I'm frankly astonished at how bad Uber is at setting an image - or if they're not bad at it then they're <i>terrible</i> at deciding what image to set.<p>I've never used them* but based on their reputation and depending on circumstances I think my preference order would be Lyft, taxi, public transportation, livery service, call friends to ask a favor, Uber, walk - and "walk" might move up the list depending on the weather and distance.<p>* The one time I tried to actually <i>use</i> Uber they locked my account because the card on file was declined - it'd been replaced after the Home Depot breach. Their unlock policy appeared to be something like "send us a picture of the card," which wasn't going to happen since it had been shredded months before. The early press about their business practices had already started, so I wasn't that interested in pursuing unlocking either.
TLDR: "In a filing last night, Uber pushed back against the allegations of fraud, arguing its contract with Ergo had specified that the investigation be both lawful and professional, and neither Kalanick nor Uber had any idea an investigator might stray beyond that. "Uber took reasonable steps to ensure that Ergo complied with the law," the filing reads. "It is undisputed that Uber and Mr. Kalanick were unaware that Ergo would use misrepresentations during its investigation.""<p>According to the article, it's common to do due diligence on plaintiffs, especially when they do something weird like name the CEO personally in the lawsuit. But it's obvious the research firm Uber contracted did more than they asked.
I have mixed feelings about Uber. On one side it takes a thick skin to go against the various taxi cartels (some of which are close to an organised mafia, like in Paris, where taxi drivers will not hesitate to physically assault competitors). And they do provide a better service.<p>On the other side I am not keen to see a mafia replaced by another mafia. There has been multiple stories about Uber bullying competitors. And this. And Uber also seems to be very much minded to milk the customer to the last penny. Introduction of peak pricing, Uber charging a cancellation fee when the driver cancels the ride, etc.
No shady tactics will surprise me when it comes to Uber.<p>I still receive spammy emails they continue to send. And Sendgrid is fully in bed with them.<p>Forwarded spam to Sendgrid and they said they will follow up with Uber (so apparently they are Uber's customer support at this point - great!)
The spamming practice never changed or stopped despite Sendgrid telling me they will send my email to them (!!) to unsubscribe me from their list, when I didn't even subscribe in the first place.<p>As I received more Uber spam I kept updating Sendgrid ticked (zendesk). Eventually some 2 weeks later they closed it as "resolved" and never replied to my emails again. I still get Uber Spam from Sendgrid. Stay away from that piece of shit as long as you can!! (both Uber and Sendgrid)<p>PS. As of Uber, I copied all my emails and forwarded them to FCC. In short telephone conversation I was told I'm not the only one and as they have reached over 1,000 complaints in short period of time, they will be investigating both into Uber practices and also Sendgrid as an accomplice to their alleged crime.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003</a>
This is the result of what happens when you have a massive intelligence community and workers decide to go into private industry.<p>"Threat intelligence" has always been a bit shady and of questionable security value. CEOs just like to get handed an "intelligence portfolio" to feel big and powerful, regardless if it practically improves their security.
My eyes lit up when I saw "Judge Rakoff"[1] mentioned in the article. He's not someone who suffers fools gladly. Uber better hope that they succeed in their motion to compel arbitration, otherwise things could get very "interesting" for them.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff</a>
This is backfiring for Uber the way having Ralph Nader followed did for General Motors back in 1966.[1]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/g-m-ralph-nader1965-1971/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/g-m-ralph-nader1965-1971...</a>
One issue unexplored in the article: was Uber under a document preservation order related to the litigation when it (allegedly) used Wickr to communicate with Ergo about the investigation? If so... I don't think the court will take kindly to either "the chat app ate my homework" or "no really, we agreed to us Wickr and exchanged screen names, and then stopped emailing, but I swear we never actually used it" as defenses.
Uber sure gets a lot of bad press, but if the movie Wolf on Wall Street is any indicator, there's no such thing as bad press (unless you're Theranos). The press seems to be helping Uber a lot in name recognition. It's becoming the Kleenex of on-demand car services.
What is the real value proposition of Uber? The software?<p>Why didn't they just license the software to taxi companies?<p>What do HN readers think?
So someone doesn't like surge pricing and decides to wield the heaviest stick they can (the State) against Uber, via antitrust (legislation which shouldn't exist in a free country).<p>Then he has the gall to complain that the company he's trying to sue investigates him in an aggressive and possibly illegal manner.<p>I don't see there's a good guy here. AFAICT, both he and Uber are behaving in a fairly contemptible fashion.<p>For those here who support antitrust legislation (even in cases other than this one), this is worthwhile reading:<p><a href="https://mises.org/library/antitrust-case-repeal" rel="nofollow">https://mises.org/library/antitrust-case-repeal</a><p>"Professor Armentano begins with the most rigorous and revealing account of the Microsoft antitrust battle to appear in print. He further discusses other recent cases, including Toys `R' Us, Staples, and Intel, as well as many historical cases. He covers nearly every conceivable rationale for antitrust, including price fixing, tie ins, vertical and horizontal mergers, and many more."<p>It's a bit old, but still highly relevant.