but the author of that story misread the data. Uber only counts their cut as revenue not the full cost of the ride.
Despite this repetition (now corrected, thx!) of this incorrect data I find the overall thesis of the post compelling! As a disinterested bystander, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
You know what, I may get downvoted for this, but my take is you just can't stop these guys. They'll do whatever it takes to win. I probably spend around $2,000 USD on uber trips per month. And frankly, as much disturbing stuff I hear about these guys, Uber beats the heck out of renting a car in a snowy area (especially after having taken a red-eye to a client site). It also beats the crap out of taking a cab in most places, I usually have to navigate to where I want to go and the taxis aren't as clean or the drivers as friendly. They could double the price, and as long as my company reimbursed it, I'd still take it, because they've just got it down so well. Lyft and the other competitors suffer from availability issues, and the average time it takes for a driver to get to me on Uber is much less than the other ride shares. They've got their product down pat, it's so well designed. What I don't support however is their workplace attitude towards women (whom I applaud for coming out about it, takes guts.) It's made me rethink using the service a few times, but when you've got a product that good and such a demanding schedule, the (sad?) truth is that you'll take whatever little comforts you can that make your life that much easier.
I too was very reluctant to let go of uber for the same reasons. It's difficult to let go of what is clearly an outstanding product.
I also have mixed feelings about Kalanick. I love how bold and aggressive he has been in going to war with ossified privilege and wish that more entrepreneurs had his balls.
But when I read Susan’s blog, I thought to myself “this cannot go unpunished.”
The toxic culture has to be corrected, not just at uber but everywhere it exists. Creating a world in which our daughters will not have to experience what Susan experienced is far more important than the convenience of a great app.
Unfortunately, people do not genuinely change their deeply ingrained habits unless and until they reach a pain threshold which compels them to change their core values. Uber needs to feel that pain right now for the greater good of everyone including uber.
So I deleted uber and switched to using Lyft and, so far, the experience has been surprisingly good. It seems that the engineers at Lyft have done a really great job as well.
I have found that, as a general rule, making the decision to do what is right even when it is uncomfortable is always the decision that leads to greater happiness.
An outstanding product that seems unsustainable (I dont know, just reusing the average theory about Uber bubble) seems a lot like a drug. It accelerates everything, but it dries up it's own soil in the process.
At a guess: cross country sales travel. You could easily rack up 2 or 3 fairly long distance Uber trips / day doing that (Airport -> Hotel -> Client -> Airport to travel to the next client)
I hear ya, but your assumptions are predicate on the quality and availability of Uber service remaining static if they increase their price, and I'm not sure if they can do that. (The current seemingly endless spigot of cost free tech investment capital is leading to some interesting unintended consequences).
That's probably not how it works. Most of the rides itself will make some profit for Uber. However, Uber has huge fixed costs via free rides, ads, salaries, etc. These will create the loss.
So if you have a coupon and use it, it's quite likely that Uber makes a loss. But for most other rides, the driver will usually get a bit less than what you pay. It's just not enough to cover the company costs.
> However, Uber has huge fixed costs via free rides, ads, salaries, etc. These will create the loss.
Would those be essential at this point? Seems like everyone who wants a ride-sharing app has one, so their marketing expense should be substantially down by now.
Startups typically keep the salary expenses controllable by compensating via equity (which does not have to be reported as expense unless one is doing GAAP), so it seems that it should be under control as well.
Personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt.
I've talked with 2-3 Uber drivers in LA area. They seem to be getting 65% to 75% of what passenger pays. I think many of the core Uber markets are fairly profitable. This would imply that majority of the burn is focused on growth in new markets.
Some potential problems with extrapolating the data:
* Small sample size.
* Uber rides cost more in California, observed 65% to 75% might not hold in other mature markets.
I think you're misinterpreting what the post and the GP meant.
What's at issue here isn't that Uber drivers don't get to take home X% of what the passenger pays, but rather that the cost Uber charges passengers isn't enough to keep the business afloat without a significant amount of VC funding.
I think the point of the comment was as kind of an upper bound. For instance if drivers made 100% (or more) of what the passenger pays, then Uber would be obviously not breaking even. At 65-75% it's feasible that at a certain scale Uber's cut would make them profitable.
Feasible but not likely.
From this 25% to 35% Uber will still do this
1. Run their operating business
- Maintain data centers
- Maintain a global web infrastructure
- Maintain the app
2. Run campaigns to compete in markets with strong local competition
- Europe (Hailo, Car2Go, etc)
- Asia (Didi, Ola, Grab, etc)
3. Finance their ongoing operations
- Equity financing expensive
- Debt financing hard to get at this stage and cost money too
4. Hire and retain top talent
5. Legal fees and licensing
6. Rentals for global offices
7. Fund and maintain fleet businesses
8. Invest in R&D (self-driving technology & talent)
9. Entertain M&A
So it looks they have a lot of costs on their plate which their operating business can not cover.
Everything in that list, aside from 2 (advertising and expansion), 7 (fleet operations), and 8 (self-driving R&D, which is honestly well outside of their current business) is dirt cheap in comparison to their operating costs - paying drivers, vehicle purchasing, insurance, and maintenance, and buying fuel.
Service and hardware businesses have completely different cost structures as compared to tech companies.
Think about it - standard deduction is about about 50 cents per mile for vehicle costs, and actually having a human in the seat probably costs more than 50 cents per mile ($ per hour divided by average speed), and the average drive is about 5 miles. We're talking well over $5 in wholesale operating costs for each ride. Times literally a million rides per day.
The cost of a few programmers and servers is tiny in comparison.
> self-driving R&D, which is honestly well outside of their current business
According to the CEO, self-driving cars are "existential" to Uber's success. They may need something that disruptive to meet the company's sky high valuation.
as far as it goes for "world domination" I've read before that Uber's plan is to make everyone's (self-driving car) a money making machine for Uber and the car owner.
You go to work at 9am and while at work 9.01am to 4.59pm your car drives around making you both money. The same applies for when you return home 6.01pm to 8am the next day.
No drivers, only Auto-bots ;) and paying customers!
(makes me wonder how much Insurance companies will be making from this setup)(and if they are ready/preparing their numbers for this type of business)
It wouldn't be too hard for them to throw in a cleaning mechanism in there somehow.
If you find the car filthy, I'm sure a customer would too, so it's in their interest to fix it and I'm sure it's even easy to automate the cleaning process :-)
That is my suspicion as well though I will add that in addition to spending to grow in new markets they are also, quite obviously, spending a lot to develop self driving cars (possibly sometimes through nefarious means!). Unclear if you count that as "growth in new markets" or not.
Uber seems to offer quite generous bonuses to drivers who complete milestones (e.g. $600 bonus for 100 trips in a week, for instance). Every time I've chatted with a driver in Oakland, it seems that the bonuses are generally in the $5-7 per trip range. I've also been alone for many Uber Pool rides where I am nowhere close to being an economically viable passenger for the driver ($6 for a ride that costs the driver at least half an hour of time and requires more than 10 miles of driving).
Pool is profitable on average, but low margin, so any particular ride is likely to be an expense. Much like how a casino loses money on 49% of slots sessions.
Sliding off topic but I think that's more like 49% of pulls. The amount of time that it takes a slot machine to drive your odds of walking away richer down to hopeless levels is pretty short.
I have only played slots for a few hours, but my lifetime average is up ~3x and a few hundred dollars vs. what I put into the machines. So, I think they are set fairly close to break even as that's from a few dozen minor wins vs a single jackpot. Honestly, if every single time someone played for 3+ hours they where always down then fewer people would come back.
That said, they probably set machines in very high traffic areas to terrible odds to catch as many suckers as possible.
It's likely that the RNG's in slots don't produce uniformly distributed wins and losses except over long timeframes.
A machine that's truly random will result in everyone losing money slowly and reliably after a large number of pulls. So not fun. A machine built to have the odds wander around over a period of time will be more unpredictable with a greater earnings spread
I don't think that slots can be stateful between plays - there are extremely stringent regulations for slot machines and odds. For instance, if you advertise a 99.95% slot giveback, they will test that.
Also, for video poker and card games, the wins and losses are distributed as if it were a real deck of cards shuffled between hands. There are strict regulations there too, and payout percentages based on the rules of the game and the payout values for each type of poker hand.
Yes. I should have amended the statement in that slot machines, the odds of each outcome are stateless, and the payouts for each outcome must be clearly stated.
For progressive Jackpots, the chances of you hitting the Jackpot on two successive pulls are the same as you hitting the jackpot on two pulls far apart. The payouts are different, but as you said, that is not hidden information.
Slot machines are able to use psychological tricks, I believe, such as showing "almost hits" with a higher probability than them actually occurring. "Oh, if that one symbol had just changed, I'd be a millionaire right now!"
not allowed in Nevada. odds on a slot machine can be changed but
State law allows them to change the odds after a machine has been idle for four minutes, and then they must not allow anyone to play the machine for four more minutes. During that time, the screen must indicate a change is being made to the game's configuration, said Travis Foley, laboratory manager for the technology division of the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, who is overseeing the Treasure Island test.
(How many people do you suppose play lotteries week in week out never winning back a fraction of what they out in, but dreaming about and planning what they're gonna spend the $10,000,000 jackpot on?)
These machines have a fairly low max payout. Winning 500$ is nice, but hardly a life changing event. Further, the cost is higher, where a lotto might cost 2$ for some hope these machines can burn 20$ fairly quickly.
As to odds. If you have a 1% chance to win 99$ and play 90 times you are likely to be up 9$ and have a lower odds of being down 90$ And even lower odds of being up 108$. Over long enough time frames you still lose money, but it feels very different from losing 0.01 cents per pull.
They probably set those the highest so passerbys see people win most and sit down. That is what I seem to have heard but a case could be made either way
The number was determined by looking at gross revenues (which is just Uber's cut of rides not the total that customers pay) and comparing it to corporate expenses (which is not the same thing as what it costs to deliver the rides). It's an almost non sensical calculation.
The fact that it has been widely reported is a sad statement on the innumeracy of journalism.
I will add that I suspect that some corporate expenses are going to the driver in the form of bonuses or minimum per hour earnings (Uber has had a lot incentive programs for drivers). This, kinda, goes to the cost of a ride. I have no idea how much money this is overall. A lot maybe.
> Net sales, or net revenue, is the money a company gets from doing business with its customers. Net income is profit -- what's left over after the company has accounted for all its revenue, expenses, gains, losses, taxes and other obligations.
Uber almost certainly counts the revenue. This is a standard silicon valley way of getting a higher VC valuation.
This is important because if the money is flowing through Uber's pockets then Uber has the ability to adjust the diversion of revenue into income. ( and the VCs know this )
Look at the random silicon valley startup marketplace that reports how many millions of dollars they sold. All revenue - but the income may be pitiful.
Uber almost certainly counts the revenue. This is a standard silicon valley way of getting a higher VC valuation.
It does not, as you can plainly see if you look at the nakedcapitalism link. Revenue is a separate, and much smaller, number than total passenger payments.
AFAIK there is not enough publicly available data to answer this question. But total_corporate_revenue(1) / total_corporate_spend(2) is an almost nonsensical way to calculate that number.
(1) which is not the same thing, at all, as the total amount customers are paying for rides
(2) which is not the same thing, at all, as the cost of providing all uber rides
Any percentage given is very misleading. In nearly all cases, Uber will make a profit when you take a ride. However, they built such an expensive company (huge R&D department, zillions of free coupons, ads everywhere) that they cannot pay for it without making a loss.
If they suddenly had 10x as many rides or would shed coupons and R&D, they'd probably be profitable. But they'd also lose their edge they hope to have over Lyft & Co.
NB: There are of course areas where they offer rides below the driver's cut, but that's probably rare after they exited China.
Among the circumstantial evidence, the self-funding aspect is what jumped out at me the most. This is the equivalent of a hedge fund manage buying something based on inside information, but only for his personal account. Why cut other people in on the wink-and-nod-guaranteed payday? Besides, Lewandowski couldn't realistically raise money through proper channels if his pitch amounted to, "I stole stuff from Waymo."
"Besides, Lewandowski couldn't realistically raise money through proper channels if his pitch amounted to, "I stole stuff from Waymo."
yes he could, the team and him had a killer track record and he wouldn't admit to stealing anything from Waymo
"He joined Google in 2007 as part of its Maps team and helped to build the company’s Street View product. When Google gave the green light to begin working on a self-driving car in 2009, Mr. Thrun picked Mr. Levandowski for the original team.
Mr. Levandowski gained some notoriety within Google for selling start-ups, which he had done as side projects, to his employer. In his biography for a real estate firm, for which he is a board member, Mr. Levandowski said he sold three automation and robotics start-ups to Google, including 510 Systems and Anthony’s Robots, for nearly $500 million. After this story was published, the real estate firm updated its website erasing Mr. Levandowski’s biography and said that it had “erroneously reported certain facts incorrectly without Mr. Levandowski’s knowledge.”"
"And yet, one of Google’s most strategic acquisitions has mysteriously been actively blocked from public view. An investigation by IEEE Spectrum has uncovered the surprising fact that Google’s innovative self-driving car and the revolutionary Street View camera technology that preceded it were largely built by 510 Systems, a tiny start-up in Berkeley, Calif."
Not going to imply he stole, but rephrasing the question as why would someone really rich want to steal?
Greed.
It's why politicians who have enough money for several generations continue to take more and more bribes. (I live in Sri Lanka and witness this on a regular blatant basis).
Enough or more than enough isn't a reason for human nature to not want more. It actually seems to be a driver to get more by any means. (my assumption )
Maybe it wasn't about the money and he just wanted to continue working on autonomous vehicles on new terms for a different parent company, without losing all the previous work.
This is also stealing in my opinion, but it might be a little more nuanced than for pure greed.
Sure. If this individual did actually steal these, it really demonstrates the poisonous nature of greed. I'm not sure how else to explain the failure to quantify the the risk of getting caught which seems to be sufficiently high.
That was definitely a red flag, but for me it would have to be how quickly Otto was able to develop the 64 laser LiDAR circuit board in such a short amount of time. This was a circuit board that reduced the cost of LiDAR by an order of magnitude and Otto was able to design and build it in 6 months. Additionally, the orchestration of the events leading to the acquisition were clearly premeditated.
In hindsight, a better crook would have accepted outside funding just to cover this line of attack (Assuming the Otto Founder is guilty; of course it might be otherwise).
I think that's his point. In this scenario, you can't raise any meaningful amount of outside funding without either getting very lucky, coming clean about your crime, or raising very small amounts. You go to a prospective VC and tell them you're going to be a super-successful self-driving car with an exit of $1b. 'Why? What makes you so awesome?' 'Well...' Either you tell them the truth, you give up a large fraction of equity just to get a token $1m investment, or you go away with $10k for 1%. In the first case, they may blow the whistle on you; in the second case, you reduce your eventual payment by a lot just for some dubious plausibility; and in the third case, you have the hassle of outside investment for no real plausibility at all.
Mechanisms for self-funding are not always transparent. For example, someone might have given him an enormous private loan that he repaid after Uber bought Otto. For example. In a hypothetical universe.
Has there ever been an indication into what stuff was actually stolen? The only evidence I've seen so far has been of old hardware (LIDAR interface boards etc.). That's hardly anything to construct a grand buyout conspiracy about.
However, if the stolen material had the results of years of training data generated from all the trial runs, that would be Google's only edge in the whole market.
It's possible that specialized hardware is also a valuable trade secret. Or perhaps simply the method of manufacturing such hardware cheaply enough to produce one for every vehicle.
In the filings, Waymo claims that even the identity of a LiDAR component supplier is a trade secret (because of how long it took them to vet the different suppliers).
Yeah, this is a big deal. Uber has gambled everything on self-driving cars, what with their absurd burn rate and all. If that gets shut down because of trade secret injunctions, I don't think they have time to pivot to another strategy, especially after their reputation has nosedived.
I'll be really interested in seeing what happens if Uber can't recover from the burn rate and make a sustainable business without self driving.
I can see in the best possible scenario we end up with more cities like Austin, Texas that have their own nonprofit ride sharing app. I actually have huge respect for what Austin did in banning Uber and Lyft and making their own app (Ride Austin) that isn't designed to make investors and owners rich, instead just benefit drivers and riders.
1) Austin did not ban Uber or Lyft. The city council passed an ordinance that required a gradually increasing percentage of rideshare drivers pass an FBI-approved fingerprint background check. (These rules are in place in other locales in which Uber operates, such as NYC and Houston.) Uber and Lyft formed a PAC that got a proposition on the next local election ballot that would have overturned the ordinance, then spent $9 million on a massive advertising campaign supporting the proposition. The proposition failed overwhelmingly.
2) Uber and Lyft stopped providing services of their own volition within 48 hours. Considering they abide by the same regulations in other cities, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was done in retaliation in order to show other cities considering doing the same that they will actually pull out.
3) Several upstart ridesharing companies immediately jumped into the market and were fully operational in less than a month and are complying fully with the regulations. (Examples are Fasten, Fare, RideAustin, and GetMe.)
4) RideAustin is registered as a non-profit organization, formed by several local tech entrepreneurs affiliated with Capital Factory, an Austin accelerator/VC firm. It is not owned or operated by the city in any fashion.
#3 if anything should be proof to Uber's potential future investors that they need to be wary that Uber has anything but name recognition and first mover advantage.
They have no moat, no barrier to entry, and a whole lot of hubris just waiting to mature in the form of fierce competitors and negative PR.
To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads. e.g. I would not, from experience, trust fasten to get me back home at 2.30am on a weekend night (even if I'm willing to pay their "boosted" fares).
Its not an unsolvable problem though. I bet if they could hire more/better engineers and invest in infra for reliability they could be a lot better. And it might actually happen if Uber suddenly raises its prices and people look around for alternatives.
I think Uber and Lyft have made a huge mistake by leaving Austin. First of all they showed drivers and passengers just how little they cared about them; a lot of people in Austin were really angry at them and continue to be. Second, their stunt did not work. There was, obviously, a lot of backlash against the Mayor and local politicians but that has died down and the city has moved on. But lastly, and most importantly, the Austin market became available exclusively to all the other ridesharing apps, giving them a leg up and a source of reliable income and feedback.
I get the feeling that next time this happens in another city, the other apps will similarly step in and take over the market. But this time they will be faster and better prepared.
> To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads
This is where someone should come in and offer business software that is easily branded to handle the technical aspect of the business, and just sell it to the new entrants. This is a great market for shovels.
Plus, the software has easy existing customer bases in pre-existing cab companies looking to modernize ancient dispatch systems. Uber/Lyft argue that market disintermediation and union breaking are a feature, but in most metropolitans it certainly seems like a bug.
What happens when Google, Apple, Amazon or other company with a solid cloud app team steps in?
Austin's homegrown competitors may not be fearful, but one of the existing majors could single-handedly shatter Uber's image with a half-decent app, esp if it's integrated with something like Google Maps or Apple Wallet or equivalent feed.
> What happens when Google, Apple, Amazon or other company with a solid cloud app team steps in?
This is sort of a fundamental problem with our entire conception of a digital economy. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are fundamentally the only games in town that can compete. Our regulations, laws, and economics are not well set up to deal with the fact that there is a wholly new type of meta-entity that is so overwhelmingly important for modern business.
We can barely regulate (and often fail to regulate) the energy industry appropriately and that's a way more competitive market.
I read a poignant comment on Twitter the other day, about how nowadays public libraries and fire services would never be funded - perhaps we'd give illiterate people tax credits for buying books, and insurance companies would have private fire engines.
The neo-liberal agenda of not allowing any public entity to provide services that could possibly compete with a private corporation has succeeded too well.
I pay for fire protection as part of my property taxes. In this case, it's a separate item that must be purchased separately. That's what makes it "a cancer"?
As the morons in the article said: Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.
Yeah, I agree. I also move to let sick people die if we can't verify that they have insurance coverage, and bar children from education if their parents can't pay (or if they are orphaned). I mean, screw poor people! Right?
No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee?
I had a friend who had no sympathy for another friend who was diagnosed with throat cancer, because he smoked cigarettes. Didn't matter that the person had cancer, what mattered is that they smoked cigarettes and knew the risks. It was forgivable on the first friend's part because he was also heavily medicated for a psychiatric illness.
No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee?
Well, yes, sympathy from me as in "sucks to be them". But they were adults and made a voluntary decision to forego paying for fire protection. They made a bet and they lost.
As for cancer, when I was in high school some 40 years ago, I knew a US Army Major (i.e. Gung-ho military) who smoked. Even then, smoking was starting to be frowned upon. So he used to say "any fool can quit smoking. It takes a man to face cancer."
At a personal level, if I ran into that person now and it turned out he indeed had cancer, I would of course have sympathy for him. But perhaps he and I would both agree that adults sometimes make bad decisions, and they then should accept the consequences of those bad decisions.
As Niven and Pournelle explained it back in 1981: "think of it as evolution in action".
I respect your different point of view on this matter. But if I may act as the devil's advocate: what if it was your brother (or father) that said that to you? Would you not volunteer help to them if they said those things and are now suffering from cancer?
Personally, I don't think we should reward people for making bad decisions; you are implicitly punishing the people who made the good ones, which are often hard. However, rewarding is one thing; saving from death/destitution is quite another.
Would you not volunteer help to them if they said those things and are now suffering from cancer?
Yes of course families help each other no matter the previous bad choices.
On a societal level we try to help people with cancer even if they don't have health insurance. That's what Medicaid is. Unfortunately that only helps save them from death; destitution probably feels almost as bad and we don't have an easy solution to that.
Can you, for certain, tell if someone who is diagnosed with cancer 100% directly caused that cancer?
At the point that someone is diagnosed with cancer, what is gained by saying "I told you so"?
Would you go as far as to say that to someone who got stomach cancer? That they should accept the consequences of eating cured meats while they and their family suffer?
What about prostate cancer? Did you know that the risk of prostate cancer is decreased by 20% - 30% for each of the following: 1) regular prostate massages 2) increased number of orgasms 3) drinking coffee 4) ingesting more lycopene 5) exercising (41% decrease in risk of developing prostate cancer!) 5) consuming more omega-3 fatty acids.
Would you hold the same "I told you so" attitude towards someone diagnosed with prostate cancer because they didn't have enough kinky sex, drink enough coffee, exercise and eat the right foods?
I'm having a hard time differentiating between "didn't pay $75" and "didn't exercise or rub their prostate hard / often enough".
There's a big difference between having "no sympathy" (which is what I said) and "I told you so".
"No sympathy" means indifference. The problems of people who didn't pay for fire service should be a cautionary tale, a warning to society at large. As the article said: by now, everyone should know about the city's fire policy. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time"
"I told you so" is much different. It's "rubbing it in" at a personal level. I would never say "I told you so" to friends or to random people. I would, however, say it to my children in the appropriate situation. Pointing out consequences of bad choices helps children learn to make better choices.
I'm having a hard time differentiating
In "didn't pay $75", the people who don't pay but still expect to be covered are making a deliberate choice to freeload off the goodwill of their neighbors who are paying. How does a fire department exist if paying for it is optional? There is no 'fire department tooth fairy' that periodically delivers money to pay for salaries and equipment.
Cancer is much different. As you note, there isn't 100% certainly what causes a cancer. Lung cancer is one that can be closely linked to smoking, but even there it's not absolute. A quick search turns up a CDC web page that links 80% to 90% of the cases to smoking.[1]
In the case of cancer, interestingly enough it's once again an issue of insurance. Even when I was 20 years old and working a shitty no-benefit low paying job I still paid for my own health insurance. I was only being paid $4 per hour but I prioritized insurance highly enough to pay $100 per month for it. (Granted, that was 40 years ago, it's much harder to afford individual insurance today without some sort of subsidy or group policy).
In your hypothetical situations, did the stomach cancer or prostate cancer patient have insurance? If not, how is it once again not a freeloader problem? There's certainly no reason to say "I told you so". That appears to be a strawman you invented to avoid discussing the real issue which IMO is freeloading.
Hmmm... interesting idea. I wonder it autonomous vehicles would enable this even more? I wouldn't mind paying a little extra tax to my local government to enable them to maintain a fleet of self-driving vehicles that I could summon with an app.
Imagine the beauty of this tax if it were not mandatory. Kind of like a gov. service, but without any threat attached to it. Like a private startup out something..
Yep I wasn't clear. Austin banned some of the wild west behavior of Uber and Lyft, and they refused to follow along with reasonable restrictions and decided to protest by leaving Austin.
Interesting that Uber and Lyft work together on political influence campaigns like this, given Uber's strategy of bleeding out Lyft through their VC subsidized capital advantage. I would think that just letting them both get shut out of a given city would be a win for Uber.
They weren't "shut out" they were subjected to a popularly-enacted municipal ordinance requiring Austin-administered finger-printing of drivers and decided to stop providing service to Austin.
Are you sure it was to make an example or there was something unique / different about Austin that made both companies not want to provide business there?
This is really crazy to me. I feel like they missed an opportunity to build a moat by treating drivers as employees. Complete with health and non compete.
How is what Austin did good? It dissuades capital investment and innovation. City governments were why rides were so expensive and service was poor for decades upon decades. Taxi licensing and medallions priced out everyone. Soon Austin's city government could easily be "captured" and limit the number of drivers, driving up ride prices and stifling competition. That wouldn't be market demand driving (unlike surge pricing.) That's actually why they passed the measure in the first place, the taxi lobby was incredibly strong. Now people I know in Austin use work around to use Uber.
> That's actually why they passed the measure in the first place, the taxi lobby was incredibly strong.
No the measure passed because Uber and Lyft failed to understand Austin culture and shot themselves in the foot by annoying Austinites with intrusive tactics that made them look bad in the eyes of a local culture that tends to be fiercely anti big business. It's the same type of mistake Airbnb made in SF with their big marketing campaign of 2015 that just offended everyone.
As someone who voted "against" Uber/Lyft, I can promise you their PACs misleading and blatantly false propaganda regarding the city ordinance directly caused them to lose my vote. That and people love getting 4 fliers per day in their mailbox.
Politicians were captured by the taxi industry and exploited the liberal environment of Austin to achieve an effective ban on larger sharing services. What more is there to know?
Are you kidding? They proceeded to create an incubator of competitors with both of the biggest players out of the way. I've watched several of these apps grow and thrive because of the market that Uber & Lyft created and then abandoned.
They work fantastically. Ride Austin is actually way better than Uber in my opinion. In fact even if Uber and Lyft decided to start following the city regulations and return to Austin I would probably never use either in Austin again, simply because I prefer the non profit approach that respects drivers and gives them a much higher percentage.
Ride Austin is far from "way better" on par when the service works maybe but hardly better.
This past Saturday none of the ride sharing services could handle demand and all went down. No riders could request and an no drivers could accept.
Also when the service does work glitches like seeing the login screen when you are already logged in are routine.
Source: I'm in Austin right now for sxsw and I'm a former Austin resident.
Also this whole debacle was a clear and present tax grab for the city please dont pretend it wasn't.
Now on balance Uber and Lyft ran an AWFUL campaign against the regulations when they already do background checks but still that was always about money.
I disagree with your "tax grab" angle since there is no evidence of that. Unless you mean that the city of Austin was somehow going to make money off fingerprinting?
"(A) Each TNC operating in the City of Austin shall pay an annual fee calculated by the department based on one of the following methods of that TNCs choosing:
(1) The total of the permit fee paid by taxicab companies times the number of persons driving for the TNC;
(2) One (1) percent of the TNCs annual local gross revenues, or a comparable percentage of a TNCs portion of driver fares; or
(3) Based on total miles driven.
(B) Except for any TNC participating in the Safety Assurance Program, each TNC shall pay an additional fee of one (1) percent of the TNCs annual local gross revenue for the Compliant Driver Education Fund to be used to assist and incent drivers to become compliant."
Also, it was about much more than just fingerprinting. Fingerprinting was emphasized because it would have affected Uber and Lyft's business model the most by reducing the supply of drivers due to higher onboarding friction.
- "A TNC shall establish a driver-training program designed to ensure that each driver safely operates his or her vehicle prior to the driver being able to offer service"
- "during periods of abnormal market disruptions, dynamic pricing shall be prohibited."
- ...and the whole reporting section where they have to hand over all their internal operating data to the city
> because I prefer the non profit approach that respects drivers and gives them a much higher percentage
For now. I generally prefer for-profit approaches because their motivations are far more transparent. They want to make money for the investors.
Non-profits exist to serve the wishes of the donors, which may be opaque. For instance, the Ride Austin investors might suddenly decide that they really want to focus on transportation to/from low income areas or art festivals. That would degrade service, and there would be no accountability to the customer in that regard.
Yeah I can understand that. Honestly, the non profit / coop thing is just a big part of Austin culture.
Not only are food coops a pretty big deal in Austin, but when I lived in Austin even the electricity company that I got my power from was a coop (https://www.pec.coop/) and if the coop made too much money it redistributed the profits back out as credits to member accounts. I generally ended up with one out of twelve months effectively being free because of profit credits being redistributed back out to my account.
The whole culture of coops and nonprofit service organizations is something I really miss about Austin now that I no longer live there.
With for-profit enterprises, there's generally an objective measure of how well you're doing, the bottom line.
Non profits, you can get a lot of people arguing about how to best fulfill the intents of the non-profit. In that situation, whoever argues the most persuasively or loudly wins, and it's the customers that suffer.
> if the coop made too much money it redistributed the profits back out as credits to member accounts.
This is great and all, but wouldn't that money be more effectively utilized maintaining or upgrading the grid or investing in renewable energy? Seems like the co-op model never really invests in progress.
I don't think coops are necessarily anti maintenance or investment. Obviously they have to maintain their core business just like any other business. The difference is a for profit company distributes extra profit that they have on top of their basic needs out as dividends to big investors and as salary for a CEO. On the other hand a coop distributes that same money out to all the customers.
Well in this case sure, competition is good and apparently Austin has multiple choices so everything is fine but competition is not always the answer. Competition does not seem to be the answer to public transit for example. It's not such a leap to say that ride sharing type apps might end up being replaced by a more personal and dynamic form of bus service.
I don't know how much Uber cost in Austin, but it seems like the base costs for calling a car are $4.50; I've gotten Uber rides for less than that in NYC, and the cost has been the prime reason to call them (I probably would have taken a bus otherwise).
I am very interested to see if aggressive pricing and cost/route optimisation can unlock enough demand to make pooling actually viable economically, which none of the Uber/Lyft alternatives really seem willing to try.
I believe you when you say you've had a good experience with Ride Austin, but I think you've been lucky. I've never been able to successfully book a ride with either Ride Austin or Fasten :\
Very well. Now closing in on a year without Uber or Lyft, Fasten, Fare, and RideAustin have really come into their own as reliable options, especially on weekends that don't have extremely high demand numbers (ACL, SXSW, NYE weekends the apps have been less reliable).
Kind of like how banning competition through taxi medallions are great because instead of investors and owners becoming rich, it just benefit drivers and riders.
I'm honestly amazed that anybody bought "pivot to self-driving cars" as a strategy. Even if it did work and they built perfect working autonomous vehicle software, right now, legitimately, what's the next step? Were they going to buy and operate a fleet? Have random people sign up to rent their unused cars out as taxis?
It's not problematic at all. But it would require Uber to cease being a software company and start being, like, an actual taxi service, with physical assets and vehicles and garages and maintenance. The whole reason Uber is competitive with actual taxi services is that those costs are all offloaded to the poor saps who drive for them.
That sort of thing is outsourcable... Just work with a manufacturer or a car rental company, they'd do the maintenance, and Uber would do the stolen, allegedly, software.
But they also don't have to pay the drivers at all. It's a pivot from making the drivers foot the bill but its not obviously untenable as a business model. I think the part that should raise eyebrows is Uber's claim they can actually build the cars before they run out of money.
They will have to change their entire organization, structure and how they do business, to accommodate this. It's as "easy" as copying Apple's vertically integrated model - many have tried...
They'll take that risk for one single day. Then they'll wake up the next morning with their vehicle, which they rented out to Uber for taxi rides overnight, parked in their driveway full of vomit. That's the best case scenario, where the box actually exists and works, and Uber can find a sucker.
Their "taxi" business model was completely unsustainable. A moonshot was/is the only thing that'd save them. That's why they did this (the self-driving part we know for sure, and the alleged stuff, if proven).
Taxi services are a centuries-old profitable business model (London had first laws regulating "taxis" in the 1600s).
Dispatch via app is a solid improvement over the old phonecalls or street pickup, automatic credit card billing is an improvement over cash, and in cities with shady taxi drivers, GPS tracking is an improvement over potentially hacked taxi meters.
So there is an obviously valuable business model for "taxi dispatch app" here even without a moonshot - just perhaps smaller than Uber's dream of being the only provider of personal transportation in the world.
i never understood why something like food / grocery delivery never took off with lyft/uber. they could partner with costco and do deliveries. I would love that.
They literally do this. It's also not that great. Want to pay $12.00 for a cold $8.00 sandwich? Safeway has its own delivery service in some markets and so does Amazon. Instacart does Costco delivery as well. Costco itself has business delivery at least and possibly other delivery options.
Yeah, but for Costco it actually makes sense. Costco sells items that are big, bulky and hard to transport, and they already do a ton of logistics - supply chain stuff is a big part of why they remain profitable. Uber is trying to do something that other people are already doing, better, for less cost, without experience. It isn't working out.
Does supply chain expertise really carry over to last mile delivery though? Especially hot food delivery. Seems like Uber's strength is getting to where the customer actually is instead of putting the product where it is most economical.
> Dispatch via app is a solid improvement over the old phonecalls or street pickup, automatic credit card billing is an improvement over cash, and in cities with shady taxi drivers, GPS tracking is an improvement over potentially hacked taxi meters.
It's also the easiest part to copy, most taxi companies have already. Now try asking they investors why the spent so many billions of dollars to break into the taxi business?
I disagree. They were in a prime position to be "the" self driving car company, if anyone was. Instead, hyper aggressive business tactics (which were largely unwarranted) has backfired.
The issue is that autonomous tech that's good enough to do what Uber would need it to do (reliable door to door transportation without a human available to take any degree of control in a wide range of conditions) isn't close. Even a decade or two--which IMO is optimistic--isn't really a useful timeframe for Uber.
i disagree again, making cars isn't the competitive advantage it's being able to run and service large fleets of cars, taxi / bus companies with all the physical plants would have the competitive advantage out of the gate.
I disagree, if you make the cars you can create them from the ground up to be self driving taxis. Think of all the improvements you could make to make better use of the cabin.
If you are retrofitting existing cars you are wasting a ton of money and getting a half baked solution to a dedicated provider.
What position is that? Having a popular taxi app? That really isn't much; that advantage can disappear in an instant when a cheaper/better competitor appears.
Actually developing self-driving tech and then deploying it is almost entirely unrelated to the business that Uber has developed thus far. It's an enormous undertaking, and they were starting from almost zero.
They're a decade late and have no engineering culture. All they could do was throw money at the problem. If they weren't hyper aggressive they would have looked to partner with someone more experienced or to play vendors off each other.
Prime candidates for sure but I don't know about prime position as they clearly had a lot of ground to make up on the tech. I agree with you on the hyper-aggressive business tactics, I bet there was an Aha! moment where they were like..wait, what if we get rid of the drivers?!
A taxi company has well understood financials and valuation and would never be given a crack at VC Lotto.
In addition, the kind of quality control that Uber/Lyft exert over drivers almost certainly places the drivers in the position of being employees which makes things even more unprofitable.
They're not. Every major car company plus competitors are focusing on self-driving cars. Why pay a human what a machine can do for cheaper? Uber's future depends on being first with self driving cars.
Being a good taxi company in the 21st century will mean good at self-driving cars.
I disagree. Uber's transportation-as-a-service model is likely to be far more cost effective when applied to self driving cars than car ownership is. Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive, making outright buying one cost-prohibitive. By the time costs come down transportation-as-a-service will have taken over the industry, and few people will have any particular desire to own their own car anymore.
Not to mention that transportation-as-a-service would also be a lot more convenient than car ownership. No need to refuel, repair, or otherwise maintain your vehicle; just grab whichever one happens to be nearby. You can have as many or as few cars as you need at any particular moment, and get a car of any model or paint color you want at the push of a button.
> Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive...
Not relevant to my assertion. I said when they become the norm, as in, when they're no more expensive as other cars.
> ... transportation-as-a-service would also be a lot more convenient than car ownership.
This means I can share a car with several friends, neighbors, or room-mates with little fuss. The problem with sharing a car today is licensing, insurance, and the inconvenience of the car being stuck somewhere when in use. If it acted, instead, as your own personal driver it can handle multiple trips concurrently. Two people go to the movies, so they're committed for X hours, and in that interim instead of sitting in a parking lot the car can deal with other things.
Uber's business model arbitrages the difficulty and expense of owning a car vs. the expense of buying a cab ride. If the car becomes more cost effective because of personal ride-sharing their margin evaporates.
Today a decent car would cost me about $600/mo. all-in. If I could buy a 1/6th share in a car for $100/mo. and be able to use it in short stints with little contention that's going to be cheaper than Uber if I use it more than a handful of times.
> I said when they become the norm, as in, when they're no more expensive as other cars.
My point is that self-driving cars will become the norm long before they're "no more expensive as other cars" precisely because of transportation-as-a-service companies like Uber. By the time we start getting anywhere near the point where self-driving cars are "no more expensive as other cars", car ownership will already have been largely supplanted by transportation-as-a-service.
> If I could buy a 1/6th share in a car for $100/mo. and be able to use it in short stints with little contention that's going to be cheaper than Uber if I use it more than a handful of times.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're describing transportation-as-a-service, but with the additional restriction of you only being able to use one particular car that you "own" 1/6th of instead of any car that happens to be nearby at the time when you request it.
That sounds like a needless restriction, and negates many of the advantages of transportation-as-a-service (no need to refuel, repair, or otherwise maintain your vehicle, the flexibility to obtain as many cars as you want at any particular moment, the ability to use a pickup truck one day and a minivan the next, etc).
Also, why would that be cheaper than Uber? I think a service like Uber is likely to be far more efficient with the usage of their self-driving fleet than you could ever be with any one, individual car, even if that car _is_ shared between multiple people.
They were hoping for a combination of first-mover advantage and recognizable brand name / known player.
If you're used to taking an Uber on occasion, taking an AutoUber isn't a big deal, just like trying a new coffee at Starbucks.
Even if GM is selling L5 autonomous cars to everybody in 2025, they're going to cost as much as a car does. Why buy it when you can pay by the ride? And Uber wants to be the name you think of when summoning a ride.
Not so much buying one, but if you really do own one, then you can rent your car out autonomously. Ford, GM and others have mentioned this is the plan, so Uber's model is really junked because everyone is an uber/lyft.
If Uber doesn't have a path to profitability before fully autonomous self-driving cars are viable and legal in enough markets (5 years?) then I don't think they had a chance even without this debacle.
They have a path to profitability without self-driving cars. They don't have a path to justifying a 70 billion dollar valuation without self-driving cars on the horizon IMO.
Outside of the case, the most striking thing to me about this is the level of detail that Google has over the logs and actions of their laptop. They were able to tell that a memory card was plugged in for 8 hours a year ago?
I have trouble finding exactly how a customer encountered a 500 10 minutes ago.
I was a Windows engineer for Google's Corp Eng PaaS SRE team and have familiarity with this topic.
It's not hard to get this data or set this data collection up on a Windows domain or machine. Anyone can set this up as long as you have the TBs to collect the data and the presentation/searching layer to find it.
Windows has the ability to log everything, including device installs/uninstalls, file opens/closes/creation/deletion, logons/logoffs, you name it. The Windows Auditing library is really, really, really extensive.
Additionally, setting this up in Active Directory is really easy, both manually and magically with Powershell. It takes about ten minutes or so.
As you would iamgine, most of these policies were enabled on the domain to which most users authenticated and the data it collected was siphoned off to essentially a giant cluster of syslog servers.
In fact, just about any domain will audit device plugs/unplugs. Had Anthony known about this (it's easy to find out even if you're not an admin), he would've not plugged in that memory stick :)
In general, it's pretty hard to do stealthy stuff on Google's network. Everything is logged eight ways to Sunday, especially with GAIA and key-based, two factor auth to EVERYTHING. And unlike most other networks, I wouldn't put it past their security engineers to find shady behavior in a moment's notice.
I don't think GAIA has been publicly commented on by the company, in case that matters to you at all. Could be wrong, though, as it seems the term is present in the deposition and un-redacted.
FWIW Google seems to refer to the GAIA ID in stuff like random error messages, documentation for Google Apps, and in data downloaded from Google Takeout. If it's not supposed to be public information then Google isn't doing a very good job.
Just think of "MoMA" as "the intranet," which is about the best way to explain it. Not super interesting.
Weird that he'd allegedly type "I've never logged into Subversion before, but suddenly I need access" into MoMA, but hey. The whole saga just reminds me that people are really bad at opsec.
The Google Drive/GAIA linkage is the most interesting technical revelation from a quick read. I'm surprised they didn't redact that little trick, because that seems to be the best way to catch the very people doing this. Most people would be forgiven for assuming that a Google consumer product might be a little more obfuscated in terms of forensics (logs access, PII, etc), and I could see that train of thought even though it's dumb. I guess they're willing to burn the technique, because the next person who attempts this will definitely avoid Google Drive.
If you send your kernel logs to a syslog server you could get that pretty easily. From plugging a USB stick into my computer just now, then running dmesg:
[14863.014481] usb-storage 2-4:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected
...
[15045.488440] usb 2-4: USB disconnect, device number 34
They do, though, have quite a bit of pretty impressive logging!
If I read this correctly at this point the machine was running Windows. I have zero doubts, however, that Windows has equivalent impressive logging, apparently the USB vendor and device ID pair was recorded as well.
Absolutely. The Windows Event Viewer logs heaps of stuff, and has heaps more you can enable. When I'm particularly lazy and forget to do my timesheet, I use it to look when I booted/shut/locked/unlocked down my work PC to get an idea of how long I worked.
You're talking about a company whose mission is "to organize the world's information". If you're an employee thinking about wrong-doing, you've gotta have that in the back if your mind.
Mountable device tracking is very common to log. My company started implementing when we went from 20 to 30 employees. When things like this are at stakes, it's a small price to pay. In fact, it is so well known that this kind of tracking exists that very few people actually do try and actually do insert mountable devices in their computers, which makes the tracking even easier.
Does anyone know if this information was collected as part of a monitoring service or if it was collected by forensically recovering the data from the laptops hard disk?
If the laptop was re-imaged to Windows, I doubt much of the syslogs from linux were left.
Especially since windows is much bigger than a default linux install these days, and this was a rarely used laptop, it seems unlikley any linux was left, even in free sectors.
This level of logging is easy to come by forensically, even on a stock windows install - except the year time window, probably need to archive logs for that
It's obviously not the volume of data that is surprising. It's that they retained system message logs from a random laptop for years. They must regard this as potentially important business information. Does your company do this? Mine sure doesn't.
What's interesting is that I can see these logs as being a liability as well as an asset; there's a reason most business records retention policies are about getting rid of records, not keeping them. From that perspective it's surprisingly they'd reveal the level of logging in play.
For a company at Google's scale, figuring out how to cull even a couple TB a year may cost much more in salary than the money saved. Also, it's occasionally really really useful.
For all the noise and excitement at the start of these clashes, don't they usually get settled with a licensing agreement that both sides can live with?
Sometimes we also see a medium-sized payment (not ruinous) to address the allegedly bad conduct. That usually gets paired with some lawyer-like phrases that amount to a blend of quasi-apology and face-saving evasions.
It's still an interesting suit. But after Apple/Samsung, Oracle/SAP and many others, it's hard to expect that the eventual resolution lives up to the pre-trial buildup.
Because I think in this case, it's not just about money (per se), copying a public design, or patent-related technicalities ("we had a patent on that very generic thing!").
This one is about bad-faith theft. Google didn't sue Uber because they want to extract some $ from them, they sued because they feel their hard work was literally stolen by a bad-faith actor who is now competing against them with their own work.
Neither party cares about an extra billion or two in either direction, so I doubt we'll see a "token" settlement for that amount.
Divisions in a company are fairly tightly budgeted.
If Waymo can sue Uber and get $5b, that might keep them away from the prying eyes of the ruthless shareholders looking to cut unprofitable side projects.
The only shareholders at Google with a meaningful vote are Larry and Sergey. I don't think they're likely to be fooled by something like a lawsuit win. If they want to cut side-projects, they can. If they don't, there's nothing in the financials that would compel them to at this time.
I don't imagine there'll be an amicable end to both parties. What the lawsuit is describing is tantamount to blatant theft. This wasn't just reverse engineered. I imagine someone might go to prison if Alphabet wins.
The civil case was filed in 2007, reached its high-water mark with a jury verdict in 2010 of $1.3 billion in damages, and after a great deal of appeals-court maneuvering, ultimately was settled in 2014 for $356 million in damages.
The biggest difference here is the hype and attention associated with self-driving cars.
TomorrowNow was basically caught stealing Oracle manuals to provide the same service as Oracle but at a lower cost.
The person who "wins" the self-driving market on the other hand potentially may be the purveyor of a business and an industry that is set to upend an industry that absolutely dwarfs "Oracle maintenance contracts". Stakes are much higher.
It is typical for the terms of the license include giving back and not using the actually stolen documents/code. The license would just allow them to redesign without worrying about the other party indirectly using the trade secrets. It's because you can't really close pandora's box.
Though in many cases its beneficial to use this as a way to become a key supplier to a competitor. If it's not a winner take all market (and I doubt this is), then it might be more profitable to take a cut from Uber than to reduce competition by one.
A Google / Uber joint venture where Google provides the software and Uber does fleet management could be unbeatable, for example.
The protection of IPR is a strategic concern of Google. Outright theft committed by the highest levels in both companies is hard to settle for them because of the message it sends. Google may perceive to have more at stake than simply the self driving related IPR.
Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. He won't make it out with his reputation or his power intact.
> Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more.
It really isn't hard to imagine - no one is too rich to be greedy, even billionaires want more money.
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
They'd own a broken company. Bear in mind that this sort of litigation can run five to ten years if you let the lawyers on both sides wrestle to their hearts' content. It becomes all consuming. Executives spend much of their time preparing for depositions, tussling about what ambiguous documents mean, tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, etc.
It's no fun to be working in such an environment. Everyone who can afford to get out, gets out.
Perhaps even enough cash to create the dominant ride hail company from scratch.
Coca-cola was about to buy Gatorate for $13B. Buffett squashed the deal at the 11th hour and Pepsi paid $14B. Buffett presumably thought that Coca-cola could use the $13B to make its own sports drink. It's still not clear which company was wiser.
What do you mean by that? Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Or do you mean indirectly, like, Uber gets found liable for say $10bn, and Google offers isntead to buy a controlling share of Uber and then forgive the liability?
> Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay?
Sure, although that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Normally the company would be liquidated to pay the judgment (this is basically what happened in Bollea (Hogan) v Gawker - Gawker couldn't afford the damages, so had to declare bankruptcy and sell itself to pay for them).
It amounts to the same thing though - when the company gets liquidated, Google can buy all the assets and continue to operate the business, knowing that all the money they pay will be going right back into their own pockets.
Obviously, it runs the risk someone else will come along and buy the company instead, but any other buyer will have significant ongoing IP concerns by using google tech vs re-engineering stuff. Hence, Google will probably outbid other buyers since the company has more utility to them than to others.
Google Ventures owns only 6% of Uber. If they can drag this out sufficently, then Uber cannot IPO, will have burnt all their cash - and the whole company will be at the mercy of their biggest creditor who just got awarded a billion-dollar penalty payment.
The math still doesn't work. Right now 6% of Uber is worth about $4 billion, if you believe the latest venture valuation. (Make adjustments as you see fit.) If this is litigated until Uber collapses in a heap of dust, Google ends up owning 100% of a heap of dust.
No money left to pay off the judgment. Most of the talent is gone, and the folks that remain are hardly motivated to rebuild the business for their new masters. The Napster mess is instructive. The brand might live on, but no one gets rich in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown
If the article's predictions come true, gaining control of Uber isn't Google's only motivation. They have a secondary motivation: To set a precedent that serves as an example to other people who have the opportunity to sell or buy their trade secrets.
If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent.
> If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent.
The problem here is the prize. It's not a paltry few hundred millions. Just in the USA the yearly car sales are above 500 billion and we are talking about disrupting that big time. Really, really big time. It is not unreasonable to think that private car ownership will become deprecated in 20-30 years. Do you think Google won't be happy to burn the $260M they invested in Uber and a hundred more for lawyers over the years to make sure Uber doesn't get an illicit advantage when the time comes of who will be the doorkeeper?
Can you imagine -- and I know Google can -- the possibilities of an ad company selling all the cars there is? Or the software therein which amounts to the same. Your self driving taxi today is free you just need to listen / watch / immerse / whatever happens by then to ads enroute. You can't even count the trillions they would make.
On the other hand, if they think that Uber is likely to go down anyways, a big settlement could allow Alphabet to recover a disproportional amount relative to other investors. Timing would be key, ideally they would want to settle while there is still cash, and use the legal battle as an excuse to find a buyer for their stake while there is still hope.
Thinking in conspiracy theory mode I wonder if it could be possible that Alphabet knew about the theft for longer than they admit, waiting for Uber's self driving projects to grow more valuable, kind of like a secret stake. Would that even be legal?
> December 13, 2016 - A Waymo employee was accidentally copied on an email from one of its LiDAR-component vendors titled OTTO FILES. The email contained a drawing of what appeared to be an Otto circuit board that resembled Waymo’s LiDAR board and shared several unique characteristics with it. (Filing 59)
It could have also been a simple mistake. Several Otto employees came from Waymo. Not hard to send email to John Smith <jsmith@google.com> instead of John Smith <jsmith@otto.com> by mistake if you were in regular contact with that person as part of their role at a previous job doing largely the same thing.
one of my bosses had my personal email and my work email on his auto complete. for some reason, he kept emailing me work stuff to my personal email because autocomplete recommended my personal email first (and he never bothered to check).
i had to ask him more than a couple of times to delete my personal email from his agenda so this wouldn't happen again.
I like autocomplete email addresses but I do worry that the day will come when I send something embarrassing or damaging to the wrong person. I never have afaik although I have sent a couple emails that resulted in a frantic follow up to please don't read the prior message.
Google corporate accounts might behave the same as gmail accounts. When an employee leaves, the account is disabled, and all emails bounce.
Hence, if jsmith left google, emails to jsmith@google.com would bounce, and bounce messages from google are returned as SMTP errors before the mail server accepts the contents of the message.
Even at the time, knowing none of the characters or background I found Otto a very odd startup, one I almost didn't believe looked legit, and their rapid acquisition by Uber was one more "huh, strange" moment - how could they have bootstrapped out of nowhere and had tech worth that kind of money so fast?
It's almost hard to believe Uber would be so brazen as to put something like this together, except that breaking the law has been Uber's business model since day 1.
Can't find info on Argo (not looking properly, most likely), but Cruise raised over $18m before being bought (for ???). It looks like a solid effort to launch a product/startup that was snatched up. Otto was ~6 months and bought for $680m. I think there's a pretty large delta of strangeness there.
"Uber has agreed to pay $28.5 million to settle litigation brought by customers who alleged the ride hailing service misrepresented the quality of its safety practices and the fees it charged passengers"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-tech-safety-settlemen...
if your definition of guilt is "found guilty by a jury"- then sure. but because OP claimed they were "breaking the law", whether or not they were found guilty is irrelevant (by your definition).
that is, just because one was not found guilty by deliberation does not mean one didn't break the law.
because it settled the best we can do is vet the material and make our own educated decisions. they're asking for proof of an opinion. (i feel compelled to mention, some opinions hold more water than others. i think we are free to carefully speculate).
I was in Helsinki a couple weeks ago. They are offering their services there even if it is totally illegal [1]. Of course, it's the Uber drivers taking the fall, and Uber is letting this happen, simply hiding part of the license plate on the app to make it harder for authorities.
From TFA: "Uber Technologies Inc.’s app remains available in Helsinki -- there’s no law against it as is the case in other cities around the world -- but drivers are required to have a permit, which few drivers have, according to the police."
> Summer 2015 - Anthony Levandowski told Pierre-Yves Droz, a colleague at Waymo, that he had talked with an Uber executive about forming a self-driving car startup and that Uber would be interested in buying that startup.
This, particularly, seems absolutely moronic. If you're going to do something shady, don't tell anyone about it.
You tell the people you hope to poach, especially if you intend to give them equity rather than salary because you're cash-poor because you can't get VC funding.
(Possible) Consequences: ... Without any way to raise more money or reduce their costs, Uber runs out of money and folds.
Highly unlikely. Why? Investors who stomach multi-billion dollar annual losses will probably just shrug off a mere lawsuit or a "bad media narrative". If the choice is to either write off $15 billion or to give another couple to help the company go through a rough patch (what a buying opportunity!) I think I know what investors are going to do.
They may demand Kalanick's head in the process (and I think they will -- not that it would really hurt him much personally though...) but seriously a whole nother level of crap would have to happen before investors start getting comfortable with the thought of letting go those $15 billion.
It's not a bigger bombshell than what was already in the news. We know what stealing means. The guy is an engineer at Waymo and plugs a USB stick in a laptop to download 9GB of code. And he hoped to get away with this? I'm pretty sure everyone at Google knew, they were just waiting to time it right.
"Hey, what about now? When Uber is taking fire from all directions?"
The bigger accusation the article makes is that Levandowski made a deal with Uber to create a startup with Waymo's stolen data, that would later be acquired by Uber.
So Otto was essentially just a vessel for that stolen data, created simply to transfer the IP to Uber. If true, that'd be much bigger and much more damaging than just stealing some files.
It's a much bigger deal if it can be proven that Uber essentially conspired with him to steal the IP. If Uber had prior knowledge, that's a very different thing than just some unscrupulous rogue engineer who wants to get rich.
Doubtful they knew. I'd imagine with these kind of forensics, there is such a glut of data that it is really difficult to proactively monitor it. A post-hoc analysis after they found something fishy seems most likely.
i can't believe someone as smart as he is would just blatantly stick in a usb. With how much money he was going to make he could have researched some more annomous ways to get it. Not the least would be to intercept a team members auth/pw and use that to access the data.
Uber, in their usual rule-breaking way, may come out OK on this. Suppose everything in the complaint against Uber is proven true. Google/Alphabet/Waymo gets an injunction against Uber using their rotating LIDAR, a clunky technology that's on the way out. (The future of high-volume 3D LIDAR is either flash with a staring sensor or MEMS with chip-sized moving mirrors.) G/A/W gets paid a few billion dollars, but far less than the $16 billion Intel just paid for Mobileye's inferior technology. Uber has enough cash for that.
Quantergy, Velodyne, and Leddar have all announced low-cost solid-state LIDAR units for self-driving cars, to be available in 2017. Somebody is going to deliver.
Continental is targeting shipments in 2020. They're a large auto parts maker, and they bought the technology from Advanced Scientific Concepts, which has sold good but expensive flash LIDAR units for years. They're demoing now, and will probably end up selling millions of the things to auto companies.
They seem to be fundraising awfully quick for a company that has plenty of cash on hand. They'd probably have to fund-raise again or go public to pay off the damages.
Going public just got tougher for Uber. With a big lawsuit with merit hanging over them, their IPO value drops considerably. Underwriters don't like open-ended liabilities like that.
I also think the sexual harassment claims pose a massive liability. If the harassment is as wide spread as Fowler says it is, Uber could be looking at a massive class action lawsuit.
I actually think this might be a blessing in disguise for Uber. I always argued self-driving cars would destroy Uber should Apple or Google want to enter this space.
Why? Because self-driving cars are basically a fleet service driven by a software. Once you remove the driver (where Uber spent so much acquiring) The only differentiator is the consumer facing experience. Neither Uber or Lyft will have as much power as Apple and Google since they ultimately own the mobile experience.
I ultimately envision this business as kind of a Kayak mobile on the phone managed by Siri or Google/Apple maps that will call the nearest taxi or the cheaper rate aggregating from multiple possible vendors. Larger fleets (Uber, Apple, Google) to smaller individually manage fleets. Car companies might decide to also enter that market in collaboration with financial underwriter.
So having a network of drivers ultimately gives Uber some leverage and removing them from the equation, I think it'll actually destroy Uber. This is why I think, this could be a blessing in disguise.
Uber's drivers aren't really fans of them though, nor are they loyal to a single company. Uber could disappear tomorrow and all its drivers would be fine on Lyft.
This may no longer be the case, but doesn't Lyft have a stricter vetting process than Uber? It could be that some (most, none, all?) of Uber drivers may not be that happy with Lyft.
Not really. I'd be surprised if most Uber drivers weren't already at least onboarded to Lyft. About half of the drivers I see have two phones on cradles in their cars.
Did not know that. But I'm sure there are plenty of foreign startups that would pick up the slack. There's no secret sauce in Uber's tech. It would be fitting to see Uber fail due to hubris.
I do believe that this is true, but I can't help but also believe that the timelines that the tech community has in mind are absolutely too optimistic. I think like many promising innovations (AI, VR, etc.) it will have periods of rapid innovation followed by contraction and lull, repeated many times until general adoption is realized.
The drivers will get removed from the "bring me from X to Y and leave me alone" equation, but drivers who can do slightly more complex things while driving around (pick up flowers here, then get my son from Judo practice, and practice his French with him in the car) will be a huge market, bigger than the current rideshare market, and a better moneymaker for drivers.
Uber just needs to think of themselves as a mobile staffing company and they'll be fine. Unfortunately, staffing is a market where "Move fast and be an asshole" isn't a great philosophy so they'll need a bit of a temperament change to survive.
> pick up flowers here, then get my son from Judo practice, and practice his French with him in the car
This would basically turn them into a private driver service and finding qualified staff would be a pain for anyone wanting a french tutor for the drive. Ignoring that as an off the wall example though they'll still hit a pretty hard wall with trust. Even if the fear is unfounded trying to get a huge number of people to sign up for random (to them) people to pick up and drive around their kids is running into a lot of child abduction/abuse fears that run kind of deep in the US.
The supply would still be extremely limited outside a few markets where French is a primary or main secondary language. Also unless you're paying extra for the French speakers the chances the small pool will be already booked with normal jobs is pretty high.
I'm not saying Uber should become a service for French tutors. I'm saying every Uber driver has a unique value-add and in a large market there will be plenty of customers for those additional skills.
Are you trying to argue that there is zero use for a person with a car who speaks French in a city like San Francisco? I really don't understand what you're trying to convince me.
I always considered the people that drive for Uber to be more of a means to an end for Uber. To me Uber wants people getting used to ordering a car service with an app and then being driven to their destination. So really having people as drivers is a stop gap measure until they get autonomous vehicles working and the equivalent of "the knowledge" of black cab drivers in London for everywhere else in the world. This is why they track you with the Uber app after you finish your ride, so that they can get the local knowledge stored.
My prediction is that Kalanick and Levandowski will soon be attempting to throw each other under the bus to save their own job, money, and reputation. With any luck they will both wind up under a bus.
Every deal like this has a holdback escrow, exactly for situations like this. Breach of reps and warranties can be litigated post closing for fraud, which is the subject of negotiation over indemnities, a tug of war b/w both parties over how to allocate post closing risk.
"That Otto hadn’t received funding from any VC’s is unusual. With 91 employees, getting paid $150k/year (this might even be too low given they are working on self-driving cars, one of the hottest spaces in tech right now), they would have had a $13.6 million/year burn rate just on salaries. Otto always aimed to get to market quickly, but getting to profitability without funding seems like it would have been very hard, especially on the accelerated timescale they were working towards and the need to likely hire many more people to get to production. All of Otto’s public self-driving car and truck competitors have taken venture funding. However, as someone working on a bootstrapped SaaS application, I’m sympathetic to wanting to self-fund."
Anthony Levandowski has a personal net worth in the hundreds of millions, that is not counting the other founders plus they could raise money at a whim, or get acquired whenever they wanted
"The next day, January 15, 2016, Mr. Levandowski’s venture 280 Systems - which
became OttoMotto LLC - was officially formed (though it remained in stealth mode for several
months). On January 27, 2016, Mr. Levandowski resigned from Waymo without notice. And on
February 1, 2016, Mr. Levandowski’s venture Otto Trucking was officially formed (also
remaining in stealth mode for several months)."
not sure if that timeline is accurate, any way to check when the ot.to website was registered? the site used for looking up http://whois.domaintools.com/280systems.com doesn't work for ot.to
Levandowski sold 3 companies to Google for a rumoured 500 million. He then received another massive undisclosed sum for meeting benchmarks on Google's self driving car program, along with several other key team members.
> December 3, 2015 - Mr Levandowski searched for instructions on how to access Waymo’s design server on his work laptop. Based on Gary Brown’s deposition (a Google forensic security engineer) this was an SVN server. (Brown 15)
> December 11, 2015 - Anthony Levandowski installed TortoiseSVN and downloaded 9.7 GB of data from the SVN repository. (Brown 17)
> December 14, 2015 - A USB card reader was attached to the laptop for eight hours. Google doesn’t appear to have logged what the laptop did over that time, but the implication is that data was copied from the laptop to a memory card. (Brown 18)
If these three things are true, then that looks extremely bad for Otto. I imagine they'll be a lot of questions regarding the purpose of that USB stick.
How credible are all these logs? Email records (came up in Oracle Android case) are one thing, emails are a known thing. But how trustworthy are Google Drive logs, a record that only exists within Google, when what they've recorded helps their case? I'm not casting aspersions, just curious how a new kind of evidence plays out.
> But how trustworthy are Google Drive logs, a record that only exists within Google, when what they've recorded helps their case?
Routinely-kept business records are common evidence in cases, and, while any evidence is subject to impeachment, "it supports the case of the party keeping the records" is almost never sufficient to get a trier of fact (jury in the case of a jury trial) to dismiss the evidence; you generally need either some more concrete evidence of fabrication or independent evidence contradicting the conclusion the evidence is offered to support.
Google Drive logs are fundamentally no different than email, or even paper business records, in this context.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply fabrication: just there are going to be hiccups and weird inconsistencies in any data source, and it's not one where the hiccups have been seen before in a legal context. You have multiple levels, some slightly disagree, which is correct?
Email you have a bunch of different parties: the sender, the receiver, the servers in the middle, all of which are going to record something, and maybe they differ in weird ways, but if you got it you go it.
By what process do you think Waymo (or is it Alphabet) would fabricate these logs? Like, who in particular would do it? Would they form a team of a dozen, two dozen people to do all the fabrication across all the systems that would be impacted, without leaving any fingerprints?
And of course none of this planning could be done over email or Google docs, so it all has to be coordinated in person with only handwritten notes. And you've got to make sure a co-operative representative from legal is involved, just so the evidence generated in the logs corresponds to the cover story.
Yeah, I thought I made it clear I didn't think there would be any fabrication. That's different from it being able to completely rely on something being accurate, I doubt it's recorded with the same care financial data is, for instance.
I read the whole article and it was very interesting. Thanks for the info! However, could someone explain to me why Uber is losing money from their taxi services? Obviously the drivers take home a large chunk of revenue, but what about the rest of the money they receive from the fares? Shouldn't that be enough to cover the overhead of running a mobile app? Are they trying to do too much? What gives?
Everything else they're invested in. Subsidizing rides (in new markets I think they sometimes pay the drivers more than the passenger pays) maybe. But new R&D, lik building self-driving cars, doesn't come cheap.
I think people are really underestimating how generous these subsidies are. They're not usually on the riders side, but the drivers.
In Edinburgh, Scotland over NYE all Uber drives were on £75/hr minimum, regardless of how many rides they took. A friend of a friend who decided to ride for them that night said he was out for about 7 hours and picked up about 10 people the whole night (was very busy after midnight but quiet otherwise).
The fares totalled about £150. So Uber probably got £30 but subsidised the driver by £525. Pretty crazy if you times this by all the 'newer' markets uber is in.
This is not true in Toronto where I am a part time Uber driver. I've never received any sort of incentive or bonus. Uber is still extremely popular with both drivers and passengers.
Note, this may be because Uber has no competition here and is already 50% cheaper than taxis. However it still illustrates that Uber can certainly operate with positive profit margins.
Just the way companies incur technical debt, there is also ethical debt. It is accumulated by taking ethical shortcuts and avoiding painful decisions (a case I have seen several times is letting star devs/sales misbehave).
Eventually the payment on the ethical debt comes due. In Uber's case, they have been building it up for a long time without any down payment. A hard cleaning is needed from top to bottom.
I also found the SVN allegation to be circumstantial at best in the coverage that didn't focus on any other points. Installing a tool and downloading gigs of design data is a nuts-and-bolts operation for many disciplines (even for those that don't normally use version control but interact with a team that does).
If Levandowski didn't typically access SVN on a frequent basis, it's still very circumstantial on it's own. Seeing this all laid out in the context of the surrounding allegations, it becomes an important and fairly damning point.
All the technical stuff seems fairly circumstantial.
The USB sd card reader could just be so he could sync his holiday photos.
The downloading of the entire SVN repository could just be so he could grep it for a file he didn't know the path to, or perhaps to try to compile something he wasn't sure the dependancies of. Reinstalling to linux could simply be because the software wouldn't build under windows. (it seems doubtful the self driving car uses a windows software stack).
- Google's recently revised goal for their program is to license to existing manufacturers vs. building a car. (1)
- It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game, except perhaps Tesla but they don't have enough manufacturing capability (yet, or anytime soon) to be a global threat to Uber.
- Uber is never going to be a manufacturer but they have partnered with Volvo and Daimler (2) recently who seem very amenable to licensing / leveraging third party tech to continue to be competitive in selling automobiles.
- Why does Uber need to build autonomous tech vs license it? Are they concerned that the Google / Ford partnership is going to leave them out / decimated?
> - It's unlikely that whichever automotive company achieves autonomy first is going to immediately get into the ride sharing game
I think GM shows clear signs of interest of being in the ride sharing game if they have an advantage there.
Would you rather be the first self-driving ride sharing company, and use that to displace Uber in high margin areas, or would you rather try to make a little bit of money off the premium segment buying these cars and then be a fast follower?
The main argument for being a fast follower would be to let someone else deal with regulation for you, but otherwise being able to undercut everyone in rich markets seems like a no brainer that would bring a tonne of revenue and experience to the project very quickly.
The internet is being absorbed by greed and hunger for power. I hope that somewhere in northern Finland, there is an awkward teenager writing something that will later be known as, "The Great Decentralizer"
Driver satisfaction will improve once it's composed entirely of autonomous vehicles.
As for the real drivers, who are paid less than taxi drivers, I'm wondering how that put them into the red when they pay less than taxi companies and skirt regulations. They must have interesting books.
> "Uber gets dealt an injunction on their self-driving car project. They have to start again, a long way behind other companies."
How is this actually implemented? How do you prevent a new project starting from scratch with the same employees from ending up with the exact same tech as before?
Pretty much the same way you could do it with any other manufacturing/industrial process.
Imagine re-creating a fairly large complex project without access to any source control, build systems, or bug reports. It'd be easier than starting from scratch, but not much - especially for hardware, all the tradeoffs and manufacturing tricks you had to investigate and implement your devices would have to be recreated.
Your end result would probably look similar, but the way you get there would be different. Just like the wings on an insect are different from the wings of a bird.
I'm neither a lawyer nor experienced in this sort of thing (thankfully! :) ), but I would imagine that Uber would have to throw out everything they've got now, fire all the employees that are currently working on the project, and then restart something from scratch.
Sometimes, if a company want to clone a competitor's product they'll use a 'clean room protocol' - I imagine that Uber could do something similar here.
How do you prevent a new project starting from scratch
with the same employees from ending up with the exact
same tech as before?
You can't. I mean legally you can. But the court case to fully flesh this out are impossibly long. So safe to just not. The _former employee_ part is so damning that is just doesn't work.
If you have separate employees you _can_, if you avoid patents. Look up clean room implementation.
So at this point, Uber's name is mud, and they're getting tons of bad press. Does there exist a contrary interpretation of recent events in which Uber is still somehow OK as an employer or a business? In my news bubble, I haven't seen any.
I could be wrong but what I think he/she meant was the fact that Uber has so many investors in it's pie that a loss like Uber would be monumental (considering the profits they'd get if it succeeded).
So it's investors would probably bail it out (and try their best to make sure it's a bit more restrained).
There is no network effect here. Each additional driver does not increase the value of the network to the other drivers and similarly for passengers. Uber and Lyft are old-fashioned market makers. They increased the pool of suppliers and consumers and connected the groups. In cities where both Uber and Lyft exist, substituting Uber for Lyft and vice versa does not change the value the driver or passenger derives from either service.
Yes, that is called a two-sided market/network effect.
Each driver increases value for riders, and each rider increases value for drivers. This two sides.
A 1 sided network is facebook. A two sided market is like the video game industry (more video games are good for gamers and more gamers are good for video game devs)
For taxi apps, imagine if there was only 1 driver in SF. That wouldn't be a good experience for consumers. Thus, network effect.
But there's minimal stickiness to the network. The switching cost to another network is almost free, and the network value itself is pretty low.
Consider eBay, perhaps the most-successful two-sided network of the first dot-com boom. You could switch to another auction site, but as a seller you would lose all of your online reputation (sales history) which is worth a lot on eBay (since people don't buy expensive items from someone with no sales history whatsoever). When is the last time you cared how many drives your Uber/Lyft driver had given? eBay - very sticky. Uber/Lyft - not so much.
Strangely I do not see this said in discussions about Uber, but I think they are operating in a way on good publicity and the false premise of Uber being ride-sharing, which is not really the case.
Compared to other services in this market, e.g. taxis or buses, Uber has a significant portion operation costs implicitly discounted and/or indirectly subsidised. Uber drivers are self-employed, which in many parts of the world has lower tax rate as opposed to employment contracts (which is pretty common for bus drivers). Uber cars are registered as non-commercial vehicles with less restrictions inherently increasing utility value (a family can have one car used for Uber and weekend driving, but having a Taxi car may very likely result in the need for another car) and non-commercial insurance rate despite increased accident risk, which results in elevated overall risk of non-commercial vehicles which all (non Uber) drivers must share.
Bad press for Uber may result in law changes that level the playing field and either increase operation costs for Uber significantly increasing their burn rate or lower operation costs for their competitors decreasing Uber's attractiveness and revenue thus increasing burn rate.
That is also not correct. Uber's cut of the ride (which is a bit under 20% of the fare) is covering 41% of their total corporate expenses (which are not the costs of delivering rides).
SVN is popular for hardware groups. Why?
Better sparse checkout than git when you are dealing with large binary design files. It's not what git is optimized for.
It's still chugging along. Volvos and Ford Focus with LiDAR scoot around town daily. The ATC (advanced technology center) is fully staffed and operational. Pittsburgh also recently got some sort of certification/designation as a sort of "robotic testing ground" for autonomous driving, I think by the US government?
Was the Otto sale the quickest $680MM ever made? Has anyone gone from zero that amount (exit price, mind you) in that short a period of time?
For those reasons alone, I think there is definitely something fishy going on. Perhaps not as fishy as Daniel claims, but something just does not smell right here.
"the information" had a great article on Uber's finances recently. One of the stats cited was from an internal Uber study that said moving to a fleet of self driving cars would only achieve a 5-10% profit margin for the company.
> By the time Otto was acquired, they had 91 employees. This seems like a lot of salary commitment to take on via self-funding by Otto’s four co-founders (all ex-Google).
Were these founders previously Google executives or "9th engineer from the left" individual contributors? If you were getting exec pay, it might be semi-believable that you could come out of it and be able to self-fund salaries for 91 employees, but if the latter, I can't see how. Sure, Google pays engineers a lot but come on...
I just hope this doesn't somehow delay the deployment of much safer driving technology. The death, injury and property damage statistic are staggering:
Global Annual Estimates:
Deaths: 1.25 million
Injuries: 20-50 million
Cost: $580 billion
When it comes to the self driving car business I really hope Alphabet kicks Uber's ass, because as a consumer I must trust the car to do the best in my interest and safety and I don't trust Uber for a second. This company would do every dodgy thing to become quickly profitable. I rather trust Alphabet or Tesla.
Just a thought… Isn't it one of those things where Google has access to so much data, they could acquire (illegally) some of it from their servers, and then use parallel construction for finding other evidence ?
The boards are presented side by side in the documents, but redacted.
I assume they must look similar enough to a non-technical judge for them to be presented in that form, or they would be presented with an expert analysis of the similarities.
My guess is they are identical except the logos. The dimensions of the redaction boxes is very similar.
hiring a guy for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars might look strange to future investors, but buying a company for that much is commonplace. alternatively, they could have done it in the attempt to limit any potential liability (like this waymo lawsuit) to otto without risking the mothership (uber).
Hard to say. If I were Uber, and we seemed likely to lose, I would try to convey the following...
The only thing truly gained by stealing Waymos's LiDAR designs was a temporary period of lower cost , but high quality, LiDAR unit. Effectively, a short term discount. You can buy high quality today...It's just expensive. More affordable LiDAR is coming, for everyone, regardless of what Waymo does. They are not the only entity using innovation to drive the cost down.
I would try to have the punishment match that gain, versus something more catastrophic.
Of course, IANAL, and have been mystified by judgements in the past. Some were immensely lower, some higher than what seemed to make sense.
Also, who knows what else was stolen? The LiDAR stuff might just be the one Waymo could most easily demonstrate before filing suit...perhaps there's more.
This LIDAR costs $10k. Other LIDAR costs $100k. At the time of this lawsuit, we had 25 test cars on the road. Therefore triple damages are $90k * 25 * 3, so we'll pay you $7 million.
TL;DR: The "Bombshell" is Alphabet/Waymo's lawsuit against Lewandowski and Uber for stealing trade secrets, and an interpretation that Lewandowski formed Otto basically as a cover to get a big payday from Uber in exchange for the secrets.
The bombshell part specifically would be Levandowski arranging with Uber to steal Waymo tech, form Otto, and Uber would acquire Otto. In all of the reporting I read about this after the first filing, this was missed.
As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company (via a federal judge's order once certain evidence was presented) and gather and present evidence of massive fraud, etc., and working entirely as an amateur in this effort, managed to aid in recovering assets and capturing the former CEO and sending him to prison for several years, I find stories of (allegedly) fraudulent action (and solid response) like this heartwarming.
If Uber had no self-driving car program to speak of before talking with Levandowski, and discovery shows they basically started from that conversation, then that would seem to open up all of Uber to any discovery process - they can't justifiably claim "it's the self driving car division that did all this". This seems much more than a civil process from my reading of it. It could be great theater.
If I was on Uber's BOD, I'd immediately relieve the CEO simply based on the allegations here, and if I didn't have the votes to do that, I'd immediately resign my seat.
Heh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as their adviser.
I'm not near to you and I'm not sure what the options are to ship crates of beer but count me in.
I'll swap you a story of attempting to help the father of a friend who was CEO of some company that ended up with me fronting the bill for a lawyer to keep him out of jail.
Removing a CEO based simply on allegations sounds to me as a pretty extreme response.
Would you feel the same if the company in question would not be Uber (whose CEO may be a liability for Uber ATM anyway) but, say, IBM? This is an honest question.
I'm inclined to agree that there's significant circumstantial evidence here that at the very least extremely pointed question should be currently being asked of the CEO, and in the absence of immediately and publicly verifiable evidence countering these claims - the CEO should quite reasonably be "relieved" (as in - temporarily taken out of decision making and business information collecting capacity) while the investigation continues.
But Uber has continuously demonstrated if not the sort of company who's ethical constraints would bind it to that sort of behavior. (To the extent that I'm now cynically wondering whether the current "Uber is an awful place for women to work" controversy has been intentionally orchestrated and played up in the press to help suppress this information...)
Maybe. CEOs are indeed a lightening rod for criticism, good or bad. One hopes the BOD has the intel needed to evaluate the situation, but I can tell you from experience, if someone makes a minimal effort to hide their actions, especially if they are a CEO who's been permitted to do whatever he wanted to that point, then it's more of a burden for that BOD to perform proper diligence. As a BOD member, I don't want burdens - I want clarity and confirmability - if I can't get that without significant effort, then that's not an organization that I want to advise.
To be honest, given the history of Uber's CEO, I think he's no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. The onus would be on him to prove to the board that these accusations are not true.
Having not been convicted of a crime (with the assistance of one of the world's largest legal budgets) is not the usual measure of being the sort of respected and trusted person you'd want at the helm of your corporation.
The man is unquestionably toxic - it's entirely possible the entire company is toxic.
Board members and shareholders aren't responsible or particularly concerned with innocence or guilt, but are very concerned with trust and respect that customers (or potential-investors/business-partners/governments) have in their company's leadership.
They're not deciding whether to put him in jail or not, but board members are legally obligated to determine whether or not he's adding or detracting from shareholder value.
Even if every single accusation against him and the culture he's built is false - the public perception needs addressing. Perhaps "remove" is the wrong wording, but if you're an insider/board member who thinks every single accusation and report is false - you'd at least have to seriously consider asking Travis to publicly "recuse" himself while the investigations are under way - without that anything coming out of the investigation is going to be about as believable as the Police Union guy announcing "We've investigated the matter and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing!".
Yes, exactly. Enough accusations, and you become a distraction to the company. Were I on the board, he would be trying to justify why he should remain as head of this company.
This is from the big Bloomberg article/interview that came out today:
'Kalanick began courting Levandowski this spring, broaching the possibility of an acquisition during a series of 10-mile night walks from the Soma neighborhood where Uber is also headquartered to the Golden Gate Bridge. The two men would leave their offices separately—to avoid being seen by employees, the press, or competitors. They’d grab takeout food, then rendezvous near the city’s Ferry Building. Levandowski says he saw a union as a way to bring the company’s trucks to market faster.'
Which implies to me that the plan was for Uber to acquire Otto all along.
"Otto was designed to be sold to Uber before it was created, there's a reason it was self-funded despite having nearly 100 employees by the time it was acquired. Anthony Levandowski met Travis Kalanick years ago and had been planning something like this for a while. It's basically an open secret."
They did- lidar and other designs, and this is saying that rather than it only being Levandowski's fault, Kalanick knew what was happening from the beginning and Uber was essentially using Otto as a shell company. This is stated clearly in the third paragraph of the article.
>the subtext of Alphabet’s filing is an even bigger bombshell. Reading between the lines, (in my opinion) Alphabet is implying that Mr Levandowski arranged with Uber to:
>Steal LiDAR and other self-driving component designs from Waymo
>Start Otto as a plausible corporate vehicle for developing the self-driving technology
The allegation is that he stole ~10GB of mechanical and electrical drawings for various essential parts, including the custom LIDAR. They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card
> They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card
Sounds like a farytale to me, unless those logs are captures and stored independently then otherwise anyone can claim having any kind of evidence against anyone involved.
Besides, there might be many reasons of him doing that, let the backup be one.
Read the original allegations, not the summary here. Just to start you off, here's some the things alleged by google you're missing from that summary:
- He installed custom software to access the files.
- The files were in a data store he had no normal access to.
And here's my best guess as to why Google knows so much:
- Google requires access to their networks using either your Google assigned device, or a pre-approved list of devices of your own (basically chromebooks). I know from past interactions with a friend that works at Google that they often give beta versions of software (Android) and/or hardware (Nexus phones, chromebooks) to employees to test. It's entirely possibly that quite a lot of debugging data is reported on some build. Additionally, that same friend noted that Google has a whole department dedicated to rooting our invalid access like what is alleged here, and since they control the devices available to access their network, there's really no conceivably limit to the amount of activity data they could collect about employee usage.
In short, I see no reason why Google couldn't have as much data as they allege and possibly much more. to me, the fact that they waited until this stage to present it also seems calculated to benefit the most from those trying to defraud them (why not stop the forming of Otto initially, or the buyout?). If that's the case, I don't really have much sympathy for Uber, as they seem to possibly have been integral to the crime, and may have escaped punishment if it hadn't gotten this far.
Well, what's to differentiate that argument from being used against video evidence of a robbery? It's up to the defense to get the evidence deemed inadmissible to discredit it in court if there's any indication that it may not be legit.
I imagine logs by themselves might not sway some people, but logs combined with whatever is found in a discovery process from Uber along with the fact that a parts supplier of Waymo happened to be making the exact same part for Otto (either because the secret part was requested or because they were provided the exact same design docs), doesn't make it look very good for Otto/Uber (if that allegation is correct).
There's really zero incentive for line-level engineers & security folks at Google to engage in conspiracy to defraud the court. The penalties that the involved individuals could potentially suffer would be far worse than whatever distant benefit they get from Google winning the case (and it only takes one defector to ruin your plan). It's not logically impossible for such a thing to happen, but I would consider sworn testimony from multiple Google employees "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the purported access did happen.
In general there might be other reasons you can think of that he would do that, but at Google he would have been told where and when he's allowed to store & retrieve company data. It would have certainly been a fireable offence for him to copy company data to a memory card. You're not even allowed to store source code on your work laptop.
Except for the part where those designs were not only not discarded, but actually used in Uber's technology and subsequently accidentally CC'd back to Google. (If I'm following the story correctly).
But how do we know Google wasn't the one making that plan? I find it strange that Google paid Levandowski millions in bonuses after he quit abruptly and after they already knew he was starting a company with their IP.
So Google paid Lewandowski a bonus to steal their own IP, launch a company and sell it for a large amount to Uber so they could destroy Uber with a huge lawsuit?
Via a recent Bloomberg article [0], the (pre-Waymo) car project had an "unorthodox compensation system" resulting in "multi-million dollar payouts" that were somehow tied to the success/value of the project. A fascinating and weird way to incentivize hard work.
With everything that has gone on at Uber including a former friend of Travis' accusing him of stealing the company concept itself, something like this wouldn't be a Surprise.
It must be very confusing and frustrating for the guy. It's just like Enron: all that behavior is super wonderful and exciting and disruptive and rewarding, until suddenly it's not.
The kind of person who does this stuff, really doesn't understand even the concept of 'crossing a line', or indeed legality. Hence, it seems to them really offensive that anyone should get in their way, and up TO that point their self-confidence carries them and helps persuade others that they're the golden boy.
The real lesson is 'how did we get here in the first place'. It's easy to bust the biggest megastar and make a story of hubris and disastrous, Icarus-like fall, but isn't it the very same system that put them there at that valuation?
The rule seems to be 'Seem like the biggest monster around, but if we catch you actually BEING it, you're busted'.
What's "wonderful and exciting" about this? Uber from day one has been running from the law. You can't do that forever. It's been some sixty years now when the "I fought the law and the law won" song was recorded. It's still true.
Although I am ready to believe almost anything derogatory about Kalanick up to and including eating bbq'd babies with mayonnaise (yuck), the idea of "stealing a company concept" is pretty lame.
Lyft started with a different business snd pivoted to Uber's (itself all a pivot?). Did Lyft "steal the concept?"
Not quite. Uber started as a hailing black car effort, then Lyft pivoted from ridesharing to hailing 'common cars' over a Hackathon iirc, and then Uber pivoted to uberX. History aside, this 'copying of ideas' is distinct since someone independent is reimplementing a general concept (which is not really protectable). You would be hard pressed to argue that burger king stole McDonald's idea of selling hamburgers, for example.
I think in the Uber/Otto case the theft is pretty specific. The laws outline what it means to steal corporate secrets. (This is distinct from violating IP or copying an idea). Usually this sort of theft involves being privy to corporate secrets and breaking contractual agreements to not take certain information with you.
Bloggism at its worst. A blog post with an agenda making huge leaps of faith without bothering to keep a semblance of impartiality to try to show that Uber somehow conspired to steal technology. Without bothering to hear the other side.
"From Waymo’s filings, it seems that they have Levandowski dead to rights on stealing their LiDAR designs." This is one of the dumbest quotes in the post. Of course the lawyer's job is to write up their side of the story. He hasn't even heard the other side of the story and he's already coming up with conclusions. That's pretty terrible.
Reading the deposition, under oath, of the forensics engineer who investigated the situation basically made me agree with the blog post and even that quote in particular. I think they have him dead to rights, here, barring a miracle of explaining away very, very suspicious behavior and a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I would hope if I asked any of my source control clients to dump a bunch of stuff and then walked to another employer who oh by the way is doing something very similar, I'd be investigated as rigorously.
I hear what you're saying, but I think you're being unfair. This isn't bloggism; I think it's a pretty solid analysis from a lot of available information. There is definitely another side, and it's definitely making an appearance in this thread, but I don't think it's unfair to say "yep, that looks like a hole in one." Certainly smells like one, and it's not partisan or agenda-based to say that.
Could you elaborate on what you feel the agenda is here?
All testimony in a trial is under oath. You still haven't heard the testimony from any of the accused, and you already came to a conclusion based on the single testimony of the plaintiff? "Welp, that's good enough for me, I guess Levandowski is guilty. Let's wrap it up, everyone!" I hope you realize how ridiculous this is.
You don't know he dumped anything onto a USB drive. As far as the testimony knows, he plugged in a USB drive to the laptop. Any lawyer worth her salt would rip that to shreds. Do you know he didn't copy a movie onto the USB drive and watched it from the laptop? Do you know he didn't use the USB drive to copy information onto the hard drive? To qualify that as "Dead to rights" is particularly stupid.
The only person being unfair is the blogger, and you, by coming to a conclusion without hearing all the evidence. It's not solid analysis, it's lazy and premature.
I didn't say he was guilty. That's not my place to decide. I said it looks like they have a smoking gun unless they can explain away a lot of suspicious behavior. Maybe they can.
I actually haven't drawn any conclusion, particularly on the person involved. This is basically standing on the sidelines and saying damn, they have a good case. It'll be impressive to see the defense.
You've drawn the conclusion and assumed I have. I'm merely remarking that the case is extraordinarily strong and the evidence, as circumstantial as it is, is compelling, unless you feel that the evidence is fabricated. And a lawyer can't rip all of what I read to shreds, though I understand what you're saying.
You said "I think they have him dead to rights". Unless you are not a native English speaker and you don't understand the words that you're typing, it means you think that the accused is guilty. If that's not what you meant then I suggest using different words.
Of course you think they have a good case. All you've heard is their side.
It's weird being the guy who has lobbied for discretion and waiting for the other side in these cases on Hacker News before, and then being told I don't understand the words I am typing. The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop. I'm sorry, and I know it offends you, but I'm acknowledging that fact. He is pretty much red-handed, and the evidence basically amounts to "we found the defendant standing over the corpse while holding a bloody knife."
Maybe he has an explanation that we will find out (maybe he was performing surgery to save him!), but right now, the evidence doesn't look good. This isn't complicated whether English is my primary, secondary, tertiary, or quarternary language. I also have performed forensics investigations not unlike the deposition I've read, and at no point did I say "gosh, that's thin." That's my point. He was remarkably dumb in the alleged narrative, if it's all true. Given my experience with Google's investigative abilities, I don't doubt any of the evidence submitted.
I disagree with you, you are wrong, and I understand every inch of the words I am typing. It's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that Google and Waymo have done their due diligence bringing a coherent and well-defended complaint here. Please do me a favor and don't assume that because I'm on the other side I'm deficient or inferior to you in some way. It's how I know there is literally zero fruit down the path of engaging you.
You should really look up what an indictment is before lecturing someone on their English. Again, I haven't made a conclusion, and I'm dropping this thread.
> "He hasn't even heard the other side of the story and he's already coming up with conclusions"
I tried pretty hard throughout the entire article to make it clear both that I was speculating, and that Uber will contest these claims in court.
In the 'dead to rights' quote you referenced, my first three words were "From Waymo's filings". I am aware that Uber hasn't had a chance to respond, if I was to expand that sentence it would be something like: "If everything in Waymo's case is accurate, then they have a very comprehensive case to make against Levandowski stealing their LiDAR designs, based on forensic evidence as well as testimony and eyewitness accounts.
All uber shills are independent contractors. Disclosure: I used to shill for Uber but when I factored in wear on my laptop/keyboard (you have to bring your own equipment) I realized I was actually working for below minimum wage.
Oh you guys want to stay on his and his current friend's good side.
I could care less Silicon Valley already chewed me up and spit me out because I'm a nice guy with ethics and morality who invents cool shit, yet not a bro.
The notion that these companies are meaningfully suing each other over "trade secrets" as opposed to "government help" is rather laughable to me. Fuck Google and their attempted U.S.-sanctioned digital monopoly on Earth.
Another big bombshell is that apparently Google laptops store every single thing you do on it, including whether you attach a USB drive, etc. That's pretty scary if you're an employee.
It is easy to love a company that is tossing free money at you to use their service. It will be harder to love them if/when they are a de facto monopoly on public transportation and are limiting service and raising fees to recoup their years of investor subsidies.
> August 2016 - Levandowski received his final multi-million dollar payment from Google (presumably a bonus?)
That's a pretty fat check for someone who just ran away with the crown jewels. How do we know Google didn't have Lavandowski do all this on purpose to lure Uber into a compromised position by buying Otto? Unless the courts are rigged, doesn't Google have to prove Uber acquired Otto with full knowledge that they were buying stolen property?
Not related - but I do find it ironic that google is up in arms about stolen tech given Steve Jobs' vendetta against google over stolen smart phone ideas. And yes I realize that the gravity of the situation here is different but it's still an amusing thought - not sure why everyone is so offended by this comment.
Regarding the lawsuit - I've learned that we have no clue what is going on behind the scenes, so why stress over it. For all I know this is a power play by google or some evil scheme by Uber. Let's just wait and see how it plays out.
I'd like to clarify the use of the word "Stealing". It appears that Lewandowski _stole_ technical documentation and engineering work done around LiDAR. Google did not steal code, technical docs, or any engineering material. They recognized good usability concepts being used by Apple, and adapted them. They were matching the market leader's feature set. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/10/25/yes-googl... It's a little different.
There's a really big difference between copying other people's design ideas, and straight up an employee stealing confidential documents to form a startup and then immediately being bought by a competitor. The significance of this difference ought to be obvious.
Given the context provided in this post, it seems pretty blatant and obvious. Stealing a design is one thing, stealing the circuit board design from an unreleased product is espionage.
This is the difference between misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, and just copying uncopyrightable ideas from your competitors. A person can go to prison for the first, pay the injury compensation for the second, but nothing can be done for the third.
FWIW this assertion (which isn't really core to the central thesis of the post, but still) is wrong. That number comes from
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic...
but the author of that story misread the data. Uber only counts their cut as revenue not the full cost of the ride.
Despite this repetition (now corrected, thx!) of this incorrect data I find the overall thesis of the post compelling! As a disinterested bystander, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
EDIT: It turns out the original 41% statement comes from http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver... not from the Financial Times. It can be hard to trace these things back sometimes.