[tyingq]

That might make sense here if I'd thrown a rant about how Lyft was going to eat their lunch.

But I didn't.

I said, roughly, that the current model is unsustainable and loses money. If Uber is losing $2-3bn/year, and Lyft is losing $600/mn, that doesn't contradict that. People talk about Uber because they are the market leader, and because their hubris and antics add additional risk to the already shaky model (like the Waymo suit).

[yawaworht12]

Define hubris and provide evidence of it. That seems like an odd accusation to levy if someone is trying to be dispassionate and objective in their argument against a business model instead of a particular company.

[tyingq]

Er, okay. You don't objectively think the Waymo lawsuit is a concern?

[yawaworht12]

I think its a concern, but how is it hubris on Uber's part? It's an allegation not a proven fact based on weak circumstantial evidence. In America you can sue anyone for anything. The fact that they knew about these downloaded files since well before he left Google but only did something now when Uber has a negative PR firestorm makes me very skeptical about Google's motives. If you know an employee download files, you deal with the situation immediately and make sure your IP is returned. If you're being ethical, you don't wait almost 1-2 years until a convenient time to use that incident to attack a competitor that out-executed you fair and square.

[tyingq]

If you're on the fence as to whether Uber demonstrates hubris, we're probably too far apart to have any meaningful debate.

On the "knew about these downloaded files", that's not the story Waymo presented[1]. They said an email from a supplier had attached files of a Uber lidar board that looked a lot like a Waymo proprietary board. That is what prompted a look into the logs.

[1]https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-...