[TheAceOfHearts]

This is really interesting to me, because I've noticed the same thing in the Bay Area.

I would conjecture that Uber constantly being under attack (i.e. having lots of negative articles about them) has played a significant role in this. So when people have to pick between Lyft and Uber, they go for the one that seems "less evil". Perhaps the reason Lyft doesn't come under fire as much is because they haven't grown enough to divert attention from Uber?

If we consider the long-term outcome, is this actually a problem for Uber? If you move between places where both Lyft and Uber are available, and places that only have Uber, it doesn't seem unreasonable that you'd just stick to using Uber. But anyway, once you have an account with one of the two services, what incentive do you have to create an account with the other one?

[ianstormtaylor]

Uber's problems aren't caused simply by being the frontrunner. They're cultural problems that come from straight the leaders of the company itself. They've repeatedly proven that they are misogynists[1][2][3], and that they don't have the same morals that most people value[4][5].

It's a disturbing trend that some of these unicorn startups are valuing growth at the expense of morals, and that VC's are complicit in pushing for growth above all else. It gives the industry a bad name, and I wish it wasn't so.

Luckily Zenefits seems to be dismantling itself because of its antics, so hopefully it will prove to be a lesson in how not to create a company culture for others in the future.

I can't speak for others, but that's why I always prefer Lyft.

[1]: https://pando.com/2014/10/22/the-horrific-trickle-down-of-as...

[2]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/french-uber-bird-hunti...

[3]: https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-m...

[4]: http://valleywag.gawker.com/more-proof-uber-fights-dirty-aga...

[5]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-dig...

[bragh]

I'm not American, so I'm probably missing a lot of cultural context with the last 2 quotes in [2]. With regards to 3), what's wrong with saying that you would much rather be at a fancy hotel than spending time arguing with city officials? Same for 4), I agree that it's not a good thing to say out memes in real life, but not something to the level of having to bring a PR person with you or have it quoted as proof of you being sexist in an article.

[seivan]

Those sources say more about your credibility than they do about Ubers. I think Uber actually relies on people like yourself, you have to understand that it's slowly harming your validity more than theirs.

To give you a comparison it's like those conspiracy theorists back in the days who claimed NSA was snooping on everyone and then later claimed the president is an Alien from planet Xenu.

[tarsinge]

This is ad hominem, anything substantial about the content of the sources?

[seivan]

You mean apart from their financial and personal incentives? No, not much else. I'm sorry, at some part you draw a line. My line is disparaging the clock that's not even right twice a day isn't considered ad hominem.

Same reason my source about racial discrimination isn't Stormfront, and my source about startups isn't Vox.

Also I wouldn't take what Breitbart has to say about sexist issues at face value either. I'm expecting you to be able to learn that soon enough, I mean you'd give me the same treatment if I shoved a bunch of Daily Mail articles at you. And rightly so.

[tarsinge]

I'd not give you the same treatment, I would discuss the facts (if there is any). For example, is the uber street campaign to destroy Lyft talked in the Gawker article [5] real or not ? (I have no context and no opinion on the issue, so I was genuinely interested)

[ianstormtaylor]

Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here are the same stories from a bunch of other publications. My initial comment was just a quick Google search, so the originals and highest SEO'd articles win out. Feel free to accept whichever one you deem a "good enough" source:

[6]: http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-self-inflicte...

[7]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst...

[8]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-exec-...

[9]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ubers-boys-club-wha...

[10]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-avions-de-chasse-promoti...

[11]: http://www.fastcompany.com/3037552/uber-cancels-sexist-hot-c...

[12]: http://www.newsweek.com/uber-taxi-e-hailing-riding-app-travi...

[13]: http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1

[14]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber...

[15]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/emil-michael-of-ube...

[16]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/acting-like-jer...

[17]: http://www.alternet.org/7-evil-things-uber-did-2014-you-shou...

[18]: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-...

[19]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-scandals-timeline-michiga...

It's trivial to verify that a source has the right story, so once verified then conversations should shift from debating the accuracy of the source to the consequences of the story itself.