[jquery]

I like what Uber (currently) does to people. Gets passengers from point A to point B efficiently while saving them significant money in the process over alternatives. Metaphorically puts dinner on the table of hundreds of thousands of drivers. Literally puts dinner on the table of millions (UberEats). Has a business model that doesn't rely exposing more eyeballs to more ads, corrupting the press, media, and privacy in the process. Reduces car ownership and dependence. Moving towards encouraging people to ride green vehicles. Literally saves lives (reducing DUI). Yeah, I'm okay with the Uber of 2018.*

*Disclaimer: I work at Uber, and my opinions are solely my own. We're hiring.

[platz]

"Silicon Valley innovation now is directly aimed at oppressing the underclass, and everybody knows it and can see it. They hate Uber. People hate Uber. It means the death of the era of good feelings that came with this constant Moore's Law style innovation.

And that was an unforced error, by Silicon Valley. It was in their DNA. They didn't have to give Travis Kalanick, a guy they despised and never trusted, for good reason—They didn't have to give him all that venture capital.

But they saw him as an expendable probe, so they cynically gave him money, to see how much law-breaking he could get away with in the name of their disruption activities.

That was hubris—and nemesis is well on the way."

- NEXT17 | Bruce Sterling | Live from 2027

[jquery]

In the same talk, Bruce Sterling also said, "Do what China says. It’s the ascendant model. It’s destroys the California ideology. The Silicon Valley companies can’t get a toe-hold there."

As far as I can tell, the guy doesn't like America or even representative democracy very much. Take that for what you will.

[woolvalley]

Is it Uber / gig-economy apps you don't like, or the general idea of low income relatively unskilled labor jobs?

[platz]

It's the idea of companies externalizing costs onto their labor force, because they refuse to recognize their labor force as "workers".

They avoid responsibility to communities they generate profits in, by exporting negative externalizes at a much higher level than traditional businesses.

Also, I don't think Uber drivers are 'unskilled'. The lowest rung is filtered out by not being able to bring their own $20000 vehicle to participate.

[jquery]

Merely owning a vehicle is an odd definition of skilled labor. They actually do a lot of community engagement (Uber now has huge operations teams all over the world) so that point is either ignorant or outdated. And you seem to object to the idea of independent contractors entirely (unless you can elaborate further), which is your right, but not really a unique strike against Uber.

[UncleEntity]

> Merely owning a vehicle is an odd definition of skilled labor.

Having witnessed countless uber/lyft drivers do their thing I have to agree with your "skilled" assessment.

More on point -- my main objection is they are paying basically at cost pricing to the "driver-partners" when you add up all the costs. Basically, though many will disagree, all they're doing is taking the equity out of their vehicle now instead of at resale time.

[UncleEntity]

> Has a business model that doesn't rely exposing more eyeballs to more ads, corrupting the press, media, and privacy in the process.

Though it does have a business model that (did?) flagrantly disregards the law in pretty much every market it moved into.

And we'll see how the privacy thing turns out when they figure out the data they have on millions/billions of people is worth a bunch of money and Wall Street is demanding "more cowbell".

[jquery]

Yes, Uber suffers from original sin, but you don't become the fastest growing company of all time by avoiding any toe-stepping. Look at the pathetic state of "Jump Bikes" in SF. Uber is judiciously following all the regulations these days (in all areas), and SF is "generously" upping the Jump Bike limit from roughly 200 to 400 total bikes. It's really a pathetic number of bikes and doesn't come close to meeting demand.

[marmaduke]

> you don't become the fastest growing company of all time by avoiding any toe-stepping

this is purified hubris, how can you not vomit on your keyboard while writing that?

> roughly 200 to 400 total bikes. It's really a pathetic number of bikes and doesn't come close to meeting demand

maybe the mandate of SF is not to satisfy demand or Uber's profit incentive but to keep public interest in mind, e.g. ensure that Uber doesn't develop a monopoly on whatever a jump bike is.

[jquery]

>this is purified hubris, how can you not vomit on your keyboard while writing that?

I'm curious how you get around. Do you own a car? It's a fairly privileged view that only the well-off should have access to point-to-point transportation and maybe some civil disobedience was in order to rectify this injustice.

>maybe the mandate of SF is not to satisfy demand or Uber's profit incentive but to keep public interest in mind, e.g. ensure that Uber doesn't develop a monopoly on whatever a jump bike is.

Prior restraint on free enterprise that lacks negative externalities opens the door to crony capitalism replete with bribes, donations, and rent-seeking. In government, never ascribe to benevolence that which can be better explained by greed or power-seeking.

[marmaduke]

> ...

all off topic generalities.

[marmaduke]

Sorry, I don't believe any of that. It reads like "let them eat cake".