Notice the language here. He doesn't seem, at least from my reading, to be chastising Uber for doing things that are morally wrong. He's instead chastising them for doing morally wrong things and not pulling it off. For example:
"Sometimes the people who break the rules win and sometimes they push it too far,"
implying that Uber could be doing wrong things in some more correct way and continue to thrive, and that there isn't anything wrong with that. He doesn't say "broke rules," or "did bad things," he said "pushed the envelope."
Look at the implication there - you can and maybe should do unethical things, break some rules, "push the envelope" with questionable behaviors as long as you get away with it.
I think close to 100% of successful entrepreneurs would agree with the statement "You can, and must break some rule, push the envelope, and engage in questionable behavior when building a company - the challenge is in always remembering where the line is, and never crossing it."
Uber clearly crossed the line when their executives voiced out load their frustration with the media and then continued talking and imagined how nice it would be to give the media a taste of their own medicine and do all sorts of reporting on them personally.
It's fine to have those little fantasies in your head - but that's as far as it can ever go. What's troubling is that the Uber exec honestly thought it was acceptable to give words to those thoughts... I'm wondering if alcohol was involved.
At the end of the video where Thiel compares AirBnB and Uber in challenging ethics, he clearly says that AirBnB is empowering communities whereas Uber is 'exploiting' Limo drivers. Sounds pretty negative language to me for Uber.
In the context of the rest of the video and other stuff Thiel has said, I interpreted that statement to mean that rule breaking is not necessarily immoral but a company like Uber can get carried away and what is essentially a "culture" of rule breaking meant to undermine unjust regulations becomes one meant to undermine competition at any cost.
There are rules and there are rules. Moral compass tells you which ones you can break, and often breaking the rule is the moral thing to do. So I think Thiel is calling them out for doing things morally wrong, not just rule breaking.
Uber has lost their way. You break rules for a just cause, you get rewarded because you stuck your head out and took a risk. You put it all on the line. But you have to be willing to be held accountable.
Breaking rules to avoid accountability? Well, that just sounds all too fucking familiar.
There is acceptable gray if you're willing to live within the consequences. Big companies never do work until the contract is signed. Smaller companies live within the ambiguity. ("If we mess up, we're out of business anyway.") Big companies may never sign someone who has a non-compete. Small companies take the risk. ("It's not enforceable")
If you cross too often and too far, that's when you get into trouble.
Almost every notable tech company has at least one unethical story behind it. Steve Jobs and Woz selling blue boxes to fund Apple is probably the most famous.
OK, so it's obviously a little transparent of Thiel to say that Uber [a competitor to Lyft, a company in which he has invested] is "on the cusp" of going too far, but Airbnb [another company in which he has invested] has "a different feel" and is OK.
But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying their best to achieve such a monopoly.
[0] "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better." -- http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-fo...
So, I think you're putting words in his mouth suggesting these comments are anti-monopoly in this sense. I don't think in the abstract he's saying he's against a company like Uber striving for market domination.. he's just saying they crossed a line in that pursuit.
As for AirBnB I think the Uber vs AirBnB comparison is a really fair one. AirBnB is a very similar example of a company doing serious disruption and facing pretty severe friction in the form of established lobbies and laws... but they've not been accused of threatening journalists, hoteliers, or anyone else who's challenged them. That's the distinction being made here.
There are lots of startups that appear to be really riding the line that I think Thiel is identifying here (AirBnB, Tesla, and 23andMe come to mind) by taking risks in the name of getting innovative services to customers, not in the name of providing air-cover for cashing in at the expense of their users.
I watched that presentation and he really wasn't championing monopolies in the sense of no internet or water competition, or even really from a consumer standpoint. He was talking about positioning your company so that you aren't really competing with anyone else, either because you are doing something different, or your product is orders of magnitude better (first iPhone) so you don't realistically have competition.
Airbnb does have a different feel. As a user of the service, there are ways they could make it less frustrating (especially in big cities in peak times), but I never get the impression that they do anything but support their property owners and try to make them better at what they do. When I've had problems, they've solved them and given credit for replacement services.
I haven't heard of Airbnb doing anything underhanded to beat their competition. They are winning by doing the right things, from what I can tell.
And Uber could have achieved the same. Obviously the time is ripe for the service they're offering, but they're hustling (in the negative sense) more than working and that's why it feels different.
Yeah the second he said that he was invested in Uber's biggest competitor, I couldn't take him seriously. Uber has gone over the line sometimes, but he's obviously going to make it sound worse than it is.
(1) In many places they are breaking the law and/or want the law changed so they can expand without breaking it.
(2) This means they need the moral high ground. They need to have people believe they are acting in good faith when operating outside or in the grey areas of existing legislation and policy.
(3) Winning at all costs mentality means operating in ethical grey areas.
(4) You can exloit grey areas but you cannot at the same time occupy moral high ground.
Without a coherent strategy "winning at all costs" (to hell with being ethical) will almost surely lose the war, even if it wins a few battles.
That means, their future as a brand and as a company could be greatly impacted if they continue to have public PR meltdowns that involve dis-proportionate and underhanded approaches to solving their problems.
Things are always going to be messy in their line of work, but they need people's trust and political support outside of pure-business. The specifics can always be debated (and the nuances sometimes are critical), but they need to demonstrate proportionatly and good faith are core values to their firm.
I think you've misinterpreted what Thiel meant about Uber's ethical problem. It seems like Thiel was actually talking about the competition between Uber and Lyft rather than Taxis.
The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).
The bummer is that the bullshit misogyny feels like it's been running pretty rampant for some time, though maybe it's only lately that we're seeing the sort of graduating class of this particular brand of ethically vapid growth-hacked shops seeing some success (Uber, Tinder, Genius...)
I like making things, but the part of our industry that manages to sustain such an asshole-farm gets me wishing I'd chosen a different career path sometimes.
Kudos to Thiel on this, though. I think the quickest way for the culture to change is for folks to stop funding it.
SV currently has a culture of "making it," rather than "making." Until it flips back to the latter, it'll continue to be infested by people trying to get theirs at all costs.
Objectivist World View + Wild Success + Survivorship Bias = Incredibly Dangerous Mix when it comes to ethical behavior, IMO.
Having said that, Thiel's very Randian himself, so I'm not sure how much of this is his actual concern for Uber's drivers or journalistic critics versus just being a Lyft investor taking a jab at the competition.
I think Thiel is an investor in an Uber competitor. If so, I'm sure this would bias his opinion. If he were an Uber investor, I doubt he would be saying this. Which implies a weird sort of ethical dilemma - where money invested makes the person not say things about ethics. Just as I'm sure Microsoft investors in the 1990's didn't call out Microsoft for its monopolistic tendencies.
Does anyone else remember the "PayPal Mafia" article (http://fortune.com/2007/11/13/paypal-mafia/) that Fortune did some years ago? There was one description that really stuck with me -- how customer service complaints were handled under Thiel's watch:
Customer-service complaints flooded the phone lines and in-boxes and were often dealt with by simply not answering the phone or doing a mass deletion.
What sort of leader treats customers like that, or looks the other way when minions do it?
For one optimistic moment there, I thought this was going to be about, you know, ethics. Like how Uber abuses its drivers, or how it demeans women, or how it threatens journalists. But no, "ethically challenged" means they don't break the rules successfully enough.
He's a great wordsmith. Disclosing upfront that he's an investor in lyft while also just saying uber is pushing 'a little too far'. He sounds totally transparent and rational right as he puts out the gouging statement 'extracting whatever they can from limo drivers'. That's enough to fuel a branding war between uber and all the other ride sharing services. Lyft can be a friendly service that empowers drivers while uber is slanted as a hegemonic power that sucks the life out of drivers and your wallet.
Is there any hope that Uber could see some serious erosion in its business from all these gaffes? Could Lyft succeed by merely being the anti-Uber? On one hand, it does seem like Uber's ultra-agression has been an important contributor to its success. But could it have pulled all this off without the dirtbag gene?
I'll finally be giving Lyft a try but wish they had black cars & SUVs.
Lyft's management hasn't looked anywhere near as competent as Uber's. They have gotten as far as they have by ridding in Uber's wake. Unless Uber destroys itself I don't see them pulling ahead.
Emailed them and requested they delete my account today, so there's at least some impact, albeit minor. Just deleting the app isn't enough. They still count you as a user.
"The remarks attributed to me ... do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company's views or approach," Michael later said. "They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."
Uber also practiced ordering and canceling rides with a competitor (Gett) in order to recruit their drivers (and possibly to act as a denial of service attack). This was discovered and the company disavowed the practice as that of a rogue group of employees.
... And then later in the year was caught doing it again, except this time to Lyft.
At this point their public statements on what their company's views or approaches are is entirely useless. Uber has proven multiple times that their statements aren't just typical PR spin, but tread directly into bald-faced lies.
> Meanwhile, Facebook is pretty much the most evil and dangerous company in the Valley
Oh, come on. You're just being a sore loser.
> Look, nobody owes anyone a paycheck for their business model -- you gotta show up to work and earn it, just like everyone else. Taxi companies may not exist in 50 years, and the people involved just have to adapt to figure out what to do next. As for the people driving for Uber -- again, look, it's their prerogative to enter into financial situations that are not sustainable long-term; nobody is forcing anyone to ride for these guys.
Labor regulations exist for a reason; so some asshole from Silicon Valley doesn't turn a non-insignificant part of the population into Slaves-As-A-Service. Just because Uber is lying to people about possible wages doesn't make it right [1] [2] [3].
> I believe in morals and ethics. I believe in what is right. There is NOTHING immoral about Uber. Maybe they are aggressive and crazy, but maybe you haven't seen how every single multi-billion-dollar business looks like from the inside. If anything, I find it refreshing to see Uber be so transparent in their sentiments; the sort of completely unethical and fucking evil shit rubber-stamped by Peter Thiel during the evolution of Facebook should be far more concerning.
"I don't believe in evil.....but everyone else is doing it!"
I'm not here to hero worship Thiel; honestly, I couldn't care less about VCs in the Valley. Uber is an amalgamation of everything that's wrong with the startup scene (Frat house culture, "win at all costs", disrupt no matter what the law is); the faster they burn through their VC money and sputter out, the better.
[+] [-] ivraatiems|11 years ago|reply
"Sometimes the people who break the rules win and sometimes they push it too far,"
implying that Uber could be doing wrong things in some more correct way and continue to thrive, and that there isn't anything wrong with that. He doesn't say "broke rules," or "did bad things," he said "pushed the envelope."
Look at the implication there - you can and maybe should do unethical things, break some rules, "push the envelope" with questionable behaviors as long as you get away with it.
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
Uber clearly crossed the line when their executives voiced out load their frustration with the media and then continued talking and imagined how nice it would be to give the media a taste of their own medicine and do all sorts of reporting on them personally.
It's fine to have those little fantasies in your head - but that's as far as it can ever go. What's troubling is that the Uber exec honestly thought it was acceptable to give words to those thoughts... I'm wondering if alcohol was involved.
[+] [-] gordon_freeman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akiselev|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaroth|11 years ago|reply
Uber has lost their way. You break rules for a just cause, you get rewarded because you stuck your head out and took a risk. You put it all on the line. But you have to be willing to be held accountable.
Breaking rules to avoid accountability? Well, that just sounds all too fucking familiar.
[+] [-] mathattack|11 years ago|reply
If you cross too often and too far, that's when you get into trouble.
[+] [-] onewaystreet|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blazespin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jboy|11 years ago|reply
But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying their best to achieve such a monopoly.
[0] "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better." -- http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-fo...
[+] [-] famousactress|11 years ago|reply
As for AirBnB I think the Uber vs AirBnB comparison is a really fair one. AirBnB is a very similar example of a company doing serious disruption and facing pretty severe friction in the form of established lobbies and laws... but they've not been accused of threatening journalists, hoteliers, or anyone else who's challenged them. That's the distinction being made here.
There are lots of startups that appear to be really riding the line that I think Thiel is identifying here (AirBnB, Tesla, and 23andMe come to mind) by taking risks in the name of getting innovative services to customers, not in the name of providing air-cover for cashing in at the expense of their users.
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|11 years ago|reply
I haven't heard of Airbnb doing anything underhanded to beat their competition. They are winning by doing the right things, from what I can tell.
And Uber could have achieved the same. Obviously the time is ripe for the service they're offering, but they're hustling (in the negative sense) more than working and that's why it feels different.
[+] [-] presty|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 001sky|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattee|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwp|11 years ago|reply
Uber's not on the cusp. They have gone too far.
[+] [-] designNERD|11 years ago|reply
http://valleywag.gawker.com/lyft-guts-luxury-service-stickin...
[+] [-] 001sky|11 years ago|reply
(first sentence of the article)
[+] [-] jbhatab|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjf1331|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] softdev12|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 001sky|11 years ago|reply
(1) In many places they are breaking the law and/or want the law changed so they can expand without breaking it.
(2) This means they need the moral high ground. They need to have people believe they are acting in good faith when operating outside or in the grey areas of existing legislation and policy.
(3) Winning at all costs mentality means operating in ethical grey areas.
(4) You can exloit grey areas but you cannot at the same time occupy moral high ground.
Without a coherent strategy "winning at all costs" (to hell with being ethical) will almost surely lose the war, even if it wins a few battles.
That means, their future as a brand and as a company could be greatly impacted if they continue to have public PR meltdowns that involve dis-proportionate and underhanded approaches to solving their problems.
Things are always going to be messy in their line of work, but they need people's trust and political support outside of pure-business. The specifics can always be debated (and the nuances sometimes are critical), but they need to demonstrate proportionatly and good faith are core values to their firm.
[+] [-] alexqgb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrush|11 years ago|reply
The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).
[+] [-] famousactress|11 years ago|reply
I like making things, but the part of our industry that manages to sustain such an asshole-farm gets me wishing I'd chosen a different career path sometimes.
Kudos to Thiel on this, though. I think the quickest way for the culture to change is for folks to stop funding it.
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etherael|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgemcbay|11 years ago|reply
Having said that, Thiel's very Randian himself, so I'm not sure how much of this is his actual concern for Uber's drivers or journalistic critics versus just being a Lyft investor taking a jab at the competition.
[+] [-] softdev12|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frandroid|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|11 years ago|reply
Customer-service complaints flooded the phone lines and in-boxes and were often dealt with by simply not answering the phone or doing a mass deletion.
What sort of leader treats customers like that, or looks the other way when minions do it?
There was also the ugly Facebook ownership shuffle when Thiel got involved as an early investor and a lawsuit over Thiel and his hedge fund management company (http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused...).
For Thiel to lecture Silicon Valley about ethics is a bit rich.
[+] [-] jedp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capkutay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomrod|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|11 years ago|reply
I'll finally be giving Lyft a try but wish they had black cars & SUVs.
[+] [-] onewaystreet|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptown|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frequentflyeru|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potatolicious|11 years ago|reply
... And then later in the year was caught doing it again, except this time to Lyft.
At this point their public statements on what their company's views or approaches are is entirely useless. Uber has proven multiple times that their statements aren't just typical PR spin, but tread directly into bald-faced lies.
[+] [-] uberuberuber|11 years ago|reply
Makes for a nice soundbite but I hope he doesn't actually believe this given Lockheed, Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, etc. are all a part of SV.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|11 years ago|reply
Oh, come on. You're just being a sore loser.
> Look, nobody owes anyone a paycheck for their business model -- you gotta show up to work and earn it, just like everyone else. Taxi companies may not exist in 50 years, and the people involved just have to adapt to figure out what to do next. As for the people driving for Uber -- again, look, it's their prerogative to enter into financial situations that are not sustainable long-term; nobody is forcing anyone to ride for these guys.
Labor regulations exist for a reason; so some asshole from Silicon Valley doesn't turn a non-insignificant part of the population into Slaves-As-A-Service. Just because Uber is lying to people about possible wages doesn't make it right [1] [2] [3].
> I believe in morals and ethics. I believe in what is right. There is NOTHING immoral about Uber. Maybe they are aggressive and crazy, but maybe you haven't seen how every single multi-billion-dollar business looks like from the inside. If anything, I find it refreshing to see Uber be so transparent in their sentiments; the sort of completely unethical and fucking evil shit rubber-stamped by Peter Thiel during the evolution of Facebook should be far more concerning.
"I don't believe in evil.....but everyone else is doing it!"
I'm not here to hero worship Thiel; honestly, I couldn't care less about VCs in the Valley. Uber is an amalgamation of everything that's wrong with the startup scene (Frat house culture, "win at all costs", disrupt no matter what the law is); the faster they burn through their VC money and sputter out, the better.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-makin...
[2] http://ktla.com/2014/09/09/uber-drivers-protest-unfair-wages...
[3] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/10/uber...
[+] [-] chx|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dynofuz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SwellJoe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]