Kalanick was absolutely right to be panicking about self driving cars. The reason we pay a little more for taxis and ubers is that we have to pay for the person driving the cars. With a self driving taxi service, and no need to pay for a driver, the cost of hiring a ride would become much cheaper disrupting uber's business.
* This post was Edited in reply to comment with an edit deleting criticism about intellectual property
Could you please keep your statements truthful. There is no proof that Kalanick or Uber stole anything from Waymo. There is an ongoing and unresolved court case to determine that. It's only appropriate to make such a statement, if it's proven that Uber stole anything. This is HN not reddit.
Thus far, all we know is that Levandowsky alledgedly took files as leverage to make sure Google paid him the bonuses Google was late on, but he was expressively forbidden by Kalanick from bringing any of those files to Uber. All the discovery performed so far has turned up zero evidence that any files from Waymo ended up at Uber.
It's not uncommon for legacy companies to sue newer, more nimble and more promising companies over IP issues when they lose star performers. It also happened to Google when Paypal sued them for trade secret theft when promising senior talent left Paypal to join Google Wallet:
It's perfectly okay to recruit promising talent from other companies with better offers so long as the recruiting company keeps everything kosher via due diligence that ensures the talent does not bring intellectual property from the previous employer to the new company. All evidence made public thus far suggests the Uber did its due diligence here and made sure nothing belonging to Waymo made its way to Uber.
I've read the comment you're replying to a few times, and I'm curious why it matters if they are or not. For the purpose of contributing to this discussion, have they stated anything false or misrepresented anything? If so, you should present that as a retort instead, instead of questioning their identity.
Furthermore, for authors of comments critical of Uber, do you also go out of your way to ask if they work for a competing company like Waymo, Google, Tesla or Lyft?
Let's ask you that same question. Are you a Waymo, Google, Tesla or Lyft employee or shareholder?
Because it's a fairly frequent occurrence to have brand new accounts on HN rush to Uber's defense. And it's pretty sad to see people rush to Uber's defense because they're a despicable company with a proven track record of breaking many laws, abusing their employees, abusing their drivers, and treating their customers like cattle.
Looking through your comment history, it appears you're an Uber apologist, which is your right.
I'm a Tesla investor, but I don't create straw man accounts to push a narrative.
I've seen at least one comment on a previous thread explain that the reason for their anonymity is due of the number of completely unmerited downvotes regardless of how well thought out and considered the comment. People like you who have a clear conflict of interest because you've got an economic interest in the success of a competitor are no different than that of an Uber employee. I wouldn't be surprised that the main reason negative Uber get upvoted as much as they do is because those with a conflict of interest that want to see them fail greatly outnumbers those with a conflict of interest that want to see them succeed. They are the 500lb gorilla in the room and have a lot of competitors with supporters on HN. I'd love to know how many others are there on HN doing exactly what you're doing?
I honestly don't think it matters if they are brand new accounts or not so long as they contribute constructively to the discussion and follow HN's guidelines. There's a reason why dang and the other mods allow anonymity on HN. It's because while some anonymous commenters are shitposters, there are a lot of people that have something to valuable to contribute and don't feel comfortable posting under their primary account. So long as they add value. That is not only accepted on HN. It's encouraged if it is the only way that person will feel comfortable posting on HN. So back to my original question. Was the narrative pushed by this "strawman" factually incorrect? If it was not, then challenge them on their content, not on their identity.
Fortunately, your contribution thus far to this discussion has been to very clearly demonstrate that while their may be HNers pushing a narrative supportive of Uber, there are also people like you pushing a narrative attacking Uber because it economically behooves you to do so. It's good that people see this so clearly because they can learn to discount the biases of people on both sides with a conflict of interest.
Yes, I'm supportive of Uber. I'm also supportive of other companies that have gotten undue negative press like Apple, Facebook, Monsanto and ever other company that has become the whipping boy du jour of the virtue signaling press that has all of their own skeletons in their closet but act like their being virtuous when they smear a company for ad impressions.
Heck, the media has tried giving Tesla gets the exact same media treatment that you're complaining about with Uber, yet you're still an investor, right? Why haven't you sold your stock in outrage? A simple google search for "tesla abuse safety" turns up dozens and dozens of articles [0].
Tesla fortunately gets the benefit of still being a rich person's toy and therefore Tesla outrage porn isn't nearly as viral and profitable for the media companies as Uber stories. Furthermore, Elon also has the benefit of being more likable. The media tried to push character attacking stories a few years back about his divorce and whatnot, and I'm guessing they stopped because it didn't generate enough outrage and profits. If he had not been likable, he would have gotten the same treatment Kalanick did.
Even during the week that the Susan Fowler post went viral, a sexual harassment case was filed in an actual court against Tesla, but it didn't get the pageviews and went nowhere [1].
I don't bring that up as a strike against Tesla. I bring it up to demonstrate that sexual harassment and worker abuse issues are a problem everywhere, in our industry and in the world in general. It happens at Uber. It happens at Tesla. It happens at Apple. It happens at Google. It happens everywhere. Whether it is Uber, Tesla, Apple, Google or any other company, it does absolutely no good to single out a one company, crucifying it and all the hardworking employees at that company on account of a few bad apples that don't just exist at that one company. We can and should address these important social issues wit...
I thought the file theft by Levandowsky was first uncovered when a supplier was found to be working on an Uber circuitboard that was copied from a Waymo circuitboard. Not so?
How unusual is it for venture units like this to collect data from the companies they've invested in and then scale up competitors to the successful ones?
Travis also tried to partner with Tesla on this by using Tesla as a source for the vehicles (not sure who was responsible in this case for the software -- prolly uber), and Musk declined. Soon thereafter, Musk published his grand plan part 2 for Tesla, which included a home grown ride-sharing network where in grand Musk style they are going to do everything themselves.
If you have the vehicles, why partner with someone who just wrote a platform you can replicate yourself? Uber has no value to those doing the actual self-driving work. They are the MBA in your startup to the CTO building the actual product.
That's like saying, if you make cars, why let Avis take the profits from renting them out? In both cases, because that car related business (rentals or ride hailing apps) is outside your core specialty.
So to play devil's advocate if that's how you believe things will play out... what happens to the existing car companies once new car sales start dropping precipitously? There are more car manufacturers that will be fighting over the same shrinking pie of new car sales than there are global TNCs. Their valuations will likely drop to the point where they could become an acquisition target for Uber. The only competitive advantage Tesla has is in batteries, and that will likely become a commodity insofar as TNCs are concerned far before it's a competitive advantage. The daily driving distances a battery needs to support for TNC use is a lot lower than an individual looking to do long road trips.
Uber won't last long enough to acquire a traditional automaker before technology creates a death spiral for those automakers. I'm wrong if they can find additional investors willing to gamble on the expected duration of time till that happens (~5 years at least).
Tesla has a product people will buy today (with ~25% margins!), as well as a team to transition to ridesharing in the future. They're collecting millions of miles per day of autopilot data and that'll only increase with the model 3 rollout.
I'm a fan and investor in Tesla, but there's 3 parts to winning the ridesharing, autonomous, BEV future and the most important part is the role that Uber has right now which is the customer-ridesharing-relationship. The platform technology is going to largely escalate in multiple places simultaneously and thus be the commodity bit. It is definitely an advantage to Tesla if they manage to get the hardware\software right via Tesla Network with a 2-3 year headstart, but the capital required to expand is so high that this head-start is less substantial than say a Facebook style adoption curve. It'll be a battle. We'll see.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 53.2 ms ] thread* This post was Edited in reply to comment with an edit deleting criticism about intellectual property
Thus far, all we know is that Levandowsky alledgedly took files as leverage to make sure Google paid him the bonuses Google was late on, but he was expressively forbidden by Kalanick from bringing any of those files to Uber. All the discovery performed so far has turned up zero evidence that any files from Waymo ended up at Uber.
It's not uncommon for legacy companies to sue newer, more nimble and more promising companies over IP issues when they lose star performers. It also happened to Google when Paypal sued them for trade secret theft when promising senior talent left Paypal to join Google Wallet:
https://techcrunch.com/2011/05/26/paypal-lawsuit-google/
It's perfectly okay to recruit promising talent from other companies with better offers so long as the recruiting company keeps everything kosher via due diligence that ensures the talent does not bring intellectual property from the previous employer to the new company. All evidence made public thus far suggests the Uber did its due diligence here and made sure nothing belonging to Waymo made its way to Uber.
Furthermore, for authors of comments critical of Uber, do you also go out of your way to ask if they work for a competing company like Waymo, Google, Tesla or Lyft?
Let's ask you that same question. Are you a Waymo, Google, Tesla or Lyft employee or shareholder?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354703
Looking through your comment history, it appears you're an Uber apologist, which is your right.
I'm a Tesla investor, but I don't create straw man accounts to push a narrative.
I honestly don't think it matters if they are brand new accounts or not so long as they contribute constructively to the discussion and follow HN's guidelines. There's a reason why dang and the other mods allow anonymity on HN. It's because while some anonymous commenters are shitposters, there are a lot of people that have something to valuable to contribute and don't feel comfortable posting under their primary account. So long as they add value. That is not only accepted on HN. It's encouraged if it is the only way that person will feel comfortable posting on HN. So back to my original question. Was the narrative pushed by this "strawman" factually incorrect? If it was not, then challenge them on their content, not on their identity.
Fortunately, your contribution thus far to this discussion has been to very clearly demonstrate that while their may be HNers pushing a narrative supportive of Uber, there are also people like you pushing a narrative attacking Uber because it economically behooves you to do so. It's good that people see this so clearly because they can learn to discount the biases of people on both sides with a conflict of interest.
Yes, I'm supportive of Uber. I'm also supportive of other companies that have gotten undue negative press like Apple, Facebook, Monsanto and ever other company that has become the whipping boy du jour of the virtue signaling press that has all of their own skeletons in their closet but act like their being virtuous when they smear a company for ad impressions.
Heck, the media has tried giving Tesla gets the exact same media treatment that you're complaining about with Uber, yet you're still an investor, right? Why haven't you sold your stock in outrage? A simple google search for "tesla abuse safety" turns up dozens and dozens of articles [0].
Tesla fortunately gets the benefit of still being a rich person's toy and therefore Tesla outrage porn isn't nearly as viral and profitable for the media companies as Uber stories. Furthermore, Elon also has the benefit of being more likable. The media tried to push character attacking stories a few years back about his divorce and whatnot, and I'm guessing they stopped because it didn't generate enough outrage and profits. If he had not been likable, he would have gotten the same treatment Kalanick did.
Even during the week that the Susan Fowler post went viral, a sexual harassment case was filed in an actual court against Tesla, but it didn't get the pageviews and went nowhere [1].
I don't bring that up as a strike against Tesla. I bring it up to demonstrate that sexual harassment and worker abuse issues are a problem everywhere, in our industry and in the world in general. It happens at Uber. It happens at Tesla. It happens at Apple. It happens at Google. It happens everywhere. Whether it is Uber, Tesla, Apple, Google or any other company, it does absolutely no good to single out a one company, crucifying it and all the hardworking employees at that company on account of a few bad apples that don't just exist at that one company. We can and should address these important social issues wit...
Tesla has a product people will buy today (with ~25% margins!), as well as a team to transition to ridesharing in the future. They're collecting millions of miles per day of autopilot data and that'll only increase with the model 3 rollout.