Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Uber dismissed warnings about its illegal self-driving test for months
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14698902/uber-self-driving-san-francisco-dmv-email-levandowski
51 comments
> they seem to have learned "Hey, we can get away with crimes!"
I'm not sure if it's really that. It seems that they're closer to having a scorched-earth policy where they intentionally break the rules. If the regulators step in and put some legislation that blocks Uber from operating, it also blocks their competitors from operating as well. If not, then they win by having their way and having a first mover advantage. Either way, they win or their competitors lose.
That strategy seems to have worked very well for them in the US, but not as much in other markets.
I'm not sure if it's really that. It seems that they're closer to having a scorched-earth policy where they intentionally break the rules. If the regulators step in and put some legislation that blocks Uber from operating, it also blocks their competitors from operating as well. If not, then they win by having their way and having a first mover advantage. Either way, they win or their competitors lose.
That strategy seems to have worked very well for them in the US, but not as much in other markets.
Aren't there places in the US where Lyft is operating and Uber isn't? Like Austin?
It's hard to play the scrappy upstart 'disrupt' card when you're a 50-billion or so valued company who can afford to hire people who can tell you how not to fuck up quite so incompetently.
How many ethical and legal violations will be until the CEO of Uber is fired? If this were a public company, 1) the stock would have taken several hits and 2) he would have been out a long time ago.
A decade ago it was Worldcom and Enron and other giants. It is unfortunate that the founder mythology has shifted some of the worst corporate behavior to start-ups.
A decade ago it was Worldcom and Enron and other giants. It is unfortunate that the founder mythology has shifted some of the worst corporate behavior to start-ups.
I think this will keep Uber private for much longer/indefinably. If they were public, the company's stock would be in the pooper. Since they are private, who knows what secondary markets have 'priced' the effect of all the allegations(toxic management, previous SVP sexual harassment issues,IP theft, running red lights, etc). If anything this will probably ripple to other Unicorns that staying private is a better idea. No accountability so you can get away with way more.
The problem is your workforce still wants a liquidity event that rewards them for helping build a multibillion dollar company. this means either company buy-backs or authorized secondary market transfers that will likely not result in the amount of money they expected.
say what you will about the tech giants, at least you know what you're going to get paid.
say what you will about the tech giants, at least you know what you're going to get paid.
That's why Uber is doing buybacks -- with, naturally, a good haircut for the employees.
While Uber’s buyback approach can help it retain talent, it may also benefit
the company’s bottom line. Using its own money, Uber purchases common stock
for 25 percent to 35 percent less than the price of preferred shares from
its most recent funding round, one person familiar with the matter said. It
can then turn around and sell shares at a premium in a subsequent round.
Great deal - if you are an insider with shares then sell all of them. This thing is hyper-valued.
You might not be able to unload at all...
The reason why Airbnb and Uber are working is because they found a loophole with the law and skirting around it as much as they can. So are you going to fire the guy for doing that?
"loophole with the law" is a very interesting way avoiding the fact that they flat our broke the law in jurisdictions and reimbursed fines drivers incurred.
Well, the laws in question (forced taxi monopoly laws) were bad to begin with.
Ah, so it's ok to break laws as long as you disagree with them? Because I have some serious issues with the idea that [insert abhorrent thing] is wrong so it'd be neat to just say it's a bad law and get on with doing it
There is a case to be made for a form of civil disobedience involving significant numbers of people breaking a law in an attempt to have it repealed.
I personally break a few laws I just don't care for. Drugs laws to name one. Nobody is taking my LSD from me and I imagine there are millions like me.
That said I don't agree with what Uber is doing. They are one company trying to skirt the law.
I personally break a few laws I just don't care for. Drugs laws to name one. Nobody is taking my LSD from me and I imagine there are millions like me.
That said I don't agree with what Uber is doing. They are one company trying to skirt the law.
Absolutely, given the extremely high stakes that are involved in this situation.
A million people die every year due to cars. These laws are partly responsible for these deaths.
These laws are not worth the lives of a million people every year.
A million people die every year due to cars. These laws are partly responsible for these deaths.
These laws are not worth the lives of a million people every year.
Yes. Exploiting wrinkles like that is the opposite of real productivity. If your whole business strategy based on arbitrage then everything you build is on legal quicksand.
By that definition everything is on "legal quicksand" because virtually anything can be outlawed. Uber found a confluence between technology, consumer demand and political change. That confluence has historically defined winning companies.
Oh please, Uber has built a reputation on flouting rules, and has arguably even used it as a low-cost publicity tactic. Read it in context, you know quite well it wasn't meant to be an all-encompassing principle.
Well companies are content to just stay private, or go public but hand over 80-90% of the voting power to founders anyway.
It's a pretty ridiculous situation.
It's a pretty ridiculous situation.
All of that over a $150 permit? They paid more in legal fees just to have their attorneys (in-house or otherwise) open the DMV's regulations on the subject, and all they got out of it was a decidedly antagonistic start to their relationship with the regulatory body that will regulate them.
For some reason, I think their executive team's fondness for self-destructive impulses is far more of an existential threat to Uber than coming in second in rolling out autonomous vehicles.
For some reason, I think their executive team's fondness for self-destructive impulses is far more of an existential threat to Uber than coming in second in rolling out autonomous vehicles.
Major requirement associated with getting that $150 permit is reporting disengagement statistics, and, hence, showing up on this report:
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14474800/waymo-self-driving-d...
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14474800/waymo-self-driving-d...
Ironically, all the effort to avoid regulation and oversight, will probably lead to far more expensive lawsuits on the flip side - Run a red light now, maybe hit a pedestrian later.
Not really. Red states like Arizona seem to like self driving cars just fine.
It is Californias loss, and other people's gain. The cars are going to be tested, no matter what.
Self driving cars are already much safer than humans. The recent government investigation of the Tesla self driving cars proved this (ten's of thousands of self driving cars are already on the road right now) .
It is Californias loss, and other people's gain. The cars are going to be tested, no matter what.
Self driving cars are already much safer than humans. The recent government investigation of the Tesla self driving cars proved this (ten's of thousands of self driving cars are already on the road right now) .
Huh. Lots of car companies do their driverless tech testing in California. Uber just doesn't like following rules that everyone else finds reasonable.
No, a couple companies test a dozen cars here and there.
Try that with a thousand and watch California lose its mind.
Try that with a thousand and watch California lose its mind.
Regulatory approval in California is generally a green light for the rest of the country because California's standards tend to lead the way for other states'. Arizone, not so much.
Sure, but having to do so is pretty much inevitable. At best, Uber was fighting a short-term delaying action with a blatantly untenable interpretation of what constitutes an autonomous vehicle (they've also repeatedly contradicted it with their marketing, press coverage and releases, and even Levandowski's own emails from the article). Eventually, they'd have lost and had to file anyhow. All they accomplished was guaranteeing that Uber filings will likely receive additional attention in the future.
It's Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. My only question is if there's a Sancho Panza at Uber to take note.
It's Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. My only question is if there's a Sancho Panza at Uber to take note.
Right, but it's possible (and I would say likely) that their self-driving program is behind everyone else and their disengagement rate is atrociously high, which is why they would go to great lengths to delay reporting this information and happily decamped to Arizona, which doesn't require disengagement reports, while they try to catch up by whatever means they can. According to NYT reporting, their software failed to identify six traffic lights during the brief time they were testing in SF, which suggests they are pretty far behind. Kalanick has correctly identified self-driving technology as an existential threat to Uber, and given their lofty valuation, they absolutely cannot afford to be perceived as being behind in this area.
don't they also have to report accidents?
You work with the agencies you are beholden to, to determine if you are working within the parameters they set- this should not be an antagonistic relationship. Uber apparently does not believe in that sort of thing and are arrogant enough to just go it alone. They will pay dearly for that hubris now.
Uber is just a disgusting company that I wish didn't exist. Fortunately they have far more ethical competition to choose from.
Uber is just a disgusting company that I wish didn't exist. Fortunately they have far more ethical competition to choose from.
The fact that they keep lying and getting caught regularly should be very troubling to their investors. I could understand differences in definition, but lying about what objectively happened is beyond that.
I would have thought that the end-customer paying only 40% of the actual cost would be more troubling; investors are subsidizing the cost of rides. Does Uber have a practical plan to get the costs down to where they're profitable? Without breaking the law?
So are these uber guys the kids of Enron guys? The managment style, the flouting of rules and decorum, seems very similar.
asking for forgiveness rather than permission is not something any company should do when people's lives are at stake
aaron695(6)
[deleted]
The pragmatic reason for this is that the penalties and probability of getting caught for a given crime are often inversely correlated. So if you commit a small crime and a large crime simultaneously, you're likely to get caught for the small crime and then they'll notice the large crime too.
Uber set out to break a set of laws that arguably needed breaking: those that protect incumbent taxi services against competition. Calling their taxi service a limo service to avoid anti-competitive regulations is a small crime. But instead of learning the "one crime at a time" rule, they seem to have learned "Hey, we can get away with crimes!"