenario /
exaggeration, but when they make thousands of calls, it's not entirely out of
the realm of possibility.

~~~
varkson
So that means that if anyone dies or is seriously injured on their way to a
client, the blood is on the client then? Come on now, that doesn't make any
real sense.

~~~
acangiano
My two previous comments were inundated with downvotes, so I gather that my
original aside comment was seen by most as a stupid or irrelevant one. I
accept that, but assigning responsibility for a possible accident wasn't
really where I was coming from. It was more about increasing the odds of
something tragic happening, for absolutely no justifiable reason.

To further elaborate on that point, I meant that driving is a fairly risky
activity that we engage in. A driver is accepting that risk in order to make a
living. A client is obviously not responsible if an accident happens, as the
driver has accepted the risk associated with the transaction, in exchange for
money.

However, for every extra minute or mile on the road, a driver has a slightly
higher chance of getting into an accident. Uber has made thousands of such
calls, for absolutely no good reason and with no monetary benefit for the
drivers. Although not directly responsible for possible accidents, the sheer
number could have conceivably contributed to increasing the odds of one such
accident/injury or even death (in a worse case scenario) happening. Which
makes Uber's actions even shittier in my books.

I understand that most people here don't see it that way.

Note: Of course my assumption about the odds might be entirely false, if I
misunderstood the way Uber works. For example if cars are just running around
town until a fare is requested, instead of being parked somewhere.

------
Kronopath
To those who have used Lyft: do you get any choice in which drivers come to
pick you up?

If not, I can see how the combination of Uber's policies can lead to a lot of
cancelled rides even without Uber explicitly telling their recruiters to do
so. To wit:

\- You're an Uber recruiter, and you call up a Lyft driver to pick you up from
somewhere.

\- At some point, I assume you get to see the driver's profile through Lyft,
at which point you flip through your messaging app and realize that he's
already been pitched.

\- Since Uber discourages you from pitching to the same driver more than once,
you cancel the ride.

This leads to a lot of cancelled rides coming from Uber's recruiters, while
letting them keep their company line of, "We don't ask our employees to
deliberately cancel rides". Because, technically, they haven't.

------
far33d
So which is it - is poaching another company's drivers bad, or is making
secret anti-poaching agreements bad?

~~~
narsil
Recruiting drivers from competitors isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's the
tactics used here to attempt to kill Lyft by making it bleed cash that are
unethical.

~~~
far33d
This article only describes a concerted effort to recruit drivers by hailing
rides. Lyft still gets paid.

I believe that the hail / cancel tactic is unethical, but this article only
describes direct recruitment.

~~~
buckbova
The article references the hail/cancel.

"Earlier this month, CNN reported that Uber employees around the country
ordered and then canceled 5,560 Lyft rides, according to an analysis by Lyft.
(Lyft arrived at this figure by cross-referencing the phone numbers of users
who tried to recruit Lyft drivers to Uber with users who had previously
canceled rides.) "

------
bhaumik
CEO Travis Kalanick is attempting to defending Uber's practices in a Twitter
conversation with DHH.

[https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374243790831616](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374243790831616)

~~~
calbear81
They have so many brand ambassadors there's no way they can control what they
do when you wave a stack of hundreds in front of them an incentivize them to
try and steal Lyft drivers. Perhaps they didn't tell the recruiters to cancel
those Lyft rides but they should have laid out some ground rules if they
wanted to keep their hands clean.

~~~
ianstallings
And walmart has a lot of cashiers they can't control either. Turns out they're
both liable for the actions of these agents acting on their behalf. Why make
excuses?

------
dpeck
DHH had a really great comment on this worth sharing with HN:

"Take the higher ground, man. Let the runner-ups do the runner-up shit. You're
sitting on a throne but acting the peasant."

[https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/504374011711594496)

------
boldpanda
So Google, Facebook, and Apple are bad because they come to secret agreements
to not poach each other's employees and now Uber and Lyft are bad because
they'll do everything in their power to poach each other's employees?

Make up your minds.

This sort of poaching is good for the drivers, and this sort of ruthless
competition is a good indication of a market that is good for riders.

~~~
bps4484
Imagine if google and facebook were calling up random numbers at each others'
headquarters in order to recruit. If the recruiter ended up guessing a number
of an engineer that they've already reached, they would hang up. If they
hadn't spoken to them they would give them a pitch on switching companies.

This would be an accurate analogy, and I think if either google or facebook
were doing this we (the tech community) would complain about it.

~~~
gtremper
Except there are other, easier ways to contact google or facebook employees.
Why would anyone do what you suggest instead of using linkedin or github?
There's no such alternative for contacting lyft drivers in this case, so
you're analogy is not very accurate. Also, lyft drivers aren't employees of
lyft, which strains to your analogy more.

~~~
bps4484
It's by no means a perfect analogy, but it's the closest thing I could come up
with to compare to the anti-competitive practices of
google/facebook/microsoft, which is what the OP was trying to do.

------
johnrob
I think we need regulation in order to eliminate cutthroat behavior in the
transportation industry. Oh wait...

~~~
dnautics
it's not really that necessary... Lyft could figure out a way to immunize
itself against these sorts of real-world attacks, and by and large they have
using a comibination of analytics and creating a more reasonable cancellation
policy.

------
geebee
As an aside, I'm starting to think that some types of non-disclosure
agreements should be as unenforceable as non-competes in California.

"After Uber became aware that The Verge was asking questions, Target CW sent
out multiple emails warning contractors that talking to the press violated a
non-disclosure agreement they signed when they joined."

My problem isn't using these agreements to protect trade secrets, or when they
are simply a contract between a company and an employee or contractor (you
agree to treat certain types of things as "our property" rather than going off
and selling them to a competitor).

My problem with non-disclosure is when they are used to hush up embarrassing
details or otherwise keep the public in the dark about shady business
practices.

------
sprkyco
Just dropped Uber. Guess now I have to sign up for Lyft. These tactics seem
very similar to the Hoffa era, really had high hopes for a sharing economy but
things are escalating quickly to become similar to Hoffa era tactics. Minus
the whole fighting for the middle class spirit.

------
ninv
Evil company. Once they destroy the competition, they will use these tactics
to squeeze out customers.

As an end-user, we must avoid Uber. We can't let them win.

~~~
chanon
Exactly my thoughts. Once they squeeze out all the competition, then its time
for the drivers and riders to get squeezed.

------
KVFinn
Wow, burner phones and CC numbers?

Start off as a darling outdoing the establishment and taking all their
business. After you've made it, the very next day, start acting just like the
establishment you disrupted.

------
jmaha
I decided to try Lyft Line yesterday and it matched me with somebody else in
the neighborhood. Just as the driver pulled up to the second (shared) fare,
the ride was cancelled and my driver was stuck driving me alone and accepting
the half fare.

While I can't confirm whether the cancelled fare was Uber initiated, it did
occur to me that both Lyft and the driver were getting screwed by the
cancellation. If it happens enough times, I can definitely understand why my
driver would jump ship and drive for Uber instead.

~~~
blockjon
Lyft pays the driver the full amount that the driver would have received in a
normal ride even when there is only one person who uses a Lyft Line.

------
calbear81
It's a dog-eat-dog out there and if they weren't the market leader we would
somehow all come around to agreeing this is the ultimate "growth hack" or
appreciating Uber's "hustle". But by being top dog and having sterling
investors like Google Ventures backing them, we hold them to a higher standard
(much like their "polished clientele").

Since most of the risk to these services comes from the regulation side, I
wouldn't be surprised that someone's greasing the wheels in Sacramento or
Washington. There's enough money at stake here for those involved to do
whatever is necessary. When I heard a few days ago that a lawmaker who voted
in favor of rideshare restrictions was caught drunk driving the night after
the vote, my first thought was that maybe it was a set up. Hire some people to
buy this guy a few drinks, encourage him to get on the road, call the police
to report a driver driving dangerously. Would you be surprised? I wouldn't.

Anyways, regarding the product - I use Lyft a lot more than Uber since I know
a few folks there but most of my friends use both and Sidecar interchangeably.
Every time I catch a Lyft, I tend to talk to the driver to figure out how much
they're making, what are the pain points, and what can these services do
better and there seems to be an opportunity to differentiate. Here were some
ideas I had:

\- Drivers tell me they can't find a place to relieve themselves since parking
is hard to come by around SF. I think they would appreciate some designated
"refuel" stations where they can pull up, park, pee, get coffee/red bull, and
maybe vacuum or clean their cars up.

\- I would love to be able to pick a fuel efficient car and see Lyft do a
green mustache to indicate I'm making a choice for a hybrid. Maybe hybrids can
get bonus payments since they can stay on the road longer per tank.

\- Several friends have complained recently about how random the route-finding
applications were that these drivers used. Some used Apple Maps, the built-in
nav on the apps, or Google Maps but it wasn't always consistent and some of
the routes were TERRIBLE. Seems like an opportunity for either Lyft or Uber to
build better path-finding in their largest markets via maybe highly localized
traffic information or by paying off the city for access to bus/taxi lanes.

~~~
anewcolor
With regards to your third point, I just took an uber yesterday and the driver
was using an uber-supplied navigation tool. maybe part of the existing app
used for drivers? on my end, the app asked for a destination address and it
was synced with the driver. the route was what i would expect.

the driver did complain however that they were forced to pay $10 for this
ability and had no way to opt out.

this was in sf

~~~
jaredsohn
Yes, it uses the driver's app. At least the rider's app was updated a little
over a week ago (August 18) to allow this. Presumably the driver's app was
updated around the same time to integrate with it.

------
quackerhacker
It's amazingly sad that instead of competing through innovation, marketing, or
price adjustments...that capital would get devoted to competitor sabotage of
QOS (almost like a real life DDOS attack). What a terrible usage of capital
and resources!

------
alain94040
An article well worth reading: it contains an actual smoking gun, not just
speculation and he says/she says.

Hint to all entrepreneurs and managers out there: if your job includes
building an online form so that your team can generate any number of fake
credit cards numbers as well as throw-away cell phone numbers, maybe you
should take that ethics 101 class again.

------
bproper
This seems like cutthroat tactics, but not illegal as far as I can tell.
Anyone know if this is by the book?

~~~
greglindahl
Which book, the lawbook or the ethics book?

~~~
res0nat0r
I thought on HN we call working around outdated or laws we don't agree with
"disruption"?

~~~
sgustard
In fact, disrupt and sabotage are synonyms.

~~~
NoPiece
No major thesaurus lists sabotage as a synonym for disrupt. A couple have
disrupt for sabotage.

------
nezaj
This is bad taste. Makes me think twice about using Uber

------
brianbreslin
I would hope that uber has bigger fish to fry by subverting the taxi industry,
but strategically I can see why they are as scared of Lyft as they seem to be.
Still seems distasteful to sabotage a fellow startup.

~~~
minimaxir
> _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.

~~~
untog
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.

~~~
maxbrown
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.

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

~~~
chc
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.

------
Apollo1101
Interesting thread. One thing I think is missing from this discussion is how
significantly even the nature of transportation has changed in the era of
mobile phone tech. Some context: I live in Seattle, grew up in Minneapolis,
went to school in New York, and my aunt and uncle lived/live in Manhattan and
have for the last 25 years. I recently got them to experiment with Uber in New
York. They rarely take taxis, so it was just sort of a novelty. They hated the
experience but only because they believe there has been a significant loss of
"institutional knowledge" about cities (for lack of a better term, I guess).
What I mean by that is this driver had no clue where to go. I think this is
sort of a danger with rideshare (not that I'm arguing against it...I'm not)
wherein the drivers rely overtly on the technology to guide them. Someone
visiting the city can't get in a cab (uber) and say "Hey, I'm looking for x,
y, and z tonight...where can I find that?" My Uncle was telling me that, as
bad and dangerous as it was years ago, cab drivers were basically the resident
experts of a city. They were so plugged-in to everything that they had almost
a 6th sense about them. That's been my experience with Uber in Seattle. I
cannot rely on the driver to get around the city at all. My experience with
Lyft has been so much better that in some cases I'd rather walk the mile back
to my place than catch an uber. All of this might just be the learning curve
uber has built for themselves as a direct result of the rate at which they've
been expanding. But it's something both companies should address. If uber/lyft
really are going to dominate urban transportation (and even inter-urban
transpo....uber vegas anyone?) then they need to do more than just take me
from point A to point B. They actually have to know where they're going.

------
rdlecler1
Now imagine if Uber had a monopoly? I'll be taking Lyft from now on. Thanks!

------
itazula
Traditional taxi drivers need to be less grubby -- Uber was able to take
advantage of that. How important a factor that is would depend on the country
or city. But in some countries, it may be a way of filtering for drivers that
speak English. For example, for Tokyo, Uber lists a flat rate of 40,000 yen,
roughly 400 USD (!), for a ride from Narita Airport to any of the 23 wards of
Tokyo. Pretty steep, given that a very nice bus, hotel shuttle, or express
train is less than a tenth of that cost. Of course, the "last mile" is a
consideration. For taxis, though, there are already established taxi services;
[http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/access/bus/#taxi](http://www.narita-
airport.jp/en/access/bus/#taxi) shows that fixed fares range from 16,000 -
26,500 yen.

~~~
DINKDINK
I never understood the disdain for Uber's pricing. Who cares if they charge
considerably higher than other services? No one is forcing you to take their
service.

Do you get upset when people buy an M-Class Mercedes? Would I ever buy one?
No. Do I think it's extravagant? Yes. Do I care how other people spend their
money? No

~~~
itazula
I actually wouldn't mind if certain conspicuous, extravagant (and
conspicuously wealthy) celebrities opted for an Uber taxi. Nope, wouldn't mind
it one bit.

------
jallmann
The indignation over this makes no sense. Sure it's aggressive, but Uber has
to be in order to maintain their market position and keep growing.

As developers, we get recruited all the time, even while employed. The horror!
This is a _good_ problem for drivers to have. No one is forcing them to switch
(or even stopping them from driving for multiple services concurrently). They
will drive for a company as long as the offer is good.

These are competitors offering an essentially identical service, and
apparently fighting over an important resource -- drivers -- so the moral
outrage is absurd. This is the free market in action.

I'll say it: from everything I've seen over the years of Uber, I like their
playbook. Call it whatever you want -- underhanded, blatant, political,
amoral, spotlight-stealing, $linkbait_adjective. Most importantly, it is damn
effective.

~~~
thenmar
Did you miss the part where they cancel the rides?

~~~
jallmann
And? Any service is susceptible to being gamed/abused. As developers we should
understand this intuitively. Lyft is clearly working on technical ways to
mitigate this if they don't want Uber hailing their drivers. As to the ethical
quandary of wasting the driver's time and gas, the solution is simple: charge
a cancellation fee.

~~~
malka
all right, let's legalize DDoS !

------
robg
I've been exclusively an Uber customer. Reading this, I'm installing Lyft and
giving them a shot.

------
swang
The problem I see with the, "we're just recruiting drivers! fair game!" is
that it's not.

When an Uber Rep goes into Lyft Driver's car, the Rep is technically a
"customer" and the Driver can't exactly hang up on the Rep, ignore the Rep,
nor drive away from the Rep. They are essentially forced to listen to a spiel
about Uber that they may or may not want to hear. Yes the Driver is getting
"paid" for the time spent but the Driver no longer has control over being
recruited.

Recruiters sending me emails? Kinda annoying and takes a bit to click "delete"
if I don't care for it. But at least I can choose not to read the email. When
one of these Uber Reps gets into the car, the Lyft Driver has no choice.

------
retrogradeMT
Even if you ignore the ethical side of this issue, the risk that these
practices create for Uber should have prevented them from developing SLOG.
They had to know that this story would come out.

SLOG is now Uber's reputation. And Lyft becomes an even more lovable underdog.

------
kevind23
From the comments here, it seems a lot of you missed the bit at the end about
Lyft aggressively recruiting Uber drivers. My impression is that Uber is less
subtle about it, and perhaps less ethical / more aggressive, but still,
competition is competition. If Lyft were such an underdog, then Uber wouldn't
be so afraid of them. From a consumer perspective, I hope that competition
cools off a bit -- the price drops are great, but if they keep escalating,
neither company will be particularly friendly. It would also be terrible if
one company were edged out completely, ending the price wars.

That said, I always take Lyft -- simply because Uber doesn't work for my
phone.

------
joshmlewis
I find this somewhat funny in a way because I've ran into several drivers that
were "double agents" driving both for Uber and Lyft. It makes a lot of sense
actually driving for both to make up for dead times.

~~~
phantom784
What would they do about the Lyft mustache? Would they just not use it, or
would they have to take it on and off based on which service was used?

~~~
joshmlewis
They had both the mustache and the uber logo. He said he never had anyone
complain or refuse to ride because of that.

I had never thought of that before then.

~~~
phantom784
I wouldn't expect a passenger to care, but it seems like something the ride
sharing services themselves could use to prevent "double agents." I wonder if
Lyft/Uber could take legal action against drivers who are displaying their
trademark while driving for a competitor's service?

------
onewaystreet
Two different tactics are being conflated here: Canceling rides on purpose and
scheduling rides in order to recruit drivers. The former shouldn't be done,
but the latter sounds fine since everyone is getting paid.

------
rsobers
Is it fair for George Clooney to hit on your girlfriend? Yeah, let the best
man win! But it's still kind of a dick move.

Regardless of whether you agree w/ tactics, the attitude and behavior leaves a
bad taste.

------
skrebbel
Why is there a 300 comment discussion on a _taxi company_ on Hacker News? How
is this different from a fast-growing yoghurt company or an IT consultancy?
Why do we care so much?

Because they have an app? Seriously?

~~~
knz42
It's because they are ostentatiously making a lot of money while blatantly
flaunting the law. This attracts attention, as much as Al Capone once did.

------
iblaine
I know people at both Uber and Lyft and will say that Lyft has just as many
assholes as Uber. Given both companies have great people, this article is
about Uber being the unlikable of both of them and there are reasons to not
like either company...if you take some things personally. That aside, cab
fares that used to cost $120 now cost $35, so the customer is winning here. If
anyone has a right to complain then it's the drivers that are getting the
cancelled rides.

------
niix
This is ridiculous. The competition is great for us as consumers. To be
honest, when I first moved to the city I used Uber exclusively. The sort of
"executive" brand really appealed to me. As of late, with the news of Uber's
shady tactics, I've been using Lyft more and more. Lyft Line, which was
released prior to Uber's attempt at the same feature, has been a lot of fun
and a really great way to meet random people in SF.

------
api
I wonder sometimes if certain markets -- like taxi services, used car
dealerships, domain registrars, etc. -- have inherent and non-obvious
structural characteristics that bias the market toward "slimy" behavior.

To some extent Uber and Lyft are being driven by customer dissatisfaction with
the expensive price-fixed "cab mafia," but in reading about these companies it
seems like the sliminess has just shifted to other domains.

------
iillmaticc
As someone above spoke to it seems like these claims are now facing public
outcry because Uber is beginning to lose it's underdog moniker...I imagine
myself saying "now would I be concerned this was an ethically egregious action
if that had been trying to 'sabotage' cab companies?" The answer to which
being...eh I'd probably say "GO new/little guy!...f __* those guys. "

------
jacquesm
It's very sad that Uber engages in these completely sleazy practices. I've
never used either Lyft or Uber but Uber strikes me as a company that would be
best to avoid.

Any company that engages in underhanded attacks at their competition rather
than in the marketplace by offering a better service and possibly lower prices
is not going to be nice to their customers in the longer run either.

------
anthemcg
I am not surprised by this. I am sure Lyft is just among a list of threats to
Uber and we are only seeing a small part of that strategy.

Its ethically not good but I think it would be wrong to say that we penalized
many other companies that make similar plays or resort to tactics that are
just as ruthless. It doesn't seem illegal just mean and aggressive.

Honestly, it kinda seems like something they would do.

------
encoderer
BS Clickbait headline.

Here's the gist: Uber and Lyft each try to recruit from each other. Canceling
rides does not seem to be about disrupting their service. Disruption may
happen as a side effect to their recruiting efforts, but that's not the point.
And if you ask Uber, they tell you Lyft is doing this all right back to them.

Sure, it's an unsavory practice. But sabotage? C'mon....

------
itazula
I thought I was going to coin a new word -- uberize. But then I thought to
look it up. Lo and behold, there is an entry from 2007:
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uberize](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uberize).
The meaning of the word? To destroy or defeat in a quick and effortless
manner.

------
apa-sl
Uber just started here in Poland (currently only in Warsaw, our capital city).
I was quite surprised that event Polish startup oriented blogs and news
outlets were rather sceptical about Uber and were preffering already available
local services (iTaxi, Taxi5, German MyTaxi). Usually it is quite opposite
when some global startup is staring on Polish market.

------
mikeleung
Interview with Travis kalanick last week, check out 4:40 where he is asked
about the Lyft accusations: [http://www.bloomberg.com/video/uber-s-kalanick-
hires-former-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/video/uber-s-kalanick-hires-former-
obama-adviser-plouffe-4mUpf2MuTZuwXnMWtu2NBA.html)

------
blunte
This is a denial of service attack. It is "cheating" and playing dirty.

As a matter of principle, I will never use Uber.

------
jcampbell1
I am fine with this, the only thing I don't understand is why they cancel the
rides. They should just give them a full fare to a destination where the
driver is likely to get a new passenger.

From the driver's perspective, it seems like this is a fare, and a job offer.
What is so wrong about this?

------
kin
So now it's just like Venmo, except Venmo uses your checking account vs. your
debit card which is really just a difference of security IMO.

Also, losing as much as a quarter per transaction doesn't scale. At this
point, Square seems like they really need an exit and it needs to be big.

------
cylinder
Heard plenty of stories about Travis Kalanick well before Uber took off the
way it has. To that end I'm not surprised by any of these shady (and most
likely illegal) tactics. Not sure if Google Ventures really knew what they
were getting themselves into.

~~~
hsod
This is some nasty innuendo and I find it distasteful. If you want to throw a
punch at someone, square up.

~~~
corford
Oh come on.... the on-line rags are awash with stories of Travis Kalanick's
abrasive character and less than honourable approach to doing business. It's
hardly a secret.

------
raverbashing
Thanks Uber for proving you're as sleazy as the taxi drivers you're trying to
replace.

------
chris123
Naw, Silicon Valley doesn't have a sexism problem, a greed problem, a fake do-
gooder problem, a black-hat, dirty marketing problem (Uber is just the latest
in the ongoing, playbook pattern), a drug problem, or a hooker problem. Not at
all, Bra.

------
ianstallings
Is anyone really surprised that people in the taxi industry are acting in a
shady fashion? I kind of wonder how many _deals_ Uber and Lyft have made with
local crime syndicates just to operate in certain cities. It would be par for
the course.

------
abritishguy
I love Uber but someone high up needs to instigate a culture shift - this is
just not ok.

~~~
fnimick
Except their CEO is a sleazeball - all this behavior comes straight from the
top.

------
bicknergseng
I'll just leave this here: [http://mashable.com/2014/08/12/uber-lyft-dirty-
tactics/](http://mashable.com/2014/08/12/uber-lyft-dirty-tactics/)

Uber might be slimy, but Lyft is no better.

~~~
dminor
According to Uber, that is.

------
goblin89
> Uber and Lyft are competing to become the first app you think of when you
> need a taxi, and the service with the most drivers likely stands the best
> chance of winning.

Aren't there other differentiating factors? Quality of service, etc.?

------
danielweber
Assuming true, this is exactly what made everyone hate Microsoft back in the
day. Google "knifing the baby" or "cut off the air supply," the top hits of
both are ways Microsoft tried to deal with Netscape.

------
atmosx
Uber, as any market-driven that respects itself, tries to create a monopoly.
Given the companies that backed the 1.5B investment, I see where the pressure
to quickly eliminate competitors from the market comes from.

------
misiogames
Those tactics sounds like something cab companies will do to competitors in
the 20's. Call me old fashion but this piece of the "sharing economy" sounds
like a little for many, a lot for a few.

------
sourshot
Quoth Uber:

"Operation SLOG (Supplying Long-term Operations Growth)"

Backronym if ever there was one..

------
ShinyCyril
I'm need to make a trip from San Diego Airport late at night in about a month
and was hoping to use Lyft. Sadly their app is unsupported as I have an iPhone
3GS running iOS 6.

------
wahsd
I'm always amazed at how low our businesses will stoop in a specious claim of
free market and competition. Our business are monopolistic, corrupt and
corrupting, and like Über is revealing itself....grotesquely, rapaciously, and
insatiably greedy. Our companies cannot simply compete, they have to corrupt
and sabotage and cheat and steal. It's pathetic, but unfortunately our society
rewards it because at some point Über will morph from it's current state of
cheating and stealing to corrupt our government and legislature and implement
regulatory capture that locks into place their ill gotten, undeserved gains
and advantages.

It's disgusting.

------
ctl
Uh... which of Uber's actions here are unethical?

Aggressively poaching drivers from Lyft seems all right to me. That's just
healthy competition.

And this stuff about wasting Lyft's money by booking and canceling rides --
it's a bunch of nonsense. By Lyft's own estimate, Uber employees booked and
canceled 5000 rides since last October. That's like $100k/yr in lost revenue.
It's nothing. Certainly not a systematic attempt to undermine Lyft.

Am I missing something here?

Disclaimer: of the two services I only use Lyft. I've had bad experiences with
Uber's customer service.

~~~
kookiekrak
When they hit the same driver twice, they're supposed to cancel the trip
aren't they?

But when a trip is canceled it hurts the driver who uses gas to drive in their
direction and causes them to miss out on other available rides, reduces the
amount of available cars on the street for legitimate users, and more negative
effects im sure you can imagine.

This still sounds ethical to you?

~~~
ctl
No, booking a ride with the intention to cancel is definitely wrong. My point
is that Uber employees aren't doing that frequently enough to affect Lyft at
all, so this can't be a plan on Uber's part.

It sounds like some Uber employees are just being assholes for no reason.
That's unfortunate, but it's no reason to malign Uber itself. Every company
has some assholes.

------
Aaronontheweb
This is in poor taste, but it's not illegal or unethical. If Uber was trying
to hire Lyft drivers via LinkedIn, it'd be totally cool right?

~~~
Karunamon
Agreed that the end goal isn't unethical or illegal, but the way they're doing
it has some unethical effects, i.e. every time they find out that they've been
assigned a guy they already sent a recruitment pitch to, they cancel a ride,
meaning somebody wasted gas and time to go to a non-existent fare.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to lure your competitor's employees
away, but fucking up their business as a knock-on effect isn't okay.

~~~
Aaronontheweb
Yeah, I see your point - that's definitely not cool.

------
malditojavi
Uber paying a 3-figure for getting new drivers? Not a sabotage for me, but a
big bet on user acquisition with a referral system.

------
vampirechicken
What's to stop all the taxi companies in all of Uber's markets from engaging
in the same behavior?

Seems like this could get fun, fast.

------
rwhitman
Uber must feel really vulnerable if they think there's a need to be this
aggressive about undermining the competition.

------
itazula
I can see Uber, Lyft, and traditional taxi drivers reading Sun Tze's The Art
of War. Well, maybe Uber and Lyft.

------
geuis
And this is why I exclusively use Lyft these days. Uber can bite my shiny
metal ass.

------
ape4
Sadly my city has Uber but not Lyft, or I'd switch.

------
robot
for me this is a reason not to ride on Uber

------
_pmf_
No honor among thieves.

------
notastartup
What a great PR move for Uber!

------
jellicle
If you use Uber, you're an asshole.

By this point, it's an excellent job interview question. "What do you think of
Uber?" Anyone says they love Uber is a no-hire.

