How Uber Backers Orchestrated Kalanick’s Ouster as CEO(wsj.com)
wsj.com
How Uber Backers Orchestrated Kalanick’s Ouster as CEO
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-uber-backers-orchestrated-kalanicks-ouster-as-ceo-1498090688
163 comments
In retrospect, it is interesting to see that a reflective blog post from an engineer ended up in the casualties of CEO, most of the senior leadership and a few board members. Maybe the cracks were already there but nevertheless it has been surreal seeing this unfold in the space of 5 months. It is almost like watching the butterfly effect in action.
I'm reminded of the Hemingway quote:
"How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
Without diminishing the impact of Susan Fowler's blog post, Uber has already been "going bankrupt" slowly for years before this point.
I has been surreal watching this unfold, but I'd hesitate to compare it to the butterfly effect - unless we're talking about many, many butterflies over a long period of time ;)
I do hope that these events have inspired companies to pay more attention to their workplace and culture - festering problems like these are easy to ignore, but reveal their consequences suddenly and severely.
"How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
Without diminishing the impact of Susan Fowler's blog post, Uber has already been "going bankrupt" slowly for years before this point.
I has been surreal watching this unfold, but I'd hesitate to compare it to the butterfly effect - unless we're talking about many, many butterflies over a long period of time ;)
I do hope that these events have inspired companies to pay more attention to their workplace and culture - festering problems like these are easy to ignore, but reveal their consequences suddenly and severely.
Isn't part of the butterfly effect narrative that a number of things were already balanced at such a delicate point that they could be tipped?
No, or at least not as originally propounded.
The point of the butterfly effect is that every small input magnifies so much in a chaotic system over time that you won't be able to predict it correctly if you miss any detail, even one so insignificant as a single flap of a single butterfly's wings.
The moral being that a chaotic system is fundamentally unpredictable in detail, and can only be predictable in averages and aggregates. (So we can predict climate, but not weather.)
The point of the butterfly effect is that every small input magnifies so much in a chaotic system over time that you won't be able to predict it correctly if you miss any detail, even one so insignificant as a single flap of a single butterfly's wings.
The moral being that a chaotic system is fundamentally unpredictable in detail, and can only be predictable in averages and aggregates. (So we can predict climate, but not weather.)
Maybe the butterfly effect analogy was a bit facetious, but I don't see David Bonderman resigning and Amit Singhal being forced out in an alternate universe where Susan Fowler does not write the blog.
If a company is already morally bankrupt there is little recourse left.
I am, in a way, pleased to see this happen from a personal standpoint. As an admin at a previous organization I had reported harassment, abuse, and bullying directly to HR multiple times from several of the top sales executives. Calls and emails were logged, documented and sent.
Not long after, I was terminated.
I am, in a way, pleased to see this happen from a personal standpoint. As an admin at a previous organization I had reported harassment, abuse, and bullying directly to HR multiple times from several of the top sales executives. Calls and emails were logged, documented and sent.
Not long after, I was terminated.
Just a slightly different perspective from the mob.
"The culture at Uber is Toxic."
I keep hearing this. Yes, there are clearly some sexual harassment issues, I'm not sure it's systemic. I lived a couple of blocks from Uber's HQ's on 10th/Market and I went to lots of meetups there. People I met were happy and proud of the company.
As for the rest of the events, such as Greyball, etc. I don't consider that toxic, I consider that disruptive. Had Uber not have done that, the lobbyists for the Taxi industry would have kept the status quo.
It was Uber, pushing hard, that changed the world, for the better. That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
I also personally worked with Travis and I know his personality. He pushes hard, he works hard, he wants to win. That may be because he's had some really tough losses too (Scout, RedSwoosh [1]). I have a lot of respect for him, being an entrepreneur is tough, especially when it's raining.
[1] Although he had an exit, it was a slog ~7-year slog where he lost funding and was, at one point, alone.
"The culture at Uber is Toxic."
I keep hearing this. Yes, there are clearly some sexual harassment issues, I'm not sure it's systemic. I lived a couple of blocks from Uber's HQ's on 10th/Market and I went to lots of meetups there. People I met were happy and proud of the company.
As for the rest of the events, such as Greyball, etc. I don't consider that toxic, I consider that disruptive. Had Uber not have done that, the lobbyists for the Taxi industry would have kept the status quo.
It was Uber, pushing hard, that changed the world, for the better. That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
I also personally worked with Travis and I know his personality. He pushes hard, he works hard, he wants to win. That may be because he's had some really tough losses too (Scout, RedSwoosh [1]). I have a lot of respect for him, being an entrepreneur is tough, especially when it's raining.
[1] Although he had an exit, it was a slog ~7-year slog where he lost funding and was, at one point, alone.
>>Had Uber not have done that, the lobbyists for the Taxi industry would have kept the status quo.
Uber has lobbyist now, working to change laws to benefit what they want to do, i.e. no fingerprint background checks for drivers in Austin see: https://www.curbed.com/2017/5/18/15657684/uber-lyft-austin-t...
From the above article "nonprofit Texans for Public Justice says the companies has spent more than $2.3 million on an army of 40 lobbyists."
Is it right for Uber to use lobbyists to push for laws that limit background checks?
>>It was Uber, pushing hard, that changed the world, for the better. That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
No, Uber does not care whether rules are right or wrong, does not care about making the world better, it only cares about how things will affect the bottom line, case in point: Uber's behavior in NYC.
We should know by now, that Uber had to make payments for short-changing drivers on pay, companies truly interested in making the world better, don't mistreat their partners see: https://theoutline.com/post/1780/uber-hasnt-changed
In regards to rules, Uber did not pull out of NYC, yet NYC has tougher regulation than Austin. It rarely get’s reported but the only NYC regulation that was changed that helped Uber was allowing drivers to use smartphone apps for ride hailing. The other more expensive regulations remained. Not only do drivers have a relatively expensive background check process, but they also have to pay to register as a driver. All potential drivers are required to take several classes and pass several tests to become professional Taxi drivers. There is literally no legal ride sharing in NYC, all Uber drivers must be professionals. An important part of Uber strategy is winning NYC, NYC does not need Uber. In the end Uber is like most businesses, it is not about making the world better, it is about making lots of money.
Uber has lobbyist now, working to change laws to benefit what they want to do, i.e. no fingerprint background checks for drivers in Austin see: https://www.curbed.com/2017/5/18/15657684/uber-lyft-austin-t...
From the above article "nonprofit Texans for Public Justice says the companies has spent more than $2.3 million on an army of 40 lobbyists."
Is it right for Uber to use lobbyists to push for laws that limit background checks?
>>It was Uber, pushing hard, that changed the world, for the better. That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
No, Uber does not care whether rules are right or wrong, does not care about making the world better, it only cares about how things will affect the bottom line, case in point: Uber's behavior in NYC.
We should know by now, that Uber had to make payments for short-changing drivers on pay, companies truly interested in making the world better, don't mistreat their partners see: https://theoutline.com/post/1780/uber-hasnt-changed
In regards to rules, Uber did not pull out of NYC, yet NYC has tougher regulation than Austin. It rarely get’s reported but the only NYC regulation that was changed that helped Uber was allowing drivers to use smartphone apps for ride hailing. The other more expensive regulations remained. Not only do drivers have a relatively expensive background check process, but they also have to pay to register as a driver. All potential drivers are required to take several classes and pass several tests to become professional Taxi drivers. There is literally no legal ride sharing in NYC, all Uber drivers must be professionals. An important part of Uber strategy is winning NYC, NYC does not need Uber. In the end Uber is like most businesses, it is not about making the world better, it is about making lots of money.
What's your opinion of stuff like the Hell app, or intentionally sabotaging competitors?
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/24/uber-hell-lawsuit/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-re...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/24/uber-hell-lawsuit/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-re...
That's tough to say, I don't know enough about the entire situation. I think it's safe to say that Lyft and Uber wherein a street fight and were both doing "questionable" things to each other. It reminds me of Thomas Edison sabotaging Tesla, and yet, here we are, on A/C. [1]
[1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/30140/acdc-tesla%E2%80%93edis...
[1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/30140/acdc-tesla%E2%80%93edis...
> It reminds me of Thomas Edison sabotaging Tesla, and yet, here we are, on A/C.
Dangerous position to take. This is pretty much saying that the ends justify the means, given enough time. That because winners write history, that in the moment, doing whatever it takes to win is more important than operating ethically.
Dangerous position to take. This is pretty much saying that the ends justify the means, given enough time. That because winners write history, that in the moment, doing whatever it takes to win is more important than operating ethically.
I couldn't find any example of similar actions by Lyft, but I could have missed something. Also, it's not just Lyft: https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/24/black-car-competitor-accus...
Regardless of whether anyone else did it, do you think these are examples of Uber making the world a better place and breaking rules that shouldn't exist?
Regardless of whether anyone else did it, do you think these are examples of Uber making the world a better place and breaking rules that shouldn't exist?
"Regardless of whether anyone else did it, do you think these are examples of Uber making the world a better place and breaking rules that shouldn't exist?"
You're not really asking a question, you know that anti-competitive behavior is not making the world a better place, it's fighting for market share and dominance.
Anti-competitive behavior is often rewarded in our society with higher profits, valuations, and market dominance. For example, Microsoft forcing PC makers to use Windows 95, or Microsoft using Windows to push IE crush Netscape. Look at Google pushing Chrome via all its products to take 70% market share, much of it from Mozilla, or Google downranking Yelp to push its own products.
You're not really asking a question, you know that anti-competitive behavior is not making the world a better place, it's fighting for market share and dominance.
Anti-competitive behavior is often rewarded in our society with higher profits, valuations, and market dominance. For example, Microsoft forcing PC makers to use Windows 95, or Microsoft using Windows to push IE crush Netscape. Look at Google pushing Chrome via all its products to take 70% market share, much of it from Mozilla, or Google downranking Yelp to push its own products.
Those are all good examples, and I think a pattern of that type of behavior is good evidence of a "toxic culture". That's what people are talking about, not just the recent sexual harassment stories. I'm pointing this stuff out because you said in your comment that you'd never heard of any bad behavior at Uber besides sexual harassment. In fact there's a consistent pattern of bad decisions made by people throughout the organization, and that's why people talk about a toxic culture.
I'm taking the cynical view.
> intentionally sabotaging competitors?
This only underscores that Uber is a fairly large company. The only difference with every other large company is that not only did Uber get caught, they also sported a festering PR problem which worked as an amplifier.
> intentionally sabotaging competitors?
This only underscores that Uber is a fairly large company. The only difference with every other large company is that not only did Uber get caught, they also sported a festering PR problem which worked as an amplifier.
I think that's irrelevant to the point being made. If every large company has a pattern of harmful behavior comparable to Uber's, then every large company has a toxic culture. Or if you prefer, every large company is a product of and contributor to a larger toxic culture.
I agree that unusually bad PR has amplified the consequences, but again that's irrelevant to examining the culture of the company.
I agree that unusually bad PR has amplified the consequences, but again that's irrelevant to examining the culture of the company.
Ha, I didn't think it could be read that way.
What I tried to point out is that actively sabotaging competitors has nothing to do with company culture, toxic or not. It's simply an aspect of a company being reasonably large (iow. they have resources to effectively use underhanded tactics).
I have no doubt that Uber's culture is toxic. (And I do admit to some glee observing them get raked over coals.) But engaging in sabotage is, for me, a null signal in that regard. The capacity for that is simply a result of being large enough.
What I tried to point out is that actively sabotaging competitors has nothing to do with company culture, toxic or not. It's simply an aspect of a company being reasonably large (iow. they have resources to effectively use underhanded tactics).
I have no doubt that Uber's culture is toxic. (And I do admit to some glee observing them get raked over coals.) But engaging in sabotage is, for me, a null signal in that regard. The capacity for that is simply a result of being large enough.
That's a nice sentiment, but I don't see how Uber has changed the world for the better. Has Uber's app decreased pollution or global warming? No. Has Uber's app decreased economic stratification? No. Has Uber's app created jobs? No, those drivers could be regular taxi drivers without Uber. How about gun violence, domestic violence, cancer, diabetes, rape, systemic racism, drug overdose? No, Uber has not improved any of those things. Yet when I imagine a better world, these are the things that come to mind.
Uber makes an app that lets you hail a cab, or lets you drive people around without buying a medallion.
Uber makes an app that lets you hail a cab, or lets you drive people around without buying a medallion.
"Uber makes an app that lets you hail a cab, or lets you drive people around without buying a medallion."
If you used Taxi's for primary transport and now use Uber, it changed your world for the better.
"How about gun violence, domestic violence, cancer, diabetes, rape, systemic racism, drug overdose?"
Those were not part of Uber's goal, it doesn't mean they didn't make the world just a bit better. I could say the same thing about Google or Apple. They have also changed the world but haven't addressed those issues. The difference is there wasn't regulation preventing a Google or an Apple from growing. Uber was challenging a broken system of laws protecting an industry.
If you used Taxi's for primary transport and now use Uber, it changed your world for the better.
"How about gun violence, domestic violence, cancer, diabetes, rape, systemic racism, drug overdose?"
Those were not part of Uber's goal, it doesn't mean they didn't make the world just a bit better. I could say the same thing about Google or Apple. They have also changed the world but haven't addressed those issues. The difference is there wasn't regulation preventing a Google or an Apple from growing. Uber was challenging a broken system of laws protecting an industry.
Every toxic environment needs a non-toxic superstructure for the henchmen to work in, live in, so they can feel good about themselves and regard criticism as contrary to appearances.
Perhaps you and your friends live inside that space. The people who regard the purported toxic environment as toxic are either not allowed in that space, or are conditioned to hide their beliefs.
Perhaps you and your friends live inside that space. The people who regard the purported toxic environment as toxic are either not allowed in that space, or are conditioned to hide their beliefs.
> I lived a couple of blocks from Uber's HQ's on 10th/Market and I went to lots of meetups there. People I met were happy and proud of the company.
I'm not really sure this is a good measure of the toxicity of a company's culture, since it's not even close to a fair sampling of the people there.
I'm not really sure this is a good measure of the toxicity of a company's culture, since it's not even close to a fair sampling of the people there.
Yes, there are clearly some sexual harassment issues, I'm not sure it's systemic.
You can bury your head in the sand (and think back on all the fun you had at those boozy meetups), but the brunt of evidence now made public so far - and ultimately, the recent actions of Uber's board itself - clearly indicates otherwise, this issue.
You don't just publicly fire 20 people - and ultimately, the CEO himself - for nothing, after all.
That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, man, and drink it deep.
There's plenty more where it came from.
You can bury your head in the sand (and think back on all the fun you had at those boozy meetups), but the brunt of evidence now made public so far - and ultimately, the recent actions of Uber's board itself - clearly indicates otherwise, this issue.
You don't just publicly fire 20 people - and ultimately, the CEO himself - for nothing, after all.
That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, man, and drink it deep.
There's plenty more where it came from.
While I do agree that the culture at Uber was toxic and ultimately Travis was to blame for that, on a human level I do feel for the guy. At the end of the day, he just lost his mother and now also his life's work for the foreseeable future. And damn that must suck.
Losing his mother, absolutely I feel terrible for him. But his life's work has largely consisted of chasing his own goals without consideration of anyone else. That this came back to bite him is karma, and I don't feel particularly bad about it.
I have sympathy for the guy on a personal basis. It sucks to lose a parent. I have none for the guy as a businessman. I wouldn't be terribly sad if Uber failed.
I feel bad about his mom, but losing the CEO? No, and in fact, Travis might be secretly glad. Anyone who is serious about this sort of thing must understand the reality of the control versus wealth founder's dilemma from day one. By giving up, he may be getting more as Uber becomes successful in a way he could not make it. His skill set, getting it to where it was, was critical and he just wasn't the right guy to get it to the next phase. Pretty much every single startup goes through this. The Gates and Bezos and Musks of the world are huge outliers.
WHat's more, is that any founder or CEO who doesn't embrace this reality should not be made CEO.
WHat's more, is that any founder or CEO who doesn't embrace this reality should not be made CEO.
This is a really important point. The people that get a company from point A to point B are not always the people to get it from B to C, and rarely the people that get it beyond that.
Do you think he'll dry his tears with twenty dollar bills or will he use hundreds? He was responsible for a lot of terrible shit.
He can dry his tears with his giant piles of money.
Travis did not lose his life's work per say. He was forced out by investors while he still keeps all his shares and still remains the president of the board and has a huge say in choosing a successor who will likely be his puppet. The fact that pugnacious and aggressive Travis still controlled the board (along with two other founders who always sided with Travis) and did not fight this means Travis got some deal from the investors. The successor would be chosen by him and in a sense his puppet.
He didnt feel an iota of moral responsibility for the rape victim in India whose medical records were obtained by an uber exec and were shown to Travis. I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who couldnt do the same for another human being.
So the probability of a competitor inventing such a claim was literally zero?
> So the probability of a competitor inventing such a claim was literally zero?
Enlighten us, which competitor made such a claim?
Enlighten us, which competitor made such a claim?
Are you being willfully obtuse? They never said that a competitor did make such a claim. They said that it is not impossible that a competitor could have made a claim, so it's not unreasonable for someone to be, a priori, slightly skeptical of it.
Uber does have a strong competitor in India, a local company called Ola Cabs.
Uber does have a strong competitor in India, a local company called Ola Cabs.
That is an extraordinary claim to make, especially when offered without citations. And especially when taking into account how India is effectively Rape Central. And yet you think he is being will fully obtuse?
Plus, it's not the orchestrator of the rape who is in question anyway. It's Kalanick's response, involving the alleged acquisition of the woman's medical records without her consent. And if true, that speaks to some despicable moral compass within Uber. Which isn't news anyway.
Plus, it's not the orchestrator of the rape who is in question anyway. It's Kalanick's response, involving the alleged acquisition of the woman's medical records without her consent. And if true, that speaks to some despicable moral compass within Uber. Which isn't news anyway.
It's what Uber suggested, and presumably one reason they got her records.
" Uber executives discussed the possibility that the rape could be tied to one of its competitors in India — such as a taxi company or Ola, the largest Indian ride-hailing company — as part of a plan to sabotage Uber’s momentum in the region. One day after the rape was made public, Uber was banned by officials in New Delhi. "
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/technology/uber-india-...
" Uber executives discussed the possibility that the rape could be tied to one of its competitors in India — such as a taxi company or Ola, the largest Indian ride-hailing company — as part of a plan to sabotage Uber’s momentum in the region. One day after the rape was made public, Uber was banned by officials in New Delhi. "
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/technology/uber-india-...
Well presumably none, otherwise Uber would have exposed it. I'm just pointing out that it seems totally plausible for a company to hire someone to invent such a scenario. And especially in certain countries, it can't be hard to get away with it.
Uber may have been paranoid, perhaps because they know how easily they'd do such things? Or due to their general attitude?
Uber may have been paranoid, perhaps because they know how easily they'd do such things? Or due to their general attitude?
Maybe eventually, he will view it differently.
"Getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life."
"Getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life."
That's a really powerful quote from John Sculley.
> That's a really powerful quote from John Sculley.
/s/John Sculley/Steve Jobs/
/s/John Sculley/Steve Jobs/
Not sure why you're being downvoted - it's from Jobs' famous Stanford commencement speech. http://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/
Perhaps the original reply was (in a subtle way) pointing out that Sculley might not be as pragmatic about his own firing from Apple?
I'm sorry that you have had to use Hipchat so much that you know this and use it outside of it. A human can truly get used to anything.
Goodness, I’ve never felt old until now.
I don't think that syntax is Hipchat-specific
s/Hipchat/sed/
<esc> k dd
[deleted]
Well, he still has his billions and is on the board.
Is there any way to know how much he's taken off the table? The way Uber is going, I'd be shocked if he's worth billions in 5 years.
Uber isn't built on a tower of fraud like Theranos, it's a behemoth that changed how transportation works. Travis is going to be a billionaire many times over when the stock is liquid.
He started a taxi service with a slick app to order rides. He was successful by willful criminality, disregarding inconvenient regulations and laws. His company can't retain employees and is burning cash. Their only viable path to profitability assumes no regulatory fallout or serious competition.
He did not change how transportation works. He got where he is through a combination of luck, good timing, and criminality masked as 'disruption'.
He did not change how transportation works. He got where he is through a combination of luck, good timing, and criminality masked as 'disruption'.
Travis is a piece of shit, but you seem confused about how much value Uber has provided the world. Even his most ardent critics are willing to admit that.
Have you ever spoken to an African American what it's like to hail a cab? Read the estimates on the number of drunk drivers taken off the road?
Have you ever spoken to an African American what it's like to hail a cab? Read the estimates on the number of drunk drivers taken off the road?
If it ever is.
[deleted]
Wow, it was signed by Benchmark, First Round and Lowercase. Those are all of Kalanick's earliest backers and most fervent supporters, even in times of controversy.
> It became clear from conversations with potential COO recruits that few would take the job if Mr. Kalanick stayed, they said.
Aha. Now I think this makes more sense.
Aha. Now I think this makes more sense.
Could someone please explain to me why does Uber has 12,000 employees? Drivers are not employees, there is no content to curate, no brick & mortar operation, the app and tech stack is pretty much developed and stable. Sure the Otto and UberEATS are now part of Uber but still.
They are active in more than 600 cities. Even assuming tech support, design, engineering and R&D staff are negligible, 20 employees per city seems to make sense. Partnership, Marketing, legal, operations, vehicle rentals.
Their software might scale and business model replicable across many cities, but they still need people on the ground running.
Their software might scale and business model replicable across many cities, but they still need people on the ground running.
All those cities are located in less than 100 states. What are those people on the ground doing?
You need people on the ground to recruit and hire drivers, hand out ride incentives (especially on campuses), manage out-of-home advertising and local events, manage the in-city staff...
It's easy to think everything is handled online via digital advertising, but ops-heavy businesses like this require bodies on the ground.
It's easy to think everything is handled online via digital advertising, but ops-heavy businesses like this require bodies on the ground.
[deleted]
It's an interesting dynamic. The investors hold the cards, because Uber is going to need more funding soon. But on the other hand, pushing Travis out might tank the valuation.
I'm guessing they decided that any valuation damage will only be short term. I suspect they are right.
I'm guessing they decided that any valuation damage will only be short term. I suspect they are right.
The article doesn't make it clear what the letter said, other than "A group of us think you should step down. Do it." What could have possibly been in the letter that made Travis step down?
That's what I wish I could read more about. The behind the curtain conversations, emails, etc. Those rarely come up light but are an important part of how business gets done at that level.
beachbum8029(1)
Are WSJ links going to be penalised now the google firewall workaround no longer works?
Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.
[deleted]
Non-paywall version?
You can do the same trick that used to work with Google, but with Facebook instead. Search the text of the title in Facebook and follow the link through.
Could also probably modify some header or something to achieve the same thing.
Could also probably modify some header or something to achieve the same thing.
You also may have to clear your browser storage (for wsj.com) if you've already visited it from this link or google.
Same can be done with twitter search.
Thank you, TIL!
Get Brave, it works very well.
It is still blocked in Brave.
Ah I was meaning to say use Brave as it will by pass adblock walls.
Also if you run into an adblock-wall, use Brave, it can skip around most of those.
FYI, the WSJ recently launched a partnership with my startup, which gives our users free access to unlimited WSJ content. Our app and Chrome extension are free also.
www.ReadAcrossTheAisle.com
www.ReadAcrossTheAisle.com
It appears the extension would like to read and change the data on any website I visit. I assume users are the product here, so this appears somewhat sketchy since I'm not sure what personal data of mine is being sold.
Perfectly reasonable response, but we are actually not doing anything with individual user data, and we have no plans to do so. We don't even have any plans to do anything with aggregate user data, though we might eventually do that.
The reason that permissions are needed is that the extension monitors how long you read on each website. But that data never leaves your computer — it's just used to compute the stats we show you in your dashboard.
Read Across The Aisle is related to my main startup, BeeLine Reader, and it was just something we did for fun, and to help with polarization of news consumption.
The reason that permissions are needed is that the extension monitors how long you read on each website. But that data never leaves your computer — it's just used to compute the stats we show you in your dashboard.
Read Across The Aisle is related to my main startup, BeeLine Reader, and it was just something we did for fun, and to help with polarization of news consumption.
This is great news, I was just thinking that I was annoyed at their paywall... What's the catch?
There is literally no catch. I just launched this as an offshoot from my main startup, and I have no plans for direct monetizing of Read Across The Aisle. The only way that I benefit is that this app raises awareness for my other startup.
See my response to a sister comment for more details!
See my response to a sister comment for more details!
But why would the WSJ consent to this? I find it exceedingly hard to believe that they don't get anything in return.
Branding, I think? They also get access to our across-the-aisle user base, so it's possible they're not losing too much revenue with the partnership.
To be honest, I've been surprised at the interest this project had received from major media companies. We actually were almost acquired by a large media company that wanted to build a new brand and put Read Across The Aisle as a central part of it.
To be honest, I've been surprised at the interest this project had received from major media companies. We actually were almost acquired by a large media company that wanted to build a new brand and put Read Across The Aisle as a central part of it.
You can add this as a bookmark to circumvent the paywall (remove the parentheses in https though, works with WSJ/NYT/etc.):
window.location.href='http(s)://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);[deleted]
zentiggr(2)
A commenter in another thread put it very well: you can have as many voting shares as you like, but you aren't in control of your company until you're profitable.
You are never in control of your company unless you don’t have employees.
Yeah, but at what point does the bar for control become meaningless? It's not really productive to raise it to the point that every company ostensibly has no one in control because they have obligations to other parties.
It is productive to discuss how founders like Zuckerberg and Kalanick retained majority voting rights, because that's meaningful even if you use a pithy definition of control that makes it virtually impossible to achieve. Similarly we can talk about the class of shares Snap issued which do not allow shareholders to control the company.
When you abstract legitimate insights like "executives at pre-profitable/public companies can't rely on voting rights for security" to "no one has control as long as customers are a thing", you preempt a lot of very useful discussion. You've defined away the controversy.
It is productive to discuss how founders like Zuckerberg and Kalanick retained majority voting rights, because that's meaningful even if you use a pithy definition of control that makes it virtually impossible to achieve. Similarly we can talk about the class of shares Snap issued which do not allow shareholders to control the company.
When you abstract legitimate insights like "executives at pre-profitable/public companies can't rely on voting rights for security" to "no one has control as long as customers are a thing", you preempt a lot of very useful discussion. You've defined away the controversy.
I haven’t defined away the controversy, just taken a step back and tried to look at the issue more globally.
My company over the years has transitioned from no employees, to employees, to no employees again, and back to employees. The only time I have been in control (despite having 100% ownership) is when I have had no employees.
When you are thinking about starting a business the decision to employ or not is even bigger than deciding to take in investors.
My company over the years has transitioned from no employees, to employees, to no employees again, and back to employees. The only time I have been in control (despite having 100% ownership) is when I have had no employees.
When you are thinking about starting a business the decision to employ or not is even bigger than deciding to take in investors.
Kalanick is less CEO and more like a comic book caricature of one before they fall into pure evil. The fact that the board stood by him as long as they did is just mind bending.
He created a service that reduced drunk driving rates by 1/3, enabled nearly 200K drivers to become entrepreneurs, provided a valuable service to millions of customers, and accelerated the shift to self driving cars. That deserves serious credit.
> reduced drunk driving rates by 1/3
Hardly true: http://fortune.com/2016/07/28/uber-drunk-driving-study/
> enabled nearly 200K drivers to become entrepreneurs
Going self-employed doesn't make you an entrepreneur.
> provided a valuable service to millions of customers
Looks like true: http://fortune.com/2016/10/20/uber-app-riders/
> accelerated the shift to self driving car
Not true. Uber's entered the game very late and since then lagged behind most of the competitors in this space: http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-companies-most-likely-to-g...
Hardly true: http://fortune.com/2016/07/28/uber-drunk-driving-study/
> enabled nearly 200K drivers to become entrepreneurs
Going self-employed doesn't make you an entrepreneur.
> provided a valuable service to millions of customers
Looks like true: http://fortune.com/2016/10/20/uber-app-riders/
> accelerated the shift to self driving car
Not true. Uber's entered the game very late and since then lagged behind most of the competitors in this space: http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-companies-most-likely-to-g...
Let's not forget that, however you frame it, he might have done all that by exploiting the worst traits of digital capitalism. I.e. they found the cleverest way to keep the revenue flowing (and maybe profits, one day) while getting rid of those pesky liabilities called means of production, all with appalling levels of capital concentration and lack of redistribution.
Kalanick might be out, but UBER now is hardly less monstrous as a company.
+1
I think that apart the "less drunk drivers", "entrepreneurs", and all that fandom talk, Uber went ahead to bump heads with one of the most "exclusive" professions (taxi drivers are the favorite voters for any government), and managed to carve out a portion of their business, out-of-nowhere.
It's like, me starting a soft-drink company and, take on Coca & Pepsi and carve out 10% of their sales globally within 5 years.
They, of course, achieved this "by hook or by crook" but hey you need a ruthless team to succeed this.
Business-wise, a job well done.
Sexism, rape, stealing, avoiding taxes, etc... a big fat NO - thou shall not pass.
I think that apart the "less drunk drivers", "entrepreneurs", and all that fandom talk, Uber went ahead to bump heads with one of the most "exclusive" professions (taxi drivers are the favorite voters for any government), and managed to carve out a portion of their business, out-of-nowhere.
It's like, me starting a soft-drink company and, take on Coca & Pepsi and carve out 10% of their sales globally within 5 years.
They, of course, achieved this "by hook or by crook" but hey you need a ruthless team to succeed this.
Business-wise, a job well done.
Sexism, rape, stealing, avoiding taxes, etc... a big fat NO - thou shall not pass.
Rape? When did that happen?
India is the one I remember widely reported - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40296994
This case had an even worse history than I thought though:
Uber had investigated the complaint, obtained her medical records and speculated that she made up the claims to hurt the firm's business.
So Uber also steal peoples medical records, and only fired the guy who instigated that after it became a news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40196055
This case had an even worse history than I thought though:
Uber had investigated the complaint, obtained her medical records and speculated that she made up the claims to hurt the firm's business.
So Uber also steal peoples medical records, and only fired the guy who instigated that after it became a news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40196055
I remember at least 2 cases from US.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/25/boston-uber-dri...
http://nypost.com/2017/05/10/uber-driver-accused-of-kidnappi...
This has a list of sexual assaults (both Uber & Lyft): http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents#sexualassa...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/25/boston-uber-dri...
http://nypost.com/2017/05/10/uber-driver-accused-of-kidnappi...
This has a list of sexual assaults (both Uber & Lyft): http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents#sexualassa...
Probably a reference to the lackluster background checks performed by Uber et al.
Closest aggregator of data I found seems to have a very anti-ride-sharing view ("We are an initiative of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association"), but here it is nonetheless: http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
Closest aggregator of data I found seems to have a very anti-ride-sharing view ("We are an initiative of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association"), but here it is nonetheless: http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
What are the numbers for Cab Drivers? They should've listed that. I'm always skeptical of people pointing out the dirt of their competition when they have their own dirt to deal with.
Good to see some acknowledgement for what Travis and his team has done in our daily life. It's something not all digital startups could do. Of course, their ops could have had more empathetic approach than their current one, nevertheless, Uber changed the way we commute - forever and Travis deserves some praise for it!
But it is burning money by the boat load and perhaps this now means UBER can attract investors who may have been put off by Kalanick and||or UBER's culture. However these are likely to be more conservative investors and on that basis may not like the underlying financials any way.
[deleted]
> and accelerated the shift to self driving cars
No. They damaged the move forward with self driving cards by putting them on roads before they were ready and without permission and breaking the law. Not to mention the part about how it's all using stolen tech.
No. They damaged the move forward with self driving cards by putting them on roads before they were ready and without permission and breaking the law. Not to mention the part about how it's all using stolen tech.
Bullshit. He made taxi services cheaper by pumping VC money into the market, with no obvious long-term strategy for profitability.
FWIW, I heard they convinced investors that economy of scales will make their pricing profitable in the future. At least that's what somebody said in this other Uber thread here.
Whether their calculations will pan out is another story. Whether such tactics should be allowed - yet another.
Whether their calculations will pan out is another story. Whether such tactics should be allowed - yet another.
What economies of scale? Uber distribute the car maintenance costs onto the drivers - making it the most inefficient way to have a fleet of cars.
The Uber model is anti-econonmy-of-scale. It is a non scalable human wave approach.
The Uber model is anti-econonmy-of-scale. It is a non scalable human wave approach.
I suppose the words "pyramid scheme" has been mentioned before... hah, you gotta love the way technology does it, shall we call it Pyramid Scheme 2.0? Promise everyone profits, investors and workers alike, but scam the workers, and maybe there'll be profit for the investors, somewhere in the future.
It's more like a Ponzi scheme than a Pyramid scheme.
For investors, the promise of profitability is continually just over the horizon, as long as you keep investing money. Everyone can see the company is potentially very profitable, but nobody can see a route there.
Though for the drivers, it looks a lot like a multi-level marketing scheme. Be your own boss, choose your own hours, work hard and you will be rich.
For investors, the promise of profitability is continually just over the horizon, as long as you keep investing money. Everyone can see the company is potentially very profitable, but nobody can see a route there.
Though for the drivers, it looks a lot like a multi-level marketing scheme. Be your own boss, choose your own hours, work hard and you will be rich.
I don't see what scales, their costs are per person/vehicle there is no way with their model to see a reduction in costs by acquiring new drivers. Even if you remove the driver and can have fully autonomous cars the costs are perhaps marginally reduced in the long term. The way they burn money I don't think they have that long of a term in them.
I always believe their intention was to become big enough and ubiquitous enough that they could become a monopoly supplier and therefore set profitable prices without the risk of being undercut, having consumed or removed their competition through subsidised rides.
I always believe their intention was to become big enough and ubiquitous enough that they could become a monopoly supplier and therefore set profitable prices without the risk of being undercut, having consumed or removed their competition through subsidised rides.
Making a loss on every sale, but making up for it with volume?
> enabled nearly 200K drivers to become entrepreneurs
Oh, please. Some argue that those drivers are employees, some argue that they are contractors providing a low-level service, but calling them "entrepreneurs" really is a bit of a stretch.
Oh, please. Some argue that those drivers are employees, some argue that they are contractors providing a low-level service, but calling them "entrepreneurs" really is a bit of a stretch.
Uber drivers are entrepreneurs like the fry-station cook at mcdonalds is a small business owner.
Except McDonalds can't make you pay for your own fry station. Or lease it from McDonalds at high rates:
Except McDonalds can't make you pay for your own fry station. Or lease it from McDonalds at high rates:
For examples, Experian estimates the average weekly payment for a new car
lease is $96, while a 2013 vehicle through Xchange costs $130 a week.
[...]
After reviewing the terms of one lease, experts estimate that a driver would
pay $25,210 plus $5,000 for the residual value for a 2015 Honda Civic, far
more than the Kelley Blue Book fair purchase prive of $18,142.
I think you'll find McDonald's can make you do all of those things.
For the downvoters, some evidence:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577840- McDonald's forcing people to buy a special salt shaker
"In early September, McDonald’s announced it would start offering all-day breakfast across the U.S. Customers will soon be able to order a limited selection of breakfast items past the usual 10:30 a.m. cutoff. That will require changes in the restaurants, such as finding room on the grills for eggs and in the fryer baskets for hash browns when most customers are ordering burgers and fries. Those changes cost money—including a potential $500 to $5,000 for equipment—that will fall mostly on franchisees."
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mcdonalds-franchises...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577840- McDonald's forcing people to buy a special salt shaker
"In early September, McDonald’s announced it would start offering all-day breakfast across the U.S. Customers will soon be able to order a limited selection of breakfast items past the usual 10:30 a.m. cutoff. That will require changes in the restaurants, such as finding room on the grills for eggs and in the fryer baskets for hash browns when most customers are ordering burgers and fries. Those changes cost money—including a potential $500 to $5,000 for equipment—that will fall mostly on franchisees."
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mcdonalds-franchises...
pelario(4)
... and are accused of industry espionage, covering-up crimes of their drivers, mishandling medical information, covering-up managers repeatedly using company chat to solicit sex (wtf, I too want a job where I'm paid for doing that), chaotic internal politics resulting in projects being slashed and people moved around for no reason, ...
I don't know, if this is true then they could have expected that some of his innovations may backfire.
I don't know, if this is true then they could have expected that some of his innovations may backfire.
Lets take this point by point:
- reduced drunk driving rates by 1/3
Not going to argue with that one, it is good.
- enabled nearly 200K drivers to become entrepreneurs
I used to work in direct sales, aka multi level marketing. They too called the people there "entrepreneurs". Those very people your describing as "entrepreneurs" have been suing Uber for missing money. When confronted by one of these drivers about money Kalanick embarrassed himself. It is a gig, barely a job and not "entrepreneurial"
- provided a valuable service to millions of customers
So do tobacco companies, but we wouldn't qualify that as something good. Doing buisness and having customers requires that you do this.
- Accelerated the shift to self driving cars. That deserves serious credit.
Newco/waymo lawsuit? Is that what your suggesting? The only one who is getting close to this in a meaning way is tesla. They are the only ones with the data and the drive to do it.
Lets talk about other things uber has done
- sexual harassment issues (theres a lot here unpack it at your leisure)
- India rape case and the file floating around corporate offices
- Its creepy data surveillance programs
- Its programs to avoid law and code enforcement (greyball)
- Its program to track lyft drivers (hell) also totally counter to the "entrepreneurs" idea of them
- Its continued flouting of regulation and the law (just file the paperwork like everyone else)
These are the less than stellar things that uber has done to burn through investors money in an attempt to secure their market share. Was it needed? I don't know? Does it paint a pretty grim picture that Uber is a company that is willing to do anything to get ahead? It sure looks like it. Kalanick is the ONE constant in all of this, for him to be unaware of all or most of this would make him derelict in his duties as CEO, for him to be aware of all of it doesn't make him look like a good human being.
The icing on the cake is the lactation room incident (see: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/08/uber-ceo-does-a-riff-o... ). At this point we go from sketchy possible evil CEO to something that looks like it is right out of HBO's Silicon Valley, only in the show the scene would end with him throwing out a woman who was using the room for its intended purpose to put a fine point on its insanity.
Kalanick might have done a lot of good, on a lot of fronts, he also might have been aware of all of the above and either done nothing or actually encouraged it. Uber might succeed, but at this point it is living under a microscope and the odds are that it will be one of the biggest private implosions in the valleys history.
- reduced drunk driving rates by 1/3
Not going to argue with that one, it is good.
- enabled nearly 200K drivers to become entrepreneurs
I used to work in direct sales, aka multi level marketing. They too called the people there "entrepreneurs". Those very people your describing as "entrepreneurs" have been suing Uber for missing money. When confronted by one of these drivers about money Kalanick embarrassed himself. It is a gig, barely a job and not "entrepreneurial"
- provided a valuable service to millions of customers
So do tobacco companies, but we wouldn't qualify that as something good. Doing buisness and having customers requires that you do this.
- Accelerated the shift to self driving cars. That deserves serious credit.
Newco/waymo lawsuit? Is that what your suggesting? The only one who is getting close to this in a meaning way is tesla. They are the only ones with the data and the drive to do it.
Lets talk about other things uber has done
- sexual harassment issues (theres a lot here unpack it at your leisure)
- India rape case and the file floating around corporate offices
- Its creepy data surveillance programs
- Its programs to avoid law and code enforcement (greyball)
- Its program to track lyft drivers (hell) also totally counter to the "entrepreneurs" idea of them
- Its continued flouting of regulation and the law (just file the paperwork like everyone else)
These are the less than stellar things that uber has done to burn through investors money in an attempt to secure their market share. Was it needed? I don't know? Does it paint a pretty grim picture that Uber is a company that is willing to do anything to get ahead? It sure looks like it. Kalanick is the ONE constant in all of this, for him to be unaware of all or most of this would make him derelict in his duties as CEO, for him to be aware of all of it doesn't make him look like a good human being.
The icing on the cake is the lactation room incident (see: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/08/uber-ceo-does-a-riff-o... ). At this point we go from sketchy possible evil CEO to something that looks like it is right out of HBO's Silicon Valley, only in the show the scene would end with him throwing out a woman who was using the room for its intended purpose to put a fine point on its insanity.
Kalanick might have done a lot of good, on a lot of fronts, he also might have been aware of all of the above and either done nothing or actually encouraged it. Uber might succeed, but at this point it is living under a microscope and the odds are that it will be one of the biggest private implosions in the valleys history.
I think this one it my favorite on the list.
- Accelerated the shift to self driving cars. That deserves serious credit.
If you consider corporate espionage and theft of IP "accelerating the shift" but how much of what Uber was marketing were they actually responsible for?
- Accelerated the shift to self driving cars. That deserves serious credit.
If you consider corporate espionage and theft of IP "accelerating the shift" but how much of what Uber was marketing were they actually responsible for?
> I used to work in direct sales, aka multi level marketing. They too called the people there "entrepreneurs". Those very people your describing as "entrepreneurs" have been suing Uber for missing money. When confronted by one of these drivers about money Kalanick embarrassed himself. It is a gig, barely a job and not "entrepreneurial"
Yup. Telling grunts that they're "entrepreneurs" as an excuse to not pay them is a very old scam.
Back in 2010-2011, I was unemployed, and I was constantly getting messages (mostly via CareerBuilder) from life insurance companies saying they had sales positions for me. They sounded sketchy, largely because they were all hitting me up when I had no sales background whatsoever, so I looked some of them up.
The reports were... not pleasant. Ripoff Report was full of complaints about these companies [0]. Some examples:
- You had to pay to receive training.
- You are expected to drive around to lots of places as part of your job, at your expense.
- You are legally classified as a franchise, so they don't have to pay you like an employee.
- Compensation is 100% commission, plus the money you make by recruiting other people (pyramid scheme much?).
- People complained that their job largely consisted of repeatedly harassing unionized companies who went with the life insurance provider associated with their union. They were ordered to attempt union busting as part of their job.
- Sales goals were set up to be impossible to meet, you are given no support whatsoever to help you reach your goals, and the people above you in the pyramid would frequently berate you, call you an idiot, and tell you that you're a hopelessly terrible salesman.
Oh, and here's the real kicker: once they got wind of people using Ripoff Report to complain, they would astroturf fake reviews. The reviews are often striped: every negative review is immediately followed by a positive review accusing the previous reviewer of having a personal vendetta against the company because they sucked at being an entrepreneur and didn't know how to grow their own business and said that they were just jealous of all the successful entrepreneurs the company has grown.
[0] Here's one of them: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/liberty-national-life-in...
Yup. Telling grunts that they're "entrepreneurs" as an excuse to not pay them is a very old scam.
Back in 2010-2011, I was unemployed, and I was constantly getting messages (mostly via CareerBuilder) from life insurance companies saying they had sales positions for me. They sounded sketchy, largely because they were all hitting me up when I had no sales background whatsoever, so I looked some of them up.
The reports were... not pleasant. Ripoff Report was full of complaints about these companies [0]. Some examples:
- You had to pay to receive training.
- You are expected to drive around to lots of places as part of your job, at your expense.
- You are legally classified as a franchise, so they don't have to pay you like an employee.
- Compensation is 100% commission, plus the money you make by recruiting other people (pyramid scheme much?).
- People complained that their job largely consisted of repeatedly harassing unionized companies who went with the life insurance provider associated with their union. They were ordered to attempt union busting as part of their job.
- Sales goals were set up to be impossible to meet, you are given no support whatsoever to help you reach your goals, and the people above you in the pyramid would frequently berate you, call you an idiot, and tell you that you're a hopelessly terrible salesman.
Oh, and here's the real kicker: once they got wind of people using Ripoff Report to complain, they would astroturf fake reviews. The reviews are often striped: every negative review is immediately followed by a positive review accusing the previous reviewer of having a personal vendetta against the company because they sucked at being an entrepreneur and didn't know how to grow their own business and said that they were just jealous of all the successful entrepreneurs the company has grown.
[0] Here's one of them: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/liberty-national-life-in...
And the drunk driving claim depends on the study. [1] Which suggests it requires further study. Not to decide whether it should be a talking point in favor of Uber but to understand why services like Uber decrease drunk driving if, in fact, they do.
Is it purely a price sensitivity thing? Is it a simplicity/convenience thing? Is it just because summoning an Uber became hip among a certain demographic whereas taxis weren't? It would be useful data because there are possibly useful public policy responses that could address why people drive drunk in some cases.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...
Is it purely a price sensitivity thing? Is it a simplicity/convenience thing? Is it just because summoning an Uber became hip among a certain demographic whereas taxis weren't? It would be useful data because there are possibly useful public policy responses that could address why people drive drunk in some cases.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...
I think Google are doing a lot on automated driving as well as Tesla.
wow straight from the uber marketing dept...
But he didn't say the right things.
Imagine the pressure the VCs on the board are under from the people that gave them money to invest. An investment in Uber went from:
"Man I can't believe you got our money in there, we're gonna be rich!"
to
"$&?@! our money is in Uber? We're going to lose our shirts. Do something! Now!"
The VCs on the board had no other choice but to kick Kalanick out of the CEO job.
"Man I can't believe you got our money in there, we're gonna be rich!"
to
"$&?@! our money is in Uber? We're going to lose our shirts. Do something! Now!"
The VCs on the board had no other choice but to kick Kalanick out of the CEO job.
It's unclear to me how much the actual business has been affected by the upheaval.
But once they get Sandberg in there, combined with Huffington on the board, and Boz St John on the exec team, the press is going to love it. It's a new day at Uber, Uber goes from harass-y to classy, all that stuff.
But once they get Sandberg in there, combined with Huffington on the board, and Boz St John on the exec team, the press is going to love it. It's a new day at Uber, Uber goes from harass-y to classy, all that stuff.
Agreed. The great irony of all this is that a more palatable group of people running the company are more likely to take it further and thus do more damage to society, building an even more enormous and dependent economy of drivers they already intend to fire.
The more I think about this, the more I respect the moves they're making, even as I agree with you that they're evil.
In fact, this is a brilliant pattern: start by winning with shitty, extortionate tactics. When everyone eventually, inevitably hates you, fix the image problem by replacing leadership with a more optically-appropriate team. Continue as before.
And why not? Do investors care who is ostensibly in charge, as long as the wheel keeps turning? They do not. Employees love that action has been taken, voices have been heard, wrongs have been righted. Plus, now they don't work for just another bunch of white dudes like everywhere else in tech. Press is all about it, of course.
It's smart!
In fact, this is a brilliant pattern: start by winning with shitty, extortionate tactics. When everyone eventually, inevitably hates you, fix the image problem by replacing leadership with a more optically-appropriate team. Continue as before.
And why not? Do investors care who is ostensibly in charge, as long as the wheel keeps turning? They do not. Employees love that action has been taken, voices have been heard, wrongs have been righted. Plus, now they don't work for just another bunch of white dudes like everywhere else in tech. Press is all about it, of course.
It's smart!
I hear Marissa Mayer needs a new job.
The backers:
> By Monday of last week, Benchmark had found four additional investors to sign the letter, including First Round Capital; Lowercase Capital; Menlo Ventures and Fidelity Investments, according to people familiar with the matter. Benchmark’s Mr. Gurley attempted to get other board members to sign, but at least one refused out of reluctance over being represented by Mr. Gurley, according to one person with knowledge of the matter.
> By Monday of last week, Benchmark had found four additional investors to sign the letter, including First Round Capital; Lowercase Capital; Menlo Ventures and Fidelity Investments, according to people familiar with the matter. Benchmark’s Mr. Gurley attempted to get other board members to sign, but at least one refused out of reluctance over being represented by Mr. Gurley, according to one person with knowledge of the matter.
First Round Capital signing this is amazing to me - especially since it doesn't look like it required them too to make this happen. Sort of expected the others too but not them.
Perhaps with a sustained PR onslaught that will now magically disappear even if nothing material changes at the company?
Well he did say there was no way in hell Uber would IPO. What's a poor billionaire to do when faced with an obstinate CEO messin' with their payday?
PS the rest of the Uber story is IPO in 5..4..3..
PS the rest of the Uber story is IPO in 5..4..3..
Why would it stop until Lyft has achieved market dominance?