Is it just me or are other people also constantly surprised by how many big names have their hands in the 'uber pot'?

It's like there's a massive list of investors and shareholders who are all riding this "sure thing" to big riches. Which makes me wonder two things: 1.) is uber too big too fail? are there so many rich and powerful people invested that they will make uber succeed no matter or 2.) this thing could be the biggest investor flop in recent memory.

After Theranos nothing really surprises me in terms of big names in the pot.

I have wondered about this several times. Amidst so many scandals, what would it take for a zenefits-esque meltdown to take place at Uber? The `too big to fail` ethos never works out well for the consumer.

Nothing really surprising. I would imagine with some thinking and maths one could come up with a number e.g 5,000(just a made up number) power elites controlling media, finance, law and business but may not keep public facing roles all the time.

I hope they end up like Theranos.

I want them to change instead of ending up like Theranos. If Uber went down, a lot of good people would be out of a job (both employees and drivers) and it would burn a lot investors, thus negatively affecting the funding landscape for years to come.

To reiterate, I wish Uber to change. I don't wish them to fail.

> If Uber went down, a lot of good people would be out of a job (both employees and drivers)

Employees yes, drivers not so much. There's plenty of competitors that would love to fill that hole.

> and it would burn a lot investors, thus negatively affecting the funding landscape for years to come.

Maybe letting investors know that company culture of how people are treated has real negative consequences would signal to them that they should pressure these companies to behave in an appropriate manner. Burning investors for ignoring the writing on the wall about Uber's behavior (there's been indications of problematic behavior of executives for years) is exactly what needs to happen.

It's not so much pressuring founders to behave better, as choosing better founders. The "play hard", "meritocratic", "hashtag winning" douchebag seems to be a good choice because they work hard to appear to be a good choice and seem to have the drive to do big things. But if it all falls apart before they can achieve greatness because of the inherent douchefail, then that's a lesson investors need to learn. Don't bet on douchebags.

here here.

maybe voters will learn this too?

i was about to say that these events could make for a great teaching moment, but these are lessons we've been given many many many chances to learn. i'll settle for us once again avoiding eating ourselves alive as a species, and hopefully we avoid eating some scapegoat subset of us alive while we're at it.

Nah they need to fail. Lyft or another competitor would soak up the drivers immediately, a huge number of them already drive for both.

Silicon valley alums of a top tech company are not going to be hurting for jobs in the near future.

It sets the example that bullshit like this is not workable and will bring you down. There are no net downsides to uber falling.

> There's plenty of competitors that would love to fill that hole.

Maybe in the US. Elsewhere (e.g. Toronto), it's Uber or taxi.

But that's because new companies can't compete with the incredible amount of VC funding Uber (and Lyft) have received. Down here in Austin, after Uber and Lyft left, about a half dozen different competitors popped up in about a month. My favorite, Ride Austin, is a non-profit that takes a significantly smaller cut than Uber or Lyft and donates a ton of money to charity.

Nope. Speaking from India it's Ola or "Uber or something else" in big cities and Ola or something else in other cities or towns.

In fact there are many smaller startups that keep coming and going. Bikes, autos, cabs. In fact there was a bus startup too that failed just because it didn't have money to play against the system.

There are rumours of a huge business house (with pretty much endless supply of money and extremely easy access to the central Govt - in fact the PM on a personal level) entering the market.

I think they need to fail because the attitude needs to die. It's easier if they take it with them.

They brought a very Wall Street-esque aggressively cheat your way into becoming too big to fail, at any cost attitude into software. They were chummy with top-dollar lobbyists to get around pesky small-town regulations and unions. Some of those entrenched interests were bad, but even in defeating them, they weren't precisely taking from the rich and giving to the poor either.

The grass is always greener, but they do not resemble software heroes like Carmack or Stallman or (idiosyncratic pick) Newmark at all. When it comes to anti-authoritarianism and civil disobedience, I think Snowden not Kalanick. Even if you want a Randian libertarian, Jimmy Wales over Travis Kalanick.

Uber being too big to fail is delusion. Let the market work itself out.

That's a compelling argument, but I'm not actually sure I want that.

Uber's endgame is self-driving cars, which will put a lot more good people (Uber drivers and non-Uber drivers) out of a job. That's only feasible because of Uber's aggressive attitude to growth and crushing competition in long-term-unsustainable ways in the hope that the technology will materialize soon. If they change enough that this isn't their endgame or they don't pull it off in time, I don't know if they're financially viable.

I think that that goal and that pressure is part of why Uber is as rotten as it is (see how HR repeatedly doesn't want to fire abusive people who are allegedly high performers; even if the rest of their team would do better without them, Uber can't afford to figure that out).

Meanwhile, if they fail outright, it seems like basically all Uber drivers also drive for Lyft, and the engineering staff can get good jobs at lots of other places. It'll also be a good precedent for future companies not to try the strategy Uber has, and hopefully prevent more problems along these lines.

Many of them also drive for Lyft, so probably not.

I don't think Uber should go down but the guilty must be punished even the CEO if found guilty shouldn't be spared.