Uber Hires Former Google Search Chief Amit Singhal as SVP of Engineering(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Uber Hires Former Google Search Chief Amit Singhal as SVP of Engineering
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/uber-hires-former-google-search-chief-amit-singhal-as-svp-of-engineering/
200 comments
Uber has done nearly everything right. I think its main vulnerability is that its laborers are a fickle bunch and Uber hasn't done enough to inspire any loyalty. All Uber drivers I talk to alternate between Uber and Lyft and exploit any promotions or incentives either firm offers.
Uber has the opportunity to revolutionize not just logistics but also on-demand employment, but has lagged in the latter, leaving the door wide open for Lyft and other services that carve out a big niche of Uber's market.
I think Uber should immediately offer the following services to its drivers:
- Tax planning, withholding even if it's 1099 income or if the driver has other sources of income.
- Matching IRA contributions with one year vesting.
- healthcare subsidy
- continuing education, or some way to level up in life by driving with Uber.
- Some incentive for being a loyal, exceptional driver.
- Car financing/leasing/sharing and insurance packages tailored at would-be Uber drivers who don't own a vehicle.
I know that more and more of these sorts of ideas are being tried by both Uber and Lyft, but investors need to realize that the workforce is being trained to be opportunistic and disloyal.
Many of the drivers I've interviewed (during my ride) despise Uber the corporation or boast about their fair weather support. Many reflect back on how Uber used to be better for drivers, etc.
Uber's main battles have been fought with regulators and with Lyft, but now the best strategy is figuring out how to become the Uber of on-demand employment.
Uber has the opportunity to revolutionize not just logistics but also on-demand employment, but has lagged in the latter, leaving the door wide open for Lyft and other services that carve out a big niche of Uber's market.
I think Uber should immediately offer the following services to its drivers:
- Tax planning, withholding even if it's 1099 income or if the driver has other sources of income.
- Matching IRA contributions with one year vesting.
- healthcare subsidy
- continuing education, or some way to level up in life by driving with Uber.
- Some incentive for being a loyal, exceptional driver.
- Car financing/leasing/sharing and insurance packages tailored at would-be Uber drivers who don't own a vehicle.
I know that more and more of these sorts of ideas are being tried by both Uber and Lyft, but investors need to realize that the workforce is being trained to be opportunistic and disloyal.
Many of the drivers I've interviewed (during my ride) despise Uber the corporation or boast about their fair weather support. Many reflect back on how Uber used to be better for drivers, etc.
Uber's main battles have been fought with regulators and with Lyft, but now the best strategy is figuring out how to become the Uber of on-demand employment.
Uber cannot afford to do any of the things you've listed because Uber cannot sustain the subsidies it is already giving out to its drivers. Moreover, Uber doesn't want its drivers to be educated about the true cost of operating a vehicle for Uber because if they realized how much it cost, most wouldn't do it.
The only one of your bullet points Uber has pursued is the last one -- they rope drivers into car leases in hopes that when they eventually ramp up the amount of money they collect from each fare their drivers will be locked into driving for Uber so they cannot leave.
The only one of your bullet points Uber has pursued is the last one -- they rope drivers into car leases in hopes that when they eventually ramp up the amount of money they collect from each fare their drivers will be locked into driving for Uber so they cannot leave.
I wonder how come Lyft can do these things and Uber can't. This is from 2 years ago: https://thehub.lyft.com/blog/2015/01/14/partners-ehealth-top... Every Uber driver I talk to in Seattle say that Lyft is way better in terms of pay/perks but they can't get enough rides because Uber simply has a larger user base.
Lyft is more expensive, which explains its better pay and its smaller ridership. I don't think this is sustainable because of what you've observed, which is that the smaller ridership pushes drivers away from the platform, making Lyft less appealing to even the people willing to pay (longer wait times, smaller chance of getting a carpool, etc).
I think it depends on the market. Lyft here (Philadelphia) is the same price as Uber just about, and they both run promotions all the time. Car availability is the same in my experience and most drivers seem to do both. Drivers seem to indicate that they get better subsidies to drive from Lyft.
I'll admit that lately I've been mostly taking Uber because it's cheaper than Lyft. So that probably explains it - Lyft simply doesn't cut prices as aggressively. (But I still check both because sometimes Lyft is cheaper).
> I think Uber should immediately offer the following services to its drivers:
The taxi industry pioneered the 'independent contractor' business model. Some of the services you suggest cross the line between 'contractor' and 'employee', especially 'healthcare subsidy'.
The owner/operator whom I drove for says that the company only provides liability insurance (to cover the cab company's liability) as a part of her contract with the cab company. If she wanted collision coverage, she had to buy that separately, because insurance == employment.
When I signed up I was told that I should buy my own worker's compensation policy, but I never did this.
Most people don't want 'on demand' employment, they want stability. Because of outsourcing and automation, the economy doesn't need as many workers anymore. Uber's business model is entirely dependent on this phenomenon.
Drivers -- taxi drivers, 'rideshare drivers', trucking drivers, etc -- would benefit from a union. Arizona is not a union-friendly state; I don't know if taxi drivers elsewhere have unions.
The taxi industry pioneered the 'independent contractor' business model. Some of the services you suggest cross the line between 'contractor' and 'employee', especially 'healthcare subsidy'.
The owner/operator whom I drove for says that the company only provides liability insurance (to cover the cab company's liability) as a part of her contract with the cab company. If she wanted collision coverage, she had to buy that separately, because insurance == employment.
When I signed up I was told that I should buy my own worker's compensation policy, but I never did this.
Most people don't want 'on demand' employment, they want stability. Because of outsourcing and automation, the economy doesn't need as many workers anymore. Uber's business model is entirely dependent on this phenomenon.
Drivers -- taxi drivers, 'rideshare drivers', trucking drivers, etc -- would benefit from a union. Arizona is not a union-friendly state; I don't know if taxi drivers elsewhere have unions.
Most people don't want 'on demand' employment, they want stability. Because of outsourcing and automation, the economy doesn't need as many workers anymore. Uber's business model is entirely dependent on this phenomenon.
Do you see this phenomenon going away anytime soon? My grandparents' generation worked at a single company for life. My parents switched companies maybe 3 times in their careers. I have worked for 9 companies in the last 12 years. The trend has been toward shorter and shorter stints, with less and less benefits. My daughter's generation probably won't remember a time where people spent years working for companies, and it will seem natural to string together a series of gigs and odd jobs.
Do you see this phenomenon going away anytime soon? My grandparents' generation worked at a single company for life. My parents switched companies maybe 3 times in their careers. I have worked for 9 companies in the last 12 years. The trend has been toward shorter and shorter stints, with less and less benefits. My daughter's generation probably won't remember a time where people spent years working for companies, and it will seem natural to string together a series of gigs and odd jobs.
> Do you see this phenomenon going away anytime soon?
The economic paradigm has to change. I think something will shift, eventually.
Searching for 'john gatto livelihood' just now brought up this link:
http://www.wtp.org/archive/transcripts/john_taylor_gatto.htm... - John Taylor Gatto (1991 New York State Teacher of the Year) Interview By Jerry Brown, March 25, 1997
It's probably worth reading the whole thing, but if you're pressed for time just search for '[break]', and read his take on two groups who have been able to implement mostly 'independent livelihoods' for virtually all of their members.
> My grandparents' generation worked at a single company for life.
And their grandparents were probably much more independent.
> it will seem natural to string together a series of gigs and odd jobs.
"You see that house on the hill? If you work hard enough, some day I'll live there." (This was not said by Travis Kalashnikov).
'Gigs and odd jobs' are not the path towards a fulfilling life.
Edit: My friend recently pointed out to me that I value freedom more than anything else, which is why I stuck with taxi driving for so long... But the whole time I was working on something bigger...
The economic paradigm has to change. I think something will shift, eventually.
Searching for 'john gatto livelihood' just now brought up this link:
http://www.wtp.org/archive/transcripts/john_taylor_gatto.htm... - John Taylor Gatto (1991 New York State Teacher of the Year) Interview By Jerry Brown, March 25, 1997
It's probably worth reading the whole thing, but if you're pressed for time just search for '[break]', and read his take on two groups who have been able to implement mostly 'independent livelihoods' for virtually all of their members.
> My grandparents' generation worked at a single company for life.
And their grandparents were probably much more independent.
> it will seem natural to string together a series of gigs and odd jobs.
"You see that house on the hill? If you work hard enough, some day I'll live there." (This was not said by Travis Kalashnikov).
'Gigs and odd jobs' are not the path towards a fulfilling life.
Edit: My friend recently pointed out to me that I value freedom more than anything else, which is why I stuck with taxi driving for so long... But the whole time I was working on something bigger...
And their grandparents were probably much more independent.
My grandparents' grandparents were slaves. On my dad's side in North Carolina, on my mom's side in the Caribbean. Not too much independence there.
My grandparents' grandparents were slaves. On my dad's side in North Carolina, on my mom's side in the Caribbean. Not too much independence there.
"Oh." Thanks for letting me know - it's an antidote for my being overly confident/arrogant.
> Most people don't want 'on demand' employment, they want stability.
Why can't they have both? Broadly speaking, the forces of supply and demand are quite stable. Right now it's difficult to find jobs for 10 hours per week or 80 hours per week, if you happen to want one.
While I appreciate the historic role of unions, labor laws are unfortunately the reason that Uber has not made drivers W2 employees. It's sad that one of the most innovative and promising startups has to exert so much effort to claim that its employees shouldn't meet the W2 definition and thus shouldn't be eligible for the protections it affords. If the protections were more reasonable, Uber (and all startups) would be much less likely to try to circumvent them.
Why can't they have both? Broadly speaking, the forces of supply and demand are quite stable. Right now it's difficult to find jobs for 10 hours per week or 80 hours per week, if you happen to want one.
While I appreciate the historic role of unions, labor laws are unfortunately the reason that Uber has not made drivers W2 employees. It's sad that one of the most innovative and promising startups has to exert so much effort to claim that its employees shouldn't meet the W2 definition and thus shouldn't be eligible for the protections it affords. If the protections were more reasonable, Uber (and all startups) would be much less likely to try to circumvent them.
That ignores common sense. If Uber is more profitable by circumventing W2 regulations it will do so. There is no morality in capitalism, only worship of the bottom line. Businesses don't care about "reasonable" regulations, they care about profit. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. A corporation is not a person, it can't be expected to think like one. Instead people must elect representatives that impose laws that force business to operate in a way that is compatible with our collective morality.
> If Uber is more profitable by circumventing W2 regulations it will do so.
Without defining the time horizon you are referring to for profitability, you are making a non-statement, one that is easily demonstrated to be both trivially true and trivially false.
Firms forego profit all the time when they invest in uncertain R&D rather than returning profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend.
Similarly, firms often invest in building their brand even though it is very difficult to quantify brand marketing ROI.
My argument is that Uber is making a foolish choice by trying to get away with 1099 status for employees... or in other words, Uber is betting on the wrong horse, or investing poorly in its future. The same folly would apply to any short-sighted business decision.
This is where time enters. Uber's strategy makes its financials look better in the short term at the expense of a sustainable long-term strategy.
Market forces don't get much chance to help discipline this decision, since the only actors are Uber's investors and board and those of Uber's competitors. Regulators haven't done anything to force the issue yet. So like any other decision that might be made in a shortsighted way or a more appropriate long-term-value-based way, Uber is simply making a suboptimal business decision.
It is not a foregone conclusion that regulators must be the ones to nudge Uber into the "right" decision. Firms make mistakes all the time, and other firms are ready to step in to correct the mistake and generate profit in the process.
So only if you view Uber as a permanent fixture does regulatory involvement seem necessary. Uber is far from a permanent fixture. In my view, Uber underestimates the importance of winning over high quality drivers vs paying drivers fractionally less simply to make its books look better in the short term.
Without defining the time horizon you are referring to for profitability, you are making a non-statement, one that is easily demonstrated to be both trivially true and trivially false.
Firms forego profit all the time when they invest in uncertain R&D rather than returning profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend.
Similarly, firms often invest in building their brand even though it is very difficult to quantify brand marketing ROI.
My argument is that Uber is making a foolish choice by trying to get away with 1099 status for employees... or in other words, Uber is betting on the wrong horse, or investing poorly in its future. The same folly would apply to any short-sighted business decision.
This is where time enters. Uber's strategy makes its financials look better in the short term at the expense of a sustainable long-term strategy.
Market forces don't get much chance to help discipline this decision, since the only actors are Uber's investors and board and those of Uber's competitors. Regulators haven't done anything to force the issue yet. So like any other decision that might be made in a shortsighted way or a more appropriate long-term-value-based way, Uber is simply making a suboptimal business decision.
It is not a foregone conclusion that regulators must be the ones to nudge Uber into the "right" decision. Firms make mistakes all the time, and other firms are ready to step in to correct the mistake and generate profit in the process.
So only if you view Uber as a permanent fixture does regulatory involvement seem necessary. Uber is far from a permanent fixture. In my view, Uber underestimates the importance of winning over high quality drivers vs paying drivers fractionally less simply to make its books look better in the short term.
They are really worried about their contractors being classified as employees. That would be an existential threat.
They have to last until their vehicles are autonomous. If drivers were phased in to paid training maintaining the fleets and troubleshooting kinks in the system, shitty jobs will become good jobs. Most drivers will leave, but a solid chunk of them could be brought in through an apprenticeship program that certifies them in mechanics, robotics, software, remote assistance, ground crews, electricity. Robotaxis are a whole new industry that's just gonna pop up nationwide they'll be maintenance intensive in so many ways. There's good lifelong careers there, because after Robotaxis arrive they aren't going away, and the potential market is so huge that no single competitor will be able to scale fast enough to dominate the way Uber has in the rideshare wars- it will be too capital/labour/politics/logistics intensive for that.
I recommend checking out this demo video that showed up on Kyle Vogt's twitter feed yesterday. The news barely touched it, it's a dashcam timelapse of a 20 minute autonomous drive through hectic downtown San Fransisco traffic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tp6Ubf6mE4
Nobody really knew where the GM/Cruise/Lyft arrangement was at until this demo dropped, and it turns out they are advanced. Kyle Vogt is some kind of fucking dude. This industry is going to go kaboom. There's Apple, Zoox, Ford, the Germans, they've all committed massive resources, it's hard to know exactly where the state of the art really is, but they all read the same research papers papers, they all have talent onboard, they all have deep pockets, they're all moving with a sense of urgency.
If Trump keeps the full stack operation within our borders, it'll be a vital new industry. If that 1 trillion dollar infrastructure budget goes through, we'll be rejiggering our cities and everyone will have a good job that hopefully doesn't require a $50,000 degree. If Trump can make friends with the world and scale back the military industrial complex we might be able to pay for it.
I recommend checking out this demo video that showed up on Kyle Vogt's twitter feed yesterday. The news barely touched it, it's a dashcam timelapse of a 20 minute autonomous drive through hectic downtown San Fransisco traffic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tp6Ubf6mE4
Nobody really knew where the GM/Cruise/Lyft arrangement was at until this demo dropped, and it turns out they are advanced. Kyle Vogt is some kind of fucking dude. This industry is going to go kaboom. There's Apple, Zoox, Ford, the Germans, they've all committed massive resources, it's hard to know exactly where the state of the art really is, but they all read the same research papers papers, they all have talent onboard, they all have deep pockets, they're all moving with a sense of urgency.
If Trump keeps the full stack operation within our borders, it'll be a vital new industry. If that 1 trillion dollar infrastructure budget goes through, we'll be rejiggering our cities and everyone will have a good job that hopefully doesn't require a $50,000 degree. If Trump can make friends with the world and scale back the military industrial complex we might be able to pay for it.
The critical element of a successful social transformation that you're missing (esp. due to your reliance on players like Trump and Uber) is trust. You cannot hope for an equitable and progressive outcome unless the participants are trustworthy. Otherwise, you're setting your society up for disappointment, exploitation, and failure. You don't have to agree with me--it will prove itself.
I know this probably paints me as ancient but that video was so scary to me. I cannot escape the helpless scared feeling of an app driving me into a busy intersection. Maybe I've had too many apps and programs fail and crash.
You mean to say you're afraid of being driven around by somebody's minimum viable product? What could possibly go wrong? ;-)
For self-driving cars, viable includes safe. That's why it's taking a long time to develop.
Uber's racing to make their drivers obsolete. They view them as an unwelcome cost and have no desire to spend resources making them loyal.
All it takes is a few upsurges in populism and Uber might be forced to do it on someone else's terms and without preparing investors for it. Even with first world labor standards, Uber is a superb business model.
I had Uber eats delivered the other day by a guy driving a beautiful newish BMW who seemed like an out of work white collar worker, not a livery driver. There is tremendous value in having short-term, minimal commitment structured employment options available, the services I recommend offer more value to employees than they cost because they are hard to find in a turnkey fashion for someone who needs them.
I had Uber eats delivered the other day by a guy driving a beautiful newish BMW who seemed like an out of work white collar worker, not a livery driver. There is tremendous value in having short-term, minimal commitment structured employment options available, the services I recommend offer more value to employees than they cost because they are hard to find in a turnkey fashion for someone who needs them.
Forced how? I have friends that eat because of Uber. What leverage do they have against Uber?
This is a tragedy of the commons problem: Uber is footing an addiction to cheap transport nobody knows how to satiate.
This is a tragedy of the commons problem: Uber is footing an addiction to cheap transport nobody knows how to satiate.
>Uber is footing an addiction to cheap transport nobody knows how to satiate.
Just ride a bike. Not an option in the burbs, for sure, but taking an uber is not an efficiency gain the way public transit or bicycles are.
IMHO low density communities will die. They cannot be saved.
Just ride a bike. Not an option in the burbs, for sure, but taking an uber is not an efficiency gain the way public transit or bicycles are.
IMHO low density communities will die. They cannot be saved.
Public transit isn't an option in the country. Neither is biking: you can't bike your father to the er when his hip breaks. Uber is, and it's displacing sustainable transit. What happens when they try to justify it? They're basing their world view on efficient economies, but they're getting there with a subsidized economy. The way this ends is either with a) starving drivers or b) unaffordable transport for those below average income.
>The way this ends is either with a) starving drivers or b) unaffordable transport for those below average income.
It ends with Uber running out of money. Higher interest rates would end Uber very quickly, unless it has some very wealthy patróns that aren't actually interested in making money.
It ends with Uber running out of money. Higher interest rates would end Uber very quickly, unless it has some very wealthy patróns that aren't actually interested in making money.
[deleted]
Why the downvotes? I saw a couple replies why this isn't a viable strategy for Uber, but it doesn't make his post of low quality, does it?
> All Uber drivers I talk to alternate between Uber and Lyft and exploit any promotions or incentives either firm offers.
This is no different than any other for hire industry though. They are making the choice that best benefits them financially. Uber knows this, lyft knows this, basic economics and human instinct to better their own situation. There will always be more drivers though so I doubt they are concerned about the problem to be honest. The barrier to being an Uber driver is so low.
This is no different than any other for hire industry though. They are making the choice that best benefits them financially. Uber knows this, lyft knows this, basic economics and human instinct to better their own situation. There will always be more drivers though so I doubt they are concerned about the problem to be honest. The barrier to being an Uber driver is so low.
When in Austin, I've talked to a lot of former Uber drivers who have moved to other ridesharing services like Wingz. I have yet to find one that doesn't prefer their current service over Uber.
>All Uber drivers I talk to alternate between Uber and Lyft and exploit any promotions or incentives either firm offers.
This is what is generally called "attempt to survive".
This is what is generally called "attempt to survive".
I thought Uber wanted its drivers classified as consultants, not employees. Though measures would work against it.
How much of these can you offer before they are considered employees and you have to actually start treating them as such?
I don't know all that much about Mr. Singhal, so I have no idea if this may be true in his case, but I suspect that great engineers are frequently not the best judges of a company's prospects, especially when there are numerous factors other than the strength of their technology that will determine how they perform.
With respect to Uber, regardless of anything else, they have lots of cash with which to compensate key hires, and plenty of interesting problems to work on. That might be enough.
With respect to Uber, regardless of anything else, they have lots of cash with which to compensate key hires, and plenty of interesting problems to work on. That might be enough.
Or, more likely, they're interested in solving interesting problems and aren't afraid of losing their jobs because they've got money. That's pretty much exactly what the aft for says...
Uber team member here.
I was skeptical for a very long time as well, but I've been won over.
The challenges are fantastic, the work intense (yet I still have time for family) and I'm part of the best team I've ever been on.
The last year or so has been the best of my professional life. I would highly recommend a closer look.
I was skeptical for a very long time as well, but I've been won over.
The challenges are fantastic, the work intense (yet I still have time for family) and I'm part of the best team I've ever been on.
The last year or so has been the best of my professional life. I would highly recommend a closer look.
No offence, but saying it's a great place to work doesn't really address any of the concerns people have about Uber as a sustainable business.
Could you please comment on how you think the business model of Uber could sustain growth, even though transportation is essentially a commodity service?
Lots of people here seem confused by this question, so it would be nice to hear an explanation from somebody inside.
Lots of people here seem confused by this question, so it would be nice to hear an explanation from somebody inside.
[deleted]
A few asked why I didn't address the sustainable business question directly. I prefer to decline due to disclosure reasons as I'm a stickler for following those.
I have same feeling, one my friend worked at a flywheel (uber but with taxi cabs)...he said that uber dominates this industry. They have figured out the biggest obstacle which is government regulations. This is the big challenge for any startup trying to copy uber.
I wouldn't call "knowingly breaking the law and throwing VC money at the lawyers until the problem goes away" necessarily "figuring out government regulations".
It's worked very well in many markets.
Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a good law. Uber is finding inefficient/protectionist laws and challenging their validity. I think that is better for the overall economy.
Well it ended up getting it legalised in a bunch of places. If it works, it's not stupid!
It's the same thing for practical purposes if it achieves the same aim.
Except that your execs are one pissed off DA away from defending RICO charges.
Companies undervalue low-probability, high-risk events like that.
Companies undervalue low-probability, high-risk events like that.
its not rico...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
Whatever your animated-gif-filled link says, a highly leveraged company which systematically breaks the law (even in small ways) is going to be vulnerable if someone with leverage decides that they need to file a lawsuit targeting the whole of the organization's activities.
That suit could be conspiracy, it could be RICO applied rightly or wrongly or it could be some other broad and vague statute out there.
Example: Zenefits
Edit: And vulnerable doesn't mean doomed. Plenty of folks continue the approach of skirting the law until they don't have to anymore (Youtube etc). But skirting the law forever it is not a good business plan.
That suit could be conspiracy, it could be RICO applied rightly or wrongly or it could be some other broad and vague statute out there.
Example: Zenefits
Edit: And vulnerable doesn't mean doomed. Plenty of folks continue the approach of skirting the law until they don't have to anymore (Youtube etc). But skirting the law forever it is not a good business plan.
s/it's/isn't/?
My point was exactly that Uber can be construed as a criminal organization and their executives as the leaders of a large, international criminal organization who knowingly pay people to commit crimes on their behalf (that the bosses then profit from) and that their organization's primary business is the commission of such crimes.
Is it still not RICO?
Edit: Im pretty sure they could get money laundering related charges to stick well enough to charge (and settle or bring to trial, rather than dismissed), based on banking with money they know was earned in violation of various state and city laws. Money laundering law is bad (and so is RICO), and often can be applied in counter-intuitive ways by aggressive DAs.
Is it still not RICO?
Edit: Im pretty sure they could get money laundering related charges to stick well enough to charge (and settle or bring to trial, rather than dismissed), based on banking with money they know was earned in violation of various state and city laws. Money laundering law is bad (and so is RICO), and often can be applied in counter-intuitive ways by aggressive DAs.
To indict under RICO, you need evidence that the organization is involved in racketeering. (The R stands for racketeer). Racketeering includes things like murder, kidnapping, bribery, and gambling.
With all due respect, unless you are a practicing attorney, you are not qualified to make statements like this.
With all due respect, unless you are a practicing attorney, you are not qualified to make statements like this.
Money laundering is one of the things specifically outlined under RICO, and why my edit mentions it in particular.
Money laundering???
I have tried to be polite, but you are either incredibly ignorant or you are a troll. There is simply no way that it is acceptable to accuse any company of money laundering unless you have a serious amount of evidence.
I am disengaging from this 'conversation' as it is completely useless.
I have tried to be polite, but you are either incredibly ignorant or you are a troll. There is simply no way that it is acceptable to accuse any company of money laundering unless you have a serious amount of evidence.
I am disengaging from this 'conversation' as it is completely useless.
Laws are only as good as their enforcement. I think Uber has been successful at calling the bluff of law enforcement and winning that showdown in many cases.
they have many obama administration people in their leadership as well
That was spot on :)
But if Uber eliminates that obstacle, won't all of their competitors benefit from the lower barriers to entry? Does Uber simply ease the cost of switching--both for drivers and riders?
Yeah. I haven't seen Uber or Lyft do a whole lot to encourage customer loyalty either, I guess because prices are already so subsidized. Uber had actively pushed my away, though, by requiring location services on even when not using the app.
Uber business sales channel offers very little value add, and charges for it. They don't get it yet, and that may be a fundamental mistake. It makes me think they're not as smart as everyone wants them to be.
I think self-driving cars would be a major challenge for Uber. As long as ridesharing companies need human drivers network effects ensure that Uber will remain at the top. But when driverless cars become feasible Uber's moat disappears. What's stopping an upstart company to buy/lease 10,000 self-driving cars and let them loose on the street? There's no reason for customers to prefer Uber over them. (This problem becomes more acute if Uber IPO's by then and have to worry about quarterly results but their competitor can burn through VC money.)
> What's stopping an upstart company to buy/lease 10,000 self-driving cars and let them loose on the street?
The most serious obstacle here is the fact that there is no such thing as a self-driving car.
The most serious obstacle here is the fact that there is no such thing as a self-driving car.
> As long as ridesharing companies need human drivers network effects ensure that Uber will remain at the top.
I think it is the opposite... Uber's only real way to turn a profit while staying competitive is to get rid of the cost of drivers.
> What's stopping an upstart company to buy/lease 10,000 self-driving cars and let them loose on the street?
The fact that Uber is already working on this, has a platform, has tons of data?
I think it is the opposite... Uber's only real way to turn a profit while staying competitive is to get rid of the cost of drivers.
> What's stopping an upstart company to buy/lease 10,000 self-driving cars and let them loose on the street?
The fact that Uber is already working on this, has a platform, has tons of data?
The articles I have read have made it sound like a Catch-22. They cannot profit while they have to pay drivers, but self-driving cars will enable competition from both software companies and automakers, especially if an automaker reduces the need for capital by renting out self-driving cars. It's unclear how Uber will not be further commoditized by self-driving cars.
By beating people to market with self driving cars. That's the reason Uber is pushing it.
Is there any evidence that Uber is even on par with the self-driving technology of Google, Cruise, or Tesla?
There is no evidence of Uber being better or worse than the others, but they are ahead in terms of using self driving cars as taxis.
https://newsroom.uber.com/san-francisco-your-self-driving-ub...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-self...
https://newsroom.uber.com/san-francisco-your-self-driving-ub...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-self...
There's evidence that all the big players have top talent, deep pockets, and are staying abreast of the research, which is humming along. Insomuch as they're committed, there's no good reason to believe any one of them is out of the running, or more than a couple years or so behind the peloton.
Because deploying Robotaxi fleets will be so capital intensive, no single company is likely to dominate the way Uber has in rideshare. There is enough demand spread out across enough different cities that they won't need to compete directly for a long time.
Because deploying Robotaxi fleets will be so capital intensive, no single company is likely to dominate the way Uber has in rideshare. There is enough demand spread out across enough different cities that they won't need to compete directly for a long time.
Right, I wasn't suggesting Uber was hopelessly behind the other major players, but that it seems unlikely they'll beat everyone else to market.
If they can't maintain their market share in a driverless car world, it's difficult to imagine how they can justify their current valuation.
If they can't maintain their market share in a driverless car world, it's difficult to imagine how they can justify their current valuation.
What Uber has, that all of the other players don't is a platform, data, and experience operating such a service. All they have to do is add in the self driving cars, whereas all (most) of the other players have to build the whole platform.
[deleted]
"What's stopping an upstart company to buy/lease 10,000 self-driving cars and let them loose on the street?"
You're right that self-driving cars would be a major challenge/opportunity. Re: what's stopping an upstart, letting self-driving cars loose on the street is inefficient. There is a huge amount learned/accrued intelligence involved in how those self driving cars are orchestrated for optimize the marketplace. So that's where a key capability is going to be important even in a world where self-driving is commoditized.
You're right that self-driving cars would be a major challenge/opportunity. Re: what's stopping an upstart, letting self-driving cars loose on the street is inefficient. There is a huge amount learned/accrued intelligence involved in how those self driving cars are orchestrated for optimize the marketplace. So that's where a key capability is going to be important even in a world where self-driving is commoditized.
That's why Uber invests so heavily in self-driving cars.
What investor would invest in a competitor if the market is as commoditized as you foresee? (I agree with you fwiw)
no need for an investor. only need a GM or Tesla or Apple etc to decide to.
On the flip side the Head of Economic Research of Uber left last September. You can make a weak case an insider economist could be better at predicting market success than an outsider engineer.
Someone like Amit doesn't need money; by the time you get as highly placed at Google as he was you will be wealthy. I believe that Uber has interesting engineering challenges but likewise have doubts about their profitability.
I think Uber has bright future, but I really doubt about current valuation. What's looking bright for them is that they can replace their drivers with self-driving cars eventually. By then core business competency completely transforms into capital and technology which Uber has built quite a strength. Looking at what they are right now, Uber and Lyft are both pseudo technology company that haven't added that much innovation to current landscape (different markets have different experience, i.e. SF vs NYC). But can we expect huge profitability in the future? I doubt it - they have to maintain a fleet of cars which are quite expensive to maintain, and they cannot drive out competition completely (DOJ will never allow this). Bottom line? Very competitive pricing in the future, some profitability, however I doubt margin will be good.
Because a person is smart/ accomplished in their domain does not mean they will be in another. In this instance, people that are technology geniuses, doesn't mean they know about liquidation preferences and accounting.
Alternately, people who are technology geniuses and also were employee #176 at Google may not need to care about liquidation preferences and may just want to work on new and different interesting problems.
Same here. My bear case for Uber is just that self driving will commoditize the market and turn a two sided market into a one sided market. At that point it will be the cheapest offering that wins. Wrote about it in more detail here: http://dangoldin.com/2016/05/28/uber-and-self-driving-cars/
I think there are real economies of scale in ride service. Once you have enough customers your cars are better utilised and your costs are lower, this means that while Uber's cap table may be all fucked up by the time it happens, it will lose less money competing on price than new entrants.
Depending on how large these economies of scale are, even the fact that a new entrants would be doing less volume (and therefore losing more) may not be enough to help them compete.
Depending on how large these economies of scale are, even the fact that a new entrants would be doing less volume (and therefore losing more) may not be enough to help them compete.
This analysis strongly suggests that there isn't economies of scale in ride service:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...
I agree that there are no economies of scale that cause one operator to have an advantage expanding to other cities.
However, in a given city, I would expect there to be economies of scale as you optimize your cars better and decrease the amount of time they have no passengers. It's most clear to me in the case of UberPOOL where the more passengers you have in total, the more likely two of them will be going in the same direction. We may not have reached a cheap enough price point yet to hit these economies.
Depending on how much you trust anything Uber says, they say they are profitable in SF, and some other US metros, which the article you linked ignores.
I think people are right to be a little skeptical, given how loose Uber is with the truth, but I see a possibility for them to succeed and smart people keep giving them good money so I want to give them the benefit of the doubt on the issue of actually making money eventually.
However, in a given city, I would expect there to be economies of scale as you optimize your cars better and decrease the amount of time they have no passengers. It's most clear to me in the case of UberPOOL where the more passengers you have in total, the more likely two of them will be going in the same direction. We may not have reached a cheap enough price point yet to hit these economies.
Depending on how much you trust anything Uber says, they say they are profitable in SF, and some other US metros, which the article you linked ignores.
I think people are right to be a little skeptical, given how loose Uber is with the truth, but I see a possibility for them to succeed and smart people keep giving them good money so I want to give them the benefit of the doubt on the issue of actually making money eventually.
If you are an engineer, go interview with them.
https://eng.uber.com/
Big $$ talk loud
I think Matt Levine nailed it earlier this month [1], on how Uber lost $2.2 Billion in 9 months [2]:
>Eventually there will be self-driving cars, and there's no special reason to think that Uber will be the best at building them, or that its dominant position in the ride-hailing-app space will protect it from better self-driving-car businesses.
Which also needs to factor in Uber's biggest liability: their attitude towards flouting laws and regulations. It worked okay for the ride-sharing markets, as municipal regulations are varied and slow to catch up, but they were forced to stop their self-driving car project after just a week because they didn't even get the necessary permits. [3]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-10/bank-bloc...
[2] http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/1/9/14194202/uber-lost-22-...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/technology/san-francisco-...
>Eventually there will be self-driving cars, and there's no special reason to think that Uber will be the best at building them, or that its dominant position in the ride-hailing-app space will protect it from better self-driving-car businesses.
Which also needs to factor in Uber's biggest liability: their attitude towards flouting laws and regulations. It worked okay for the ride-sharing markets, as municipal regulations are varied and slow to catch up, but they were forced to stop their self-driving car project after just a week because they didn't even get the necessary permits. [3]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-10/bank-bloc...
[2] http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/1/9/14194202/uber-lost-22-...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/technology/san-francisco-...
I don't think their position is safe but I'd probably bet on them or google winning that market over anyone else.
I'd bet on Google, Tesla, and Mercedes before Uber, since they all have vehicles with more than a week on the road and cash-positive revenue streams to support further development. Uber burned through ~30% of their $11B in cash just in 2016 alone.
Uber will be able to get cash in the future if self driving tech matures to transition. It'll be a multi billion dollar opportunity, capital will be lining up to invest in the ride hailing market leader.
If Singhal is motivated by money at this point then he's a straight up fool. I'm going to give this all the due regard of a Mayer going to Yahoo.
not sure how they treat people like him but for the average engineer they don't pay great and want to force you take take equity instead of $$. really hope Amit is getting pure cash out of this deal.
edit: also, im pretty sure google pay him big money.
edit: also, im pretty sure google pay him big money.
You should sign up for Blind and read the Uber employees' comments.
Can you give the gist? You piqued my interest, but the app looks like the rabbit hole I'd rather not go down.
There seem to be two modes. First, it seems everyone hates it there and management is terrible and people get fired with no severance all the time. The other mode is aggressive recruiting. Here's an actual interaction I had:
Me: I'm torn between doing something new and staying where I'm at.
Random Uber employee: Hey, you should join Uber. Hit me up and I'll refer you.
Me: I can assure you I'm not interested.
Random Uber employee: Wuss...
Me: I'm torn between doing something new and staying where I'm at.
Random Uber employee: Hey, you should join Uber. Hit me up and I'll refer you.
Me: I can assure you I'm not interested.
Random Uber employee: Wuss...
Is it really that easy to get a referral? I'm applying for internships and I applied to Uber (online) a while ago and have heard nothing. Meanwhile, all but one of the places I have been interviewed (Google, Amazon, etc.) were places where I friend referred me. The interview rate has been 70% for places I've been referred vs. 3% for places I haven't, so getting one has been key.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to join Blind since I don't have a work email that they're available to.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to join Blind since I don't have a work email that they're available to.
Uber employee here, and I can tell you that almost everyone I know loves working here.
I apologize for the behavior of the random douchebag employee you encountered, I would hope most of us wouldn't act like that.
I apologize for the behavior of the random douchebag employee you encountered, I would hope most of us wouldn't act like that.
So you would be happy to refer GP? :-P
Are you able to read comments from people at other companies? My understanding was that if be limited to just interacting with people at my own company.
You can read anyone's comments.
There's an open lounge.
The way I see it,money(capital contribution) looted by saudis by selling oil is being distributed back to the drivers and passengers of the different countries.
Follow the money.
There's a number of things that have happened in the organic search area of Google that seem to suggest a declining interest in quality organic results.
There's Matt Cutts' long leave of absence, his departure, and the announcement that he's not really being replaced. A much lower volume of communication from Google on initiatives in the space (they used to talk endlessly about Panda, Penguin, etc). Amit's original reason for departure was "his next journey will involve philanthropy"..that seems to have changed.
My guess is that two things are driving the declining interest...
a) The marketshare battle is done. Google won. No competition.
b) Their various initiatives to push organic results down the fold (more ads, knowledge graph, various widgets, and so forth) has made the quality of the organic results not as important. Good enough is the target.
There's Matt Cutts' long leave of absence, his departure, and the announcement that he's not really being replaced. A much lower volume of communication from Google on initiatives in the space (they used to talk endlessly about Panda, Penguin, etc). Amit's original reason for departure was "his next journey will involve philanthropy"..that seems to have changed.
My guess is that two things are driving the declining interest...
a) The marketshare battle is done. Google won. No competition.
b) Their various initiatives to push organic results down the fold (more ads, knowledge graph, various widgets, and so forth) has made the quality of the organic results not as important. Good enough is the target.
> There's a number of things that have happened in the organic search area of Google that seem to suggest a declining interest in quality organic results.
I think you may be falling for the SV cult of personality fallacy. There are still literally thousands of individuals you've never heard of working on organic search quality at Google who care very much about quality organic results. :)
I think you may be falling for the SV cult of personality fallacy. There are still literally thousands of individuals you've never heard of working on organic search quality at Google who care very much about quality organic results. :)
No no no, the two person whose name he knew left after years in the same job, it must mean Google doesn't care anymore about their main product that makes roughly 90% of their revenue !
So yeah I totally agree, be it Google, Apple, Microsoft, ... A large amount of people around here are so used to small team startup represented by their founder that they always feel the need in similar stories to make a cult of personality for / against someone as if he was the product he worked for.
So yeah I totally agree, be it Google, Apple, Microsoft, ... A large amount of people around here are so used to small team startup represented by their founder that they always feel the need in similar stories to make a cult of personality for / against someone as if he was the product he worked for.
Well, to be fair the stuff that generates 90% of their revenue IS what's pushing organic results further down the page.
I mentioned more than just two personalities.
Edit: And, I did mention more focus on ads and widgets versus the actual organic results. If those weren't more important, why are they at the top, crowding organics down? The revenue isn't really coming from the organics themselves.
Edit: And, I did mention more focus on ads and widgets versus the actual organic results. If those weren't more important, why are they at the top, crowding organics down? The revenue isn't really coming from the organics themselves.
You would think so, but then Apple has thousands of engineers yet can't be bothered to regularly update its products, lazily copies parts and construction and even discontinued a bunch of stuff.
(And while Google keeps adding heuristics I wish some of those many developers and researchers would simply occasionally try the product and ban, purge the very obvious content farm and spam sites)
(And while Google keeps adding heuristics I wish some of those many developers and researchers would simply occasionally try the product and ban, purge the very obvious content farm and spam sites)
A much lower volume of communication from Google on initiatives in the space (they used to talk endlessly about Panda, Penguin, etc).
I hear that Google search has largely moved to machine learning techniques. When I was there in 2005-2009 there was a bunch of hand-tuned stuff, and hand-tuning was definitely Amit's preferred strategy at the time. One side effect might be that a machine learning black box has fewer big, externally-perceptible shifts. It also just might require less ongoing interesting engineering work. Hard to say, though.
I hear that Google search has largely moved to machine learning techniques. When I was there in 2005-2009 there was a bunch of hand-tuned stuff, and hand-tuning was definitely Amit's preferred strategy at the time. One side effect might be that a machine learning black box has fewer big, externally-perceptible shifts. It also just might require less ongoing interesting engineering work. Hard to say, though.
Both Panda and Penguin were machine learning, and definitely had externally perceptible shifts. But, you're right, perhaps they've figured out how to do that with less disruption.
Edit: I wonder if Amit changed his tune regarding machine learning, at least for his new space.
Edit: I wonder if Amit changed his tune regarding machine learning, at least for his new space.
There's some baseless speculation in this thread about what's Singhal's departure meant for Google search. It's important to remember that Singhal was committed Google's knowledge graph, a painstaking, manually constructed graph of entities and relationships that surfaces the occasional answer (ask Google what the capital of Azerbaijan is and you will see a knowledge graph answer). Knowledge graphs are brittle, hard to extend, and hard to modify in the face of changing data. Google has tilted towards machine learning and neural nets for a lot of functions, and Singhal was not part of that tilt. But you could argue that machine learning and neural nets are producing better results, which counters the argument that Singhal leaving means that Google doesn't care about organic results any more. That's BS, frankly.
>Google doesn't care about organic results any more. That's BS, frankly.
Do they care less than they used to, though? Their placement on the screen as opposed to KG, widgets, and ads..and how that's progressed over time, seems to imply it.
Do they care less than they used to, though? Their placement on the screen as opposed to KG, widgets, and ads..and how that's progressed over time, seems to imply it.
Google seems to have largely solved its biggest problem: spammy results. It's very hard to find sites in the top results for strong keywords with poor backlink profiles.
It has done this by a) Actually improving its spammy backlink detection, and b) Scary webmasters away from spammy SEO tactics through sudden updates like Panda/Penguin and straight up propaganda.
Once you solve the spam issue, Google's search results organically become better. Ergo, it doesn't need to spend that much time monitoring and improving them
It has done this by a) Actually improving its spammy backlink detection, and b) Scary webmasters away from spammy SEO tactics through sudden updates like Panda/Penguin and straight up propaganda.
Once you solve the spam issue, Google's search results organically become better. Ergo, it doesn't need to spend that much time monitoring and improving them
That's interesting, and would explain why no replacement was named for Matt.
I wonder how much they actually improved the webspam thing.
The search results you see today, versus years past, suggest a sort of "cheat" to do that...something like a seed set of trusted sites (big brands, universities, government sites, etc) , and weighting based on distance from those seeds.
I say that because I'll often get results that are heavy on authority, but low on relevance. What I'm looking for is on pages 2 and 3, on more niche, less prominent sites. It didn't used to be that way.
I wonder how much they actually improved the webspam thing.
The search results you see today, versus years past, suggest a sort of "cheat" to do that...something like a seed set of trusted sites (big brands, universities, government sites, etc) , and weighting based on distance from those seeds.
I say that because I'll often get results that are heavy on authority, but low on relevance. What I'm looking for is on pages 2 and 3, on more niche, less prominent sites. It didn't used to be that way.
> Do they care less than they used to, though?
That's impossible to measure, but the arguments you have employed regarding personnel changes do not demonstrate your point.
That's impossible to measure, but the arguments you have employed regarding personnel changes do not demonstrate your point.
Okay...the top two publicly visible leaders in the space leaving in the same timeframe could mean something. Perhaps in this case it does not. I don't think either of us knows for sure. It does, however, pique my interest in what the group direction is now.
What of the decision to not replace Matt with a specific role or person? Is that not interesting?
And, again, I mentioned many other observations, not just Amit and Matt.
Edit: If the primary driver was lack of expertise in the ML direction, Uber seems an odd place to land, doesn't it?
What of the decision to not replace Matt with a specific role or person? Is that not interesting?
And, again, I mentioned many other observations, not just Amit and Matt.
Edit: If the primary driver was lack of expertise in the ML direction, Uber seems an odd place to land, doesn't it?
Another explanation for their leaving is that the overall strategy around Search is changing and now outside of those two individuals' realm of expertise.
I work for Google but this is pure speculation on my part.
I work for Google but this is pure speculation on my part.
> the top two publicly visible leaders in the space leaving in the same timeframe could mean something
Again, Amit may not have been aligned with the direction they're taking search. That doesn't mean Google doesn't care. In fact, it could mean just the opposite.
Again, Amit may not have been aligned with the direction they're taking search. That doesn't mean Google doesn't care. In fact, it could mean just the opposite.
Singhal's title at Uber says that he is in charge of marketplaces and maps, not the self-driving stuff. So this would be stuff like pricing, dispatch, supply optimization, and route optimization which rely on traditional algorithms and not ML. But I agree with your larger point and find his departure from Google curious. Even if they were moving search in another direction or he was completely bored with what he was working on and wanted change, I am shocked that they would let someone of his caliber leave Google.
Supposedly, they leverage machine learning across those areas as well...perhaps not as the primary foundation, but used there nonetheless.
http://venturebeat.com/2016/11/02/uber-is-rolling-out-a-big-...
https://newsroom.uber.com/inferring-uber-rider-destinations/
There's other references, but you get the idea.
http://venturebeat.com/2016/11/02/uber-is-rolling-out-a-big-...
https://newsroom.uber.com/inferring-uber-rider-destinations/
There's other references, but you get the idea.
The person who replaced Amit as head of search (John Giannandrea) is the founder / CEO of Metaweb and creator of Freebase -- aka what became Google's Knowledge Graph. Google using more ML in search doesn't mean a KG isn't also useful for query understanding.
And KGs aren't mutually exclusive with ML -- e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04844
And KGs aren't mutually exclusive with ML -- e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04844
I'd add another item
c) "Search" is changing towards giving information rather than to websites.
Think Siri/Cortana/Alexa. Even Google tries to give you an answer rather than a website.
Also information is moving from "spread thin" websites to social graphs and more centralised locations
c) "Search" is changing towards giving information rather than to websites.
Think Siri/Cortana/Alexa. Even Google tries to give you an answer rather than a website.
Also information is moving from "spread thin" websites to social graphs and more centralised locations
Indeed. Information concentrates, just like capital.
I wonder how many real search engine queries only need to return a Wikipedia page.
That was Amit's doing, actually. Around 2012, with the success of Knowledge Panels and the acquisition of Metaweb (FreeBase), he decreed that search would become a "conversational answer engine", devoted toward getting you the answer to your question as quickly as possible. The Hummingbird ranking update was part of that - it made it much more effective to phrase your query as a question rather than a bunch of keywords. Also renewed integration of Google Now into search, expanded Knowledge Panels, cards on mobile search, bigger investments in voice search, etc.
Which makes me wonder what search network ads look like in a hypothetical world in not so distant future if audio interfaces were primary search tool and output for the results.
Personally, at this point I'd rather pay Google a monthly subscription and get everything ad-free. That would align their interests with their users who would then be the customers vs the product and free up Google to do what is best for them in cases where ads may not make sense.
Personally, at this point I'd rather pay Google a monthly subscription and get everything ad-free. That would align their interests with their users who would then be the customers vs the product and free up Google to do what is best for them in cases where ads may not make sense.
The career decisions of two people do not a policy make. Both people had been at Google for over 15 years and presumably wanted a change.
>The marketshare battle is done. Google won. No competition
Is there an analog to this? Is there another market where marketshare has "been decided"? My instinct tells me that companies who fall for this are in trouble.
Is there an analog to this? Is there another market where marketshare has "been decided"? My instinct tells me that companies who fall for this are in trouble.
As a Googler, I can tell you that no one I know here is under that impression. (Your instincts are absolutely correct.)
Desktop and server processors, and desktop operating systems.... Microsoft and Intel. Somewhat similar in that the platform itself is not growing as it once was, though still large...and that innovation has slowed.
Edit: Yes, mobile is hitting desktop, but that's the market itself changing...not the market share for desktop. Comparable in the search space is more people using Amazon directly for product searches versus starting with Google. Related markets and effects, but Amazon isn't a general search competitor.
Edit: Yes, mobile is hitting desktop, but that's the market itself changing...not the market share for desktop. Comparable in the search space is more people using Amazon directly for product searches versus starting with Google. Related markets and effects, but Amazon isn't a general search competitor.
Microsoft is rapidly losing the entire market of "Desktop" to Android and iOS apps. Intel has a serious competitor in ARM; most $bigcos haven't switched yet, but are definitely looking into it, as a way of applying pressure and keeping Intel's costs down.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard "market share war is over, X won" and then that marked X's high water point in the industry, I mean I'd be doing ok.
Guess this is the point where we short Alphabet?
Guess this is the point where we short Alphabet?
My comment was a bit more nuanced than that. They appear to be shifting more effort into widgets and ads. And less into the actual organic results. It's not that odd the the lead runner slows down when they've lapped the field.
You are getting attacked for simply stating your opinion. Do we really want another echo chamber of opinions here?
Google might be still all in on search, but what's important here is the outside perception. They won the search war and desperately tried to recreate the success with other products. So far they haven't had another hit (some big misses, though).
Google might be still all in on search, but what's important here is the outside perception. They won the search war and desperately tried to recreate the success with other products. So far they haven't had another hit (some big misses, though).
> tried to recreate the success with other products. So far they haven't had another hit (some big misses, though)
If you're asking for non-ads products that have done pretty well -- Android, Youtube, Cloud doing pretty well.
Next possible moneymaker is Waymo.
If you're asking for non-ads products that have done pretty well -- Android, Youtube, Cloud doing pretty well.
Next possible moneymaker is Waymo.
>You are getting attacked for simply stating your opinion
The replies mostly seem to be saying that I'm equating just the two departures with a declining interest at Google in organic result quality. Of course, I mentioned more than that, but it's an easy way to dismiss me versus educating me on how I've got it wrong.
The replies mostly seem to be saying that I'm equating just the two departures with a declining interest at Google in organic result quality. Of course, I mentioned more than that, but it's an easy way to dismiss me versus educating me on how I've got it wrong.
I've noticed the more nuanced of a statement I make on HN, the more likely I am to be attacked for it. It's getting worse as the site becomes more popular as well.
This statement -- “Those computer science challenges for a computer science geek are just intriguing – you give a geek a puzzle, they can’t drop it; they need to solve the puzzle. That’s how it felt to me.”
When I've been asked what keeps me going this is it, I really like interesting puzzles and I'm sitting there stuck trying to solve it.
It also says a bit about what Uber thinks their big problems are (or where their value add will be). I was expecting them to go with someone more operations focused like Urs Hoezle.
When I've been asked what keeps me going this is it, I really like interesting puzzles and I'm sitting there stuck trying to solve it.
It also says a bit about what Uber thinks their big problems are (or where their value add will be). I was expecting them to go with someone more operations focused like Urs Hoezle.
A good example of the engineer's puzzle-solving mindset is ice-nine in Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. Hoenikker didn't particularly care about the Marines, mud, or the general's problem with it. He just thought it made for a good puzzle.
Amit joining Uber after a year's break coincides with the common "1 year no-solicitation" clause in employment contracts. I wonder if we are about to see some top people in Google get poached. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Hope so. I guess last exodus was in 2012 when top people like Marissa Mayer and her reports got poached.
> Marissa Mayer and her reports got poached
Looks like Google dodged a bullet there.
Looks like Google dodged a bullet there.
Dunno, I think Yahoo! was basically unfixable. I mean, what would you have done differently? They just had too much dead wood, including the brand name.
Yahoo! became a holding company for Alibaba and Yahoo! Japan. The search and online services are just window dressing.
[deleted](1)
I was really curious about the timing as well with the year off. It appears from the comments below that at least one other engineering VP from Google (Kevin Thompson) has recently joined Uber but without taking a year off. So is the 1-year no solicitation clause that you mention only common for the senior-most employees like SVP and above?
Kevin Thompson, another VP from Google also joined Uber very recently
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinthompsontech
have people considered this may eventually lead to Google acquiring Uber? There is the advising CEO Travis Kalanick bit in there.
Relatedly, I booked an Uber last night from within the Google Maps app on my phone, and the entire experience was in-app -- route selection, driver pick-up tracking, in-ride tracking, and drop-off confirmation. That's a whole lot tighter integration than I've seen in the past. The rumor-monger in me wants to read all sorts of acquisition talks into that level of product integration.
(Which is great for another reason -- I don't give Uber access to my location when I'm not using the app, and the Uber team has apparently decided to basically brick their own app for users like me. But hooray, Google Maps is now a functional replacement for the Uber client!)
(Which is great for another reason -- I don't give Uber access to my location when I'm not using the app, and the Uber team has apparently decided to basically brick their own app for users like me. But hooray, Google Maps is now a functional replacement for the Uber client!)
You can book Lyft as well - both are pretty solid experiences.
No? That just links out to the Lyft app. Booking an Uber in Google Maps no longer leaves the app at all.
Apple Maps has the same functionality (with Lyft as well), so I wouldn't read into it too much.
I'd like to see Uber get into mapping. Besides Uber's core business that everyone focuses on, they've got a self-driving cars program that's halfway off the ground and they do food deliver through UberEATS. In either case, they've got a vested interest in making sure high-quality mapping data is available—higher quality than what Google provides.
Given their deals with tons of local businesses through UberEATS, they've got operating hours and location data that's fresher than what anyone else can provide on the scale that they're operating on. Would be nice to see them improving the OSM dataset and partner with e.g. Maps.me.
Given their deals with tons of local businesses through UberEATS, they've got operating hours and location data that's fresher than what anyone else can provide on the scale that they're operating on. Would be nice to see them improving the OSM dataset and partner with e.g. Maps.me.
"they've got a self-driving cars program that's halfway off the ground"
In the sense that a working model airplane gives me a space program that's halfway off the ground.
And why would they improve OSM at all? Actually collecting and cleaning mapping data is not cheap. There's no incentive in contributing to OSM, it doesn't build a moat, it doesn't further their access to markets,...
In the sense that a working model airplane gives me a space program that's halfway off the ground.
And why would they improve OSM at all? Actually collecting and cleaning mapping data is not cheap. There's no incentive in contributing to OSM, it doesn't build a moat, it doesn't further their access to markets,...
> And why would they improve OSM at all?
It's in their business interests to make sure their fleet and their delivery drivers have accurate mapping info. Is there something unclear about the way I worded this in the comment you responded to?
It's in their business interests to make sure their fleet and their delivery drivers have accurate mapping info. Is there something unclear about the way I worded this in the comment you responded to?
There obviously is something unclear, yes. Having accurate mapping info and improving OSM are two separate things. I asked about the latter. If that data were actually crucial to Uber's business, what possible rationale could they have to share it for free?
But while we're on mapping data - I don't think "higher quality" data is in any way crucial to their business. (Owning the data so there's no dependency on third parties is another question). Uber's routing is accurate enough to work reliably.[1] What does higher quality buy them?
From where I stand, you're proposing that a company that's already bleeding money like it's going out of style should spend a ton of money, on building technology they have little experience with, to collect data that is of dubious value to them, to then give it away freely.
I get that you'd like OSM improved, but I really don't think Uber will be the one to do it.
[1] Based on purely anecdotal reports from my friends and my own experiences, the usual case for misrouting is Uber drivers not paying attention to the map, or thinking they know better than the map.
But while we're on mapping data - I don't think "higher quality" data is in any way crucial to their business. (Owning the data so there's no dependency on third parties is another question). Uber's routing is accurate enough to work reliably.[1] What does higher quality buy them?
From where I stand, you're proposing that a company that's already bleeding money like it's going out of style should spend a ton of money, on building technology they have little experience with, to collect data that is of dubious value to them, to then give it away freely.
I get that you'd like OSM improved, but I really don't think Uber will be the one to do it.
[1] Based on purely anecdotal reports from my friends and my own experiences, the usual case for misrouting is Uber drivers not paying attention to the map, or thinking they know better than the map.
> If that data were actually crucial to Uber's business, what possible rationale could they have to share it for free?
I'd understand if this were 1987 and you were asking this question. But it's not, and even Microsoft is on the public collaboration bandwagon.
We begin by recognizing that if you want to get into mapping and not pay out the nose for it, then OSM is your starting point. From there, it follows that we defer to the lessons of the last two decades which show that when given the choice between either maintaining a private fork or upstreaming, then upstreaming is overwhelmingly the best thing to do, even from a position of pure self-interest.
I hardly think their competitive edge hinges on high quality mapping data at the exclusion of others. Accurate mapping data is an enabler for them to go faster, do better, for the things they are doing now. If that means drivers are making 3 deliveries per hour instead of 2, then the proposition holds true. Or if someone can be picked up/dropped off at the curb in front of their building, rather than the clubhouse bearing the street number for their sprawling apartment complex, then the proposition holds true.
> data that is of dubious value to them, to then give it away freely.
No. My position is precisely that they do have a business interest in this kind of data. I've said as much. This is the third time now.
And it's not as if Uber themselves don't already have similar initiatives to release their datasets. They've had a program for the last ~two years for sharing trip data, and two weeks ago they put a public face on their "Uber Movement" initiative to make it more widely available. And that's a dataset that's even more proprietary—there are tons of people in the mapping game, but almost nobody besides arguably Google has access to trip-level data at the scale that Uber has and is chosing to give away.
I'd understand if this were 1987 and you were asking this question. But it's not, and even Microsoft is on the public collaboration bandwagon.
We begin by recognizing that if you want to get into mapping and not pay out the nose for it, then OSM is your starting point. From there, it follows that we defer to the lessons of the last two decades which show that when given the choice between either maintaining a private fork or upstreaming, then upstreaming is overwhelmingly the best thing to do, even from a position of pure self-interest.
I hardly think their competitive edge hinges on high quality mapping data at the exclusion of others. Accurate mapping data is an enabler for them to go faster, do better, for the things they are doing now. If that means drivers are making 3 deliveries per hour instead of 2, then the proposition holds true. Or if someone can be picked up/dropped off at the curb in front of their building, rather than the clubhouse bearing the street number for their sprawling apartment complex, then the proposition holds true.
> data that is of dubious value to them, to then give it away freely.
No. My position is precisely that they do have a business interest in this kind of data. I've said as much. This is the third time now.
And it's not as if Uber themselves don't already have similar initiatives to release their datasets. They've had a program for the last ~two years for sharing trip data, and two weeks ago they put a public face on their "Uber Movement" initiative to make it more widely available. And that's a dataset that's even more proprietary—there are tons of people in the mapping game, but almost nobody besides arguably Google has access to trip-level data at the scale that Uber has and is chosing to give away.
[deleted]
They already hired quite a few people that ran specific projects such as MapMaker and Street View or even all of Geo (Brian McClendon).
You must live in Riata?
Edit: my comment no longer makes sense, parent was edited
Edit: my comment no longer makes sense, parent was edited
No, but I know the area. What's special about it, though? There are lots of places around Austin that match what I described, and it should be the same in other cities.
[deleted]
The no-driver Uber arguments as profitable future it is crazy stuff, in my opinion. Could be as simple as Uber being a bubble? How much will take until that bubble bursts?
I don't think this is going to change anything though. He is just one person.
A single person in a high role in the company can completely change the culture, the product focus, the attitude towards customer support, etc.
The CEO is just one person, the President is just one person, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is just one person, etc.
The CEO is just one person, the President is just one person, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is just one person, etc.
That's a pattern among very senior googlers. When they get bored of working, they go to other companies to semi-retire. I'm almost certain this is not going to be any different.
Not sure Uber is the semi-retire kind of place for this sort of thing. They have a reputation for working people hard.
People, sure. But he's not "people".
Here is Singhal declaring this on his personal website: http://singhal.info/home/
Btw - What are the responsibilities of SVP of engineering?
senior vice president usually is a people management type person, in charge of people, processes, and product (3 p's as they say in management lingo), in other words, hire and retain the best people, introduce proper workflows to make things more efficient, and make sure they're generating kick ass products on time, with high quality.
this is often times can be confused with a cto's role, but i believe a cto's role is more independent, has less organizational obligations, in other words, manages much less people, at least at large companies. a cto's main role is to work more with customers, partners, evangelize products, and think about the longer term vision of the technology, this could be internal technology, like datacenters, to things like the next 5 year's software products.
at small companies, i think you'll find cto's also doing the job of a svp along with marketing, sales, support, etc.
this is often times can be confused with a cto's role, but i believe a cto's role is more independent, has less organizational obligations, in other words, manages much less people, at least at large companies. a cto's main role is to work more with customers, partners, evangelize products, and think about the longer term vision of the technology, this could be internal technology, like datacenters, to things like the next 5 year's software products.
at small companies, i think you'll find cto's also doing the job of a svp along with marketing, sales, support, etc.
Why would a person worth billions work for someone else?
Running a company and owning a company is different. Some people like the challenges which are involved in running the company day to day.
Lot of wealthy people work for Buffett because they like their jobs running companies and they like Buffett.
Lot of wealthy people work for Buffett because they like their jobs running companies and they like Buffett.
Is he worth billions?
He's clearly worth enough to not have to work for anyone, many times over.
Yeah, joining Google before IPO would be pretty lucrative.
What I don't understand is the multitude of students who STILL want to join Google, even though they will likely be munging data from one format to another, for years.
What I don't understand is the multitude of students who STILL want to join Google, even though they will likely be munging data from one format to another, for years.
[deleted]
"The destiny of search is to become that 'Star Trek' computer and that's what we are building..." -Amit Singhal
Laugh.
Laugh.
Uber is a middle man that takes money from existing and potential cab drivers' pockets, puts it into their own, and artificially reduces consumer costs.
Cab companies aren't innocent bystanders, but the drivers generally are. But All Hail Uber anyways, I guess.
Cab companies aren't innocent bystanders, but the drivers generally are. But All Hail Uber anyways, I guess.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13437414