SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fall of Travis Kalanick Was a Lot Weirder and Darker Than You Thought
A year ago, before the investor lawsuits and the federal investigations, before the mass resignations, and before the connotation of the word "Uber" shifted from "world's most valuable startup" to "world's most dysfunctional," Uber's executives sat around a hotel conference room table in San Francisco, trying to convince their chief executive officer, Travis Kalanick, that the company had a major problem: him.
[...] [A] top executive excused herself to answer a phone call. A minute later, she reappeared and asked Kalanick to step into the hallway. Another executive joined them. They hunched over a laptop to watch a video that had just been posted online by Bloomberg News: grainy, black-and-white dashcam footage of Kalanick in the back seat of an UberBlack on Super Bowl weekend, heatedly arguing over fares with a driver named Fawzi Kamel. "Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit!" Kalanick can be heard yelling at Kamel. "They blame everything in their life on somebody else!"
As the clip ended, the three stood in stunned silence. Kalanick seemed to understand that his behavior required some form of contrition. According to a person who was there, he literally got down on his hands and knees and began squirming on the floor. "This is bad," he muttered. "I'm terrible." Then, contrition period over, he got up, called a board member, demanded a new PR strategy, and embarked on a yearlong starring role as the villain who gets his comeuppance in the most gripping startup drama since the dot-com bubble. It's a story that, until now, has never been fully told.
The article discusses a number of Uber and Kalanick scandals/events, including:
- The #DeleteUber movement following Uber being accused of breaking up an airport taxi strike (which was in protest of President Trump's executive order restricting travel from Muslim countries), as well as Kalanick's decision to join President Trump's business advisory council (and later leave it).
- Susan Fowler's blog post recounting sexual harassment at Uber, and the hiring of former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder to investigate the claims.
- The revelation of Uber's Greyball system, which was used to avoid picking up law enforcement and taxi inspectors.
- Uber's purchase of self-driving truck startup Otto, which eventually led key Uber investor Google (Waymo) to sue Uber, seeking billions in damages.
- Kalanick's "inexplicable" support of Anthony Levandowski, who he called his "brother from another mother", even after Levandowski stopped defending Uber in the Waymo v. Uber case.
- Kalanick's apology to the taxi driver Fawzi Kamel, which amounted to a $200,000 payoff.
- A visit to a Seoul escort-karaoke bar that resulted in an HR complaint and a report in The Information.
- Uber's president for Asia-Pacific Eric Alexander obtaining a confidential medical record of passenger who was raped by an Uber driver in Delhi, India. Alexander, Kalanick, and others discussed a theory that their Indian competitor Ola faked/orchestrated the rape.
- Kalanick making his presence known during a "leave of absence" by trying to maintain control over the company and its board.
- Arianna Huffington promoting her wellness company's products while acting as Kalanick's apparent proxy on the board.
- The new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi's response to the city of London revoking Uber's operating license.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @06:35PM (8 children)
I can confirm that whereas opinions of Travis were a mixed bag, Dara is pretty much universally liked. He's very serious about doing things the right way, and him taking the initiative to address the previously-under-covers 2016 leak gets my utmost respect.
I got in just a month before TK stepped out, shortly before the Holden report, and Liane Hornsay and Frances Frei joined. Since then, the company implemented a crisis hotline where you can anonymously report abuse, it ran courses about what's considered inappropriate behavior, and there's a huge overhaul going on with regards to the cultural values and the performance appraisal process. Frances was particularly vocal about the inadequacy of the top 3 bottom 3 system that was in place before.
I mentioned this before elsewhere, but when Liane had a board member step down the afternoon after he made a sexist comment in a all-hands meeting, it spoke volumes about how serious they were about setting new norms at Uber.
I also recall seeing an email a few months ago that basically said that whoever was working on any competitive intelligence project involving spying was to halt all further work effective immediately. The culture of doing things right is definitely becoming a thing, even if the execs still occasionally slip a hand down your shorts.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 19 2018, @06:56PM (6 children)
I hope you meant "industry execs" and not just "Uber execs", heheh.
Even if the culture of the company has changed, the company has been massively devalued [soylentnews.org] (or corrected) and is still burning a lot of money. Lyft picked up enough traction to gain a much more secure second place than it would have had Uber/TK not made massive and totally avoidable mistakes. Uber, Lyft, Google, and others all seem to be rushing to establish a driverless ridehailing service which could be very profitable but will require a lot of capital to purchase cars that were previously purchased by drivers (except for the few that participated in some financing program). Maybe the automakers will be in a better position than Uber, Lyft, and Google/Waymo to profit from the transition to driverless.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Friday January 19 2018, @07:22PM (5 children)
Let's stop for the moment and think how exactly automakers will benefit from this. Currently they sell 1 car to every family, every 10 years, on average. Some buy used, other buy several new. But today the most important task of the car is to sit still while its owner is working or at home. Few spend more than 1 hour per day driving.
A network of affordable automated taxis, dispatched by Luft or the like, will make personal cars unnecessary - primarily in cities, where most people live. The automakers will be producing a bit more expensive robot cars, but the market of personal vehicles will almost disappear. The reduction of production will stop many conveyors and will result in layoffs. One automatic car can replace many personal ones, especially with automated carpooling (then cost of the trip falls even lower.) Removal of manual vehicles from roads will make them safer, but automakers will have to reduce production heavily.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 19 2018, @08:14PM (3 children)
The automakers have shown no signs of trying to squash the driverless car. They are building their own.
If the user's cost per mile goes down, it could better compete against public transportation (or not, if bus fare goes down instead of up).
You could also see the driverless car being used extensively by the elderly baby boomers [nytimes.com]. They may be inclined to buy their own instead of hailing a new one every time they need it.
Not saying you're wrong but the automakers will get creative to try to hold onto as much money as possible. How about a guerrilla marketing campaign sending drunkards to puke and piss in as many shared driverless cars as possible, with viral videos encouraging people to own their own personal driverless cars?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Friday January 19 2018, @08:31PM
As a card is necessary to even open the door of an auto taxi, the cameras will record the damage, and the stream of vandals will dry out very quickly. Money is one thing, but being blacklisted is worse. There is also a strong financial incentive : the auto cars will be more expensive, and being electric, they won't work for everyone who lives in a multi-story building (which is the most clean, ecologically.) Installation of chargers everywhere will be very expensive, as they may overload existing cables. The public buses may merge with the auto fleet of taxis.
There is one important thing to remember: the automakers will retain the profit, but the companies will be forced to shed factories and workers. It's largely predestined, however - just weird that it happens so fast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:25AM (1 child)
Bed-Bugs! Bed-Bugs in the Car!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:29AM
Mutant migrant bed bugs with leprosy!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:40AM
Your implicit assumption: that "1 hour per day driving" can be shifted at any time of the day, sharing/redelegating the car for other needs results in a continuous uniform use of any "affordable automated taxi".
Assumption breaking down - "rush hour". That "1 hour per day driving" happens mostly during the rush hour. Car pooling for small cars might help, but not that much as you think.
On the other hand, a combination of driverless taxis with "driverless public transport buses" might - but then I don't think the major costs of operating a bus company goes into drivers salary.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @06:55PM
"after he made a sexist comment in a all-hands meeting"
i hope you mean overtly offensive/raunchy/truly nsfw and not just something mildy sexist (old fashioned?) that ran afoul of some man hater's naughty words list.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jelizondo on Friday January 19 2018, @06:38PM (6 children)
This guy pocketed $1.4 billion [businessinsider.com] after his fall...
Could I please, please, please at least humbly stumble?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 19 2018, @06:44PM
...right into the (San Francisco) gutter to die as a poor man?
Kalanick could live a more than comfortable retirement for the rest of his life. Assuming he doesn't become an immortal billionaire. And he could start or invest in many businesses. It's one hecc of a fall.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @06:53PM (3 children)
This is a good example of why wealth inequality is such a fucked up thing. It doesn't matter much these days how messed up someone is, if they can get rich all gets forgiven as they spread their money around. Why does he get to live like a king? For being a fucked up human being?
Come on uzzy and jmo, let's hear your platitudes about why we need to maintain this farce.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @07:28PM (2 children)
You reward the people who made you a lot of money, as an incentive for others to work with you and make you a lot of money.
The criteria that matters is "how much money", because the smart investor doesn't get caught up in the row about the person's flaws and shameful business practices.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 19 2018, @07:39PM
You correctly identify the reason such messed up people get so ridiculously rewarded. But it's still messed up.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday January 19 2018, @08:47PM
Which leads to the obvious question: Who should be caught up in the row about a person's shameful business practices? I've got a candidate: Government regulators and law enforcement. But no, that's big government, we can't have that.
And now you know why big businesses love all the "small government" talk: It means laws aren't being enforced, which means that they can more easily get away with crime.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday January 19 2018, @07:45PM
+1 insightfunny
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday January 19 2018, @08:42PM (4 children)
This is the first I've heard of it, and may I say it's both hilarious and absolutely should be legal.
1) Uber has no responsibility to help law enforcement in an undercover operation targeting them, do they? This is like the 5th Amendment applied to business. If it was an above-the-board investigation then yes, they'd have to comply with law enforcement requests and whatnot.
2) I assume Uber can reserve the right to refuse its business to anyone.
3) The only way I can see this being illegal is depending on how they go about identifying who to ignore. But if it's just scraping publicly-available websites that sounds fine.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 19 2018, @10:24PM (1 child)
Which is why it should not be allowed to compete with services that must pick up "all" fares. Examples:
http://www.taxirights.gov.bc.ca/drivers.html [gov.bc.ca]
http://taxi.vic.gov.au/drivers/taxi-drivers/driver-rights-and-responsibilities [vic.gov.au]
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_54.pdf [nyc.gov] section 54-20
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 19 2018, @10:31PM
Not to mention (having just thought of it) that refusing services because the person is a regulator.... I'd construe that as an attempt to avoid regulation and therefore a form of obstruction of justice.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:28PM (1 child)
My question is, since police are most closely associated with the color blue, why wasn't this called "blueballing"?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday January 20 2018, @01:54AM
Because, occasionally, some people *did*, happily, get all the way to their destination.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
The Kalanick/Kamel so-called "heated argument" seems really blown out of proportion. Go watch the video for yourself and see how you feel. Yes, they were arguing, but it's not like they went ape shit on each other.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 20 2018, @06:07AM
It still earned the man a cool $200k. 💰
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]