Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday September 11 2019, @06:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the do-they-get-a-lyft-home? dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Uber lays off hundreds more, this time from its engineering and product teams

Uber announced even more layoffs on Tuesday, following an earlier round in July. The ride-hailing company confirmed it's letting go of hundreds of employees in its engineering and product departments to "reset and improve how we work day to day." The total number of staff it laid off this time was 435 people, or about 8% of each department.

"We need to shift how we design our organizations: lean, exceptionally high-performing teams, with clear mandates and the ability to execute faster than our competitors," an Uber spokesman said in a statement. "Today, we're making some changes to get us back on track, which include reducing the size of some teams to ensure we are staffed appropriately against our top priorities."

The layoffs, first reported by TechCrunch, come during a rough period for Uber as it attempts to gain footing as a public company. After debuting on Wall Street in May, the company has seen plummeting stock prices, quarterly revenue loss and an exodus of high-level executives. Three of Uber's board members have stepped down since then, along with its chief operating officer and chief marketing officer.

[...] With this latest round of layoffs, the Uber spokesman said Khosrowshahi asked his management team if they were satisfied with the design of their organizations.

"After careful consideration, our engineering and product leaders concluded the answer to this question in many respects was no," the spokesman said. "Previously, to meet the demands of a hyper-growth startup, we hired rapidly and in a decentralized way." That worked in the past, the spokesman said, but it doesn't anymore.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 11 2019, @10:12PM (9 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @10:12PM (#892930) Journal

    Uber management doesn't really have to be such assholes, it's more of a choice / preference / lack of experience or ability to manage issue.

    Unfortunately they do have to be assholes.
    Uber's business model is not sustainable, never was (unless you have an unlimited supply of people desperate enough to slave in a gig economy).
    Remember, they tried to diversify in many other sectors (e.g. Uber eats, until most of the restaurant owners got smart enough to kick them out). And they were still burning cash, never got to profitable stage.
    All the current managers can do is to attempt a soft emergency landing instead of a hard crash.

    What's the outcome for you, the small fry investor? Well, your retirement may be a bit leaner if your pension fund invested in Uber stock. But that is what has been done expected from the start.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 11 2019, @10:45PM (7 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday September 11 2019, @10:45PM (#892939)

    Unfortunately they do have to be assholes.

    Maybe, at this point in the game, after having played the incipient asshole long enough, you're obligated to follow through.

    Uber's business model is not sustainable, never was

    With a gradual pivot to higher end user costs, and higher net pay for their drivers, they could make a sustainable business out of the brand they have built. Plenty of people would "hail an Uber" instead of calling a taxi, even if the Uber cost twice as much, just because it has a better image. Like paying for fruit on your phone, it doesn't make sense, it makes dollars.

    Unfortunately, swinging the big Silicon Valley dick with self driving car development and other "valuation multiplier" schemes really is a very fast way to burn through cash.

    What's the outcome for you, the small fry investor?

    I'm dumb enough to invest in Tesla, and Canadian Cannabis growers (possibly US based growers, soon...) but Uber? Yeah, no. Hard pass.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:08PM (6 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:08PM (#892948) Journal

      With a gradual pivot to higher end user costs, and higher net pay for their drivers, they could make a sustainable business out of the brand they have built.

      All that it take for a fast death is the various municipalities to release the artificial scarcity introduced by limiting the number of cabs. Competition will do the rest.

      Plenty of people would "hail an Uber" instead of calling a taxi, even if the Uber cost twice as much, just because it has a better image.

      Nope, at least not necessarily and, if momentarily true, not for long.
      Without limitation on the number of taxies in a city, there will be companies that will make sure their service is even more flashy, with stable fees and predictable time to pick-up. I saw this in at least one East-Europe capital, needed a ride for my old parents - I booked the ride over the Internet; chose a stylish people-mover van with wheel-chairs and driver assistance as the most appropriate for the situation; the 'business class' options, fast large Beemers and the all that blitz was also available.

      Do you really think that a mobile application to hail a ride and monitor the progress is such a big deal? Because it seems that's the only "technological platform advantage" that Uber prides itself.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:32PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:32PM (#892962)

        All that it take for a fast death is the various municipalities to release the artificial scarcity introduced by limiting the number of cabs.

        Manhattan has had this for 50+ years, central London limits the total number of cars period taxi or no... however, the rest of the world seems disinclined to go this route for whatever reasons.

        Back in the '90s some friends and I tried to dream up ideas for a zero-investment capital required internet based business. We came to something like InstaCart as a pretty good scheme, as long as you could manage to ride herd on the drivers well enough. Somebody threw out the idea of a taxi service and our group shot it down as "too regulated" - well, I guess Uber has bigger balls than anyone in our group.

        even if the Uber cost twice as much, just because it has a better image.

        Nope, at least not necessarily and, if momentarily true, not for long.

        iPhone came out around about 12-13 years ago. Within a year or so, the Android phone market caught up with iOS in terms of features, yet now, over a decade later, 40% of the US market still pays 4-5x multiples for their fruity phones as compared to nearly identical, sometimes superior, Android products offered by every vendor in sight.

        there will be companies that will make sure their service is even more flashy

        Sure, but you notice that the uberApple diamond encrusted designer phones with their Italian leather accents tend not to sell nearly as well as the hip, popular, well established premium brand. Same can be observed in sales volumes for Mercedes/BMW vs Aston/Maserati - there's always a higher price point product out there, somewhere, but the brands with the right positioning take the bulk of the profit from the market by keeping their sales volume and their prices high. Good marketing people do earn their money, even if it's luck, liquor and guessing - if you do it poorly, you will become the next Jaguar.

        Do you really think that a mobile application to hail a ride and monitor the progress is such a big deal?

        No, and neither do I think that mixing up a bunch of nasty chemicals including lavender scent and a dark brown coloring in carbonated sugar water is hard to do, but top two brands in that market have made Billions, if not Trillions more than the also-rans and local market competition. They'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony, they'd like to buy the world a Coke - and keep that money coming, which they still do to an impressive extent today, even after being rightly branded as a major underlying cause of the western obesity epidemic.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:41PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:41PM (#892969) Journal

          They'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony, they'd like to buy the world a Coke ...

          Yeap, I concede you have a point.

          However, there are many places in which Uber didn't caught or the presence is less that what they'd like. And I don't think it's a coincidence those places are un-/less- restricted on the number of cabs that can function.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:02AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:02AM (#893020)

            Uber didn't caught or the presence is less that what they'd like.

            Oh, yeah - definitely, but they didn't really catch fire at least around here until the last 5 years or so - room to grow, it takes time to replace a commodity like Taxi with a brand like Uber / Lyft / also-ran.

            And, with all the crazy unicorn behavior, they may well tank the company before reaching escape velocity, but they do have a legitimate shot at long term greatness, if their management aren't really the turd-stains they appear to be acting like at the moment. Their best hope might well be to sell the brand to a group that knows what they are doing.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 12 2019, @01:25AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @01:25AM (#893009) Journal

        All that it take for a fast death is the various municipalities to release the artificial scarcity introduced by limiting the number of cabs. Competition will do the rest.

        The places that have this problem could have done it decades ago. They won't until the cab companies are broken which I doubt will happen. There's too many stories like the above where the cartel players are using the law to protect their business models and succeeding. After all, it's more important to protect Uber drivers from themselves rather than having a functioning riding hailing transportation system, wouldn't you agree?

        Do you really think that a mobile application to hail a ride and monitor the progress is such a big deal?

        Tens of millions of people use it for some reason. I bet a fair number of them find it is a big deal.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:30AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:30AM (#893027) Journal

          After all, it's more important to protect Uber drivers from themselves rather than having a functioning riding hailing transportation system, wouldn't you agree?

          To vague a statement for me to decide if I agree or not.

          Do you really think that a mobile application to hail a ride and monitor the progress is such a big deal?

          Tens of millions of people use it for some reason. I bet a fair number of them find it is a big deal.

          Let's make the thing clear in my intended meaning: "big deal = requires billion of dollars and hundred engineer*years to develop".
          Do you think that the "entry level for a local market is set so high that only the kind of Uber/Lyft enterprises can break through it"? Personally, I really doubt it and I can see many "Uber/Lyft-like apps" made available by small taxi businesses acting in a city that doesn't artificially restrict the number of taxis.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 12 2019, @11:41AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @11:41AM (#893121) Journal

            Do you think that the "entry level for a local market is set so high that only the kind of Uber/Lyft enterprises can break through it"?

            In many places, yes.

            Personally, I really doubt it and I can see many "Uber/Lyft-like apps" made available by small taxi businesses acting in a city that doesn't artificially restrict the number of taxis.

            Note the phrase "in a city that doesn't artificially restrict the number of taxis".

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:15PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:15PM (#893162) Journal

    Uber's business model is not sustainable, never was (unless you have an unlimited supply of people desperate enough to slave in a gig economy).

    Who said they don't have an endless supply of drivers? There will always be another person desperate enough (or dumb enough) to trade in their asset's equity for short term money gains. (And the occasional smart person who might make the system work but live more humbly on the pure profit to them). I'm more interested in whether there is an unlimited supply of drivers who have vehicles in better conditions than your average cab; will they reach an equilibrium where the cars are better maintained and comfortable than cabs or does least-common-denominator mean that it will eventually reach that average with more desperate people entering Uber's workforce?

    Obviously there have been investors who have either felt that Uber's model may reach profitability eventually or that they'll be able to unload their stock/VC money on a bigger sucker. The problem is that Amazon started a trend of "yeah we will be profitable someday, but not in the near term...." but investment in a new or unproven market requires one to go beyond the simple financial mechanics and try to figure out what the viability plan is. And somehow there are businesses out there that don't seem to need to prove what their viability will be and people still throw money at it.

    That throwing-of-money, beyond just the usually boom-bubble-bust cyclic, is what I think might trigger depression. Too much loose capital in the hands of too many people who are eventually proven to not be smart with it causes a system collapse when the fails accumulate more than the wins produce new growth.

    --
    This sig for rent.