I was gonna say. Surely Travis and his allies are interested in Uber's long-term success, yes, but that's a very different claim from them being good for Uber's long-term success.
> Surely Travis and his allies are interested in Uber's long-term success
Why is that certain? Many people are interested in their own success at the expense of their companies. Kalanick in particular seems to celebrate selfishness.
Yeah, you're right - I should say rather that Travis and his allies presumably have no interest in a firesale and definitely have no deadlines like people are claiming the VC firm has, and also have no interest in a "safe-hands" leader, because that's never the sort of leader Travis has been.
But yes, Travis' interest is likely to be his own over Uber's if they come into conflict. I just think he believes that they're aligned. (And I also think he's wrong.)
As far as I understand, Uber IS Travis. I'm not trying to say he is God or anything. This "generation" (Uber, snap) to me seems adamant in fixing the errors of the last generation where founders lost control too quickly (Angie's list).
I'm not saying Travis is a good person. I'm just saying that in a war between founders and investors, it is usually a safe bet to side with founders.
Why is that certain? Many people are interested in their own success at the expense of their companies. Kalanick in particular seems to celebrate selfishness.