Slashdot Mirror


IT Departments Try To Avoid Getting "Ubered"

StewBeans writes: Fortune 500 companies and longstanding corporate giants are losing to startups that are born digital because they can't keep up or they refuse to acknowledge the ways that technology is changing both business and consumer preferences. Getting "Ubered" is now one of the biggest threats to traditional IT departments as the growing number of unicorns like Airbnb, Spotify, Square, and others take over the economy and win the hearts and minds of increasingly mobile, always-on consumers. In this article, nine tech leaders from large companies talk about how they have had to change their approach in order to keep pace and avoid getting disrupted by the next big thing around the corner.

233 comments

  1. I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please, "Ubered", no. Not only no, and also no, but it sounds like a noise I once made in between too many bratwursts with too much mustard and too much sauerkraut, and way way way too much beer. I think the beer was lagered, which would make a sort of onomatopoetic sense, if it led to ubering.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Samzenpus,

      Have you ever had a job in a real IT department? The worker is typically mandated by draconian management: they don't have a choice in what to use, and are typically chained to a desk for the duration.

      Not to mention that Uber is a piece of crap that would have died out on launch if it didn't have millions in capital to pay off/fend off municipalities that don't want them.

      You've been around here a while so I would hope you aren't still living in mommy's basement. If you could get me a job in one of those mystic IT departments where the users are on the road all the time, that would be great.

    2. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought exactly the same thing when I read the title. Not to say it is also widely inappropriate to what it is trying to describe. Uber is making money because they ignore the law and regulations in the industry it is entering in. That's where they make money. It has nothing to do with the quality of the service or anything else. Basically, they do not pay taxi licenses, they do not pay taxes in many places where they are offering the service. They are using cheap labor which do not rely on taxi for living. Really, ubered? In the IT business, the equivalent to Uber is outsourcing, offshoring the business to cheap barely knowledgeable people in India, China or elsewhere around the world. It is doing tax evasion by running an international business and declare revenues where the taxes are the lowest, like almost every big international business is doing for decades.

    3. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they ignore laws lobbied by cab unions that drive up costs to consumers?

    4. Re: I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "worker is typically mandated by draconian management: they don't have a choice in what to use, and are typically chained to a desk for the duration."

      Sounds exactly like the 2-3 year old startup I work at.

    5. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by boligmic · · Score: 0

      Um, who cares if a "municipality" wants them - it is want the consumer wants - what I want trumps what someone is wants to make me use.

    6. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that Uber is a piece of crap that would have died out on launch if it didn't have millions in capital to pay off/fend off municipalities that don't want them.

      They have those millions because people hate cab companies, and Uber offers a better alternative. So it must not be a piece of crap, if people are voting that heavily for it with their $$$.

      Hint: It's not the *people* of the municipalities that don't want Uber, it's the *cab companies* and the *politicians owned by the cab companies* who don't want them.

    7. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tlambert · · Score: 0

      Uber is making money because they ignore the law and regulations in the industry it is entering in.

      Can you quote the precise statues regarding the ride sharing industry that they are violating, please?

      Or are you insisting on claiming they are taxis without medallions, and given the illegality of gypsy cabs, and gypsy cab with a passenger in it is subject to $100 fines in San Francisco, and San Francisco is notorious for fining the heck out of everyone ... I guess that money is just rolling in, right? Wait ... police don't stop Uber, because they've been told they are not to stop ride sharing services, only gypsy cabs?!? But wouldn't that meant ... they're not a taxi service?!?! OMG!!! That's *exactly* what the city of San Francisco is saying by not stopping each and every Uber car with passengers in it!!!

      So let's give up on this whole trying to classify them as a taxi to make them illegal crap, M'Kay?

    8. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by grahamsz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it depends a lot on where you are.

      My personal experiences with Uber when I was in Salt Lake for a convention were terrible. There was so much demand that they were sucking in drivers from other parts of Utah who didn't know the city well. My hotel was on a weird frontage road thing that nav didn't get and every time an uber drive appeared they'd end up circling the hotel and coming in from the other side. Similarly downtown salt lake has two Marriotts (the Downtown Marriott and the City Center Marriott) - I've never had a cab driver mix those up, but I've had an uber driver stubbornly insist that I was at the hotel I wanted despite the nav showing he was a few blocks away.

      I did have a couple of excellent uber drivers who'd grown up in the city and had no trouble navigating, but uber does a terrible job of separating those from the crap ones. Their weird arms-length sub-contractor situation really hinders their ability to train drivers and make sure they are up to the right standards. If they are actually required to employ everyone then I think it'll be a hell of a lot better. Frankly I went back to taking regular cabs for every situation but 2am coming back from a bar, it was just easier and more predictable.

      Similarly I imagine uber will struggle in places like London where cab services are excellent. The real solution to cities who want rid of uber is to make their own cab services be excellent.

    9. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have those millions because people hate cab companies, and Uber offers a better alternative. So it must not be a piece of crap, if people are voting that heavily for it with their $$$.

      Hint: It's not the *people* of the municipalities that don't want Uber, it's the *cab companies* and the *politicians owned by the cab companies* who don't want them.

      While this is true to a large degree, there are other factors involved.

      I agree that taxi companies and municipalities have long been in each others' drawers, to the detriment of the general populace. But there is also some justification for some of the laws.

      For example: making sure a driver had commercial-grade liability insurance. (I don't want to go into the general concept of insurance here; I'm not a big fan. But that is the current system, no matter how much it needs to be changed.)

      One of the big problems with Uber is that it has wanted to operate on the cheap, while at the same time charging a rather steep rate for its service. And not only that... it was recently ruled (was it California) that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, because of the way Uber tells them what to do. And I saw that coming a mile away. I mentioned it here on /. months ago.

      Uber tells its drivers what to do WAY too much, if it wants to call them "independent contractors". It tells them they must not get commercial insurance, for example... that is grounds for cancellation. It tells drivers they can't have guns... something you might tell an employee but have no authority to tell a contractor. I am frankly surprised this ruling was made so soon.

      It isn't just municipalities. The IRS has guidelines for determining who is a contractor vs who is an employee. And Uber was very obviously way over that line.

    10. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't have a choice in what to use, and are typically chained to a desk for the duration.

      Err, no, we can use whatever we want as long as it's free. Meanwhile management spends $10,000 per end on dumbass conference screens and $50,000 a pop to fly all the managers off to a "strategy" meeting.

    11. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Airbnb is no golden ray of light either, just like Uber it's skirting way too close to local ordinances (ie, is a home a hotel or not, and if so is it paying hotel taxes, etc).

      And face it, "unicorn" is a stupid term anyway. But most of these like real unicorns will turn out to be fiction in the long run. This is all a repeat of the first dot-com era where people also could not tell the difference between fantasy and reality in their rush to get rich quick in the "new" economy.

    12. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it makes millions because millions of kids are hooked on their smart phones. They don't hate taxis, but they think using an app is so much cooler even though essentially the services are identical.

      What the customers want are irrelevant if laws are broken. Ie, the uber drivers are employees yet in many places they were not granted the protections given to workers by law. If we overturn every law just because some customers want something means pretty soon all laws go away. If there are some artificial barriers to entry into the taxi market (and Uber is just a taxi company) then change those laws instead of ignoring the laws. And don't whine that laws are too hard to change. If you don't live in a democracy then try to get one; if you do have a democracy then you may as damn well make use of it.

    13. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They ignored employment laws. They ignored safety laws. They just ignored laws in general. Ie, the rule that taxi drivers must have commercial insurance is not just some scam to keep out other taxi companies, it is there because such a public service must have better coverage than the generic driver. Uber was basically lying the whole time, claiming it was just "ride sharing" when it was patently obvious to everyone that it was just another taxi service pretending not to be one in order to avoid regulation.

      Maybe the regulations are bad, maybe not. It is irrelevant because that was the law! Just because this is the second wave of dot-com insanity does not mean we get to ignore the law.

    14. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      How is Uber not a taxi service?

    15. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      How is Uber not a taxi service?

      It's a private hire/limo company? How is Uber any different from someone calling a private hire/limo company, negotiating a price for the journey and then being picked up kerbside? All of which is legal in most cities.

      The only difference in the process (from the customer's point of view) is that it is much more efficient.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    16. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it was recently ruled (was it California) that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors,

      Myth. It was a single case with a very particular set of circumstances: a woman who, it turns out, has this weird habit of inserting herself into situations, gaming and setting-up conditions a certain way, hiring a certain bunch of lawyers, then generating successful lawsuits.

      I live with the son of a laywer who has zero losses. The interesting thing to him was how the judge in this case quite emphatically, and with repetition, enunciated repeatedly how his ruling only applied to that individual case...

      Because it looks like the judge figured-out the woman's history, and didn't want the case to set a precedent for the scum-lawyers to pounce on. I know Uber drivers by the way: none are told what to do. They operate like a marketplace just like Amazon.com or Ebay--there are standards, they have to interface a certain way, but if you want to drive around in a clown suit all day all the Uber people care about is that the ratings aren't tanking or they'll kick you off that system...just as with Amazon's or Ebay's.

    17. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taxi laws came about for more than just insurance. The unregulated taxi industry was literately gang warfare. If you called the wrong taxi company and they came into another taxi company's turf to pick you up, they would get shot at. Sure that wasn't happening everywhere, but it was happening in enough areas that city governments had to step in and those laws eventually spread around the country.

      Uber has already shown us the type of cut throat taxi industry they want to create. Very early in their life they, by policy, were scamming other 'taxi' companies with false calls. Instead of spending their money in changing local laws to make their business format legal, they've been spending their money to twist and turn themselves into every shape possible to avoid the issues. I don't care if they offer a better service or not, the company itself is slime and completely morally corrupt. I can't wait until they're crushed. Anyone who trusts them not to turn extra super evil once the standard taxi industry is killed is a fool. Their own history says they will.

    18. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Municipalities that don't want them create laws to ban them...so Uber cares.

    19. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Private limos are regulated too in California. They have a PUC license to operate and rules they must follow.

      Uber ignores those too.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    20. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private limo companies have employees. Private limo companies have liability insurance. Private limo companies are regulated...Uber claims none of those apply because it's a unicorn flush with investor cash. Uber is being kicked out of more cities because of shady practices, terrible employment policies, and violations of the law. I'm not saying you shouldn't support them, but this isn't the horse I'd want to ride home on.

    21. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Private limos are regulated too in California. They have a PUC license to operate and rules they must follow.

      Uber ignores those too.

      I wasn't stating the Uber is obeying all the relevant laws. Just that the laws governing limos (private hire in other countries) are more relevant to Uber than laws governing taxis.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    22. Re: I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For much that I embraced.it at the beginning.. .. I can only agree with you bow

    23. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise for IT departments. This isn't the first time IT has been "Ubered". When PCs first came in, lots of people used them to avoid the clumsy bureaucracy of their corporate IT departments. They knocked out spreadsheets, MS-Access databases, wrote apps in Basic.

      Problem is, there's a reason corporate IT is bureaucratic. Part of the corporate infrastructure are things like regular backups, secured data, and the ability for different users to share common data. When the payroll is on someone's desktop PC - or worse yet, a traveling laptop - and you're a Fortune Corporation, there's a lot of risk.

      IT and the DIY-PC crowd have generally come to arrangements, but the process repeats with cloud-based computing and with BYOD.

    24. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tlambert · · Score: 1

      How is Uber not a taxi service?

      They don't own the cars.
      They don't employ the drivers (the one woman in California who professionally pursues lawsuits like this notwithstanding).
      The customer can choose the contractor, if there are multiple equivalent ones.
      They broker the transaction, for a fee.
      They are a peer to peer service broker; they're like the guy who stands outside the Flea Market and charges admission.

    25. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      I've not used Uber (I signed up, started installing the app, read the list of permissions that it wanted, and said 'no thanks' without getting any further), but my understanding is that it has a reputation system for their drivers. Didn't this let you tell apart the ones that knew what they were doing from the ones that didn't?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      This may be a terminology difference. In the UK (and some parts of US law), Hackney Carriage is the legal term for a vehicle that can be flagged down to pick people up on the street and take them somewhere for a fee (though taxi is in common use for them). Private limos and vehicles that turn up after a phone call / app message / whatever, but can not pick people up from the street are covered by legislation that refers to taxis. In legal terminology, Uber is providing a taxi service, they just might not be in common usage terminology.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re: I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. The Uber system fires (or whatever doublespeak they use to describe it) a driver when their rating falls below 4.6 if I recall. Can't be bothered to Google it to confirm right now. But basically the rating system allows you to choose between a nearly-perfect rated driver and a perfect one one, making it a basically useless metric, especially given what I imagine to be a high turnover rate. Anyone have a link to suggest what the over-under on a new Uber driver's longevity is?

    28. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Please, "Ubered", no. Not only no, and also no, but it sounds like a noise I once made in between too many bratwursts with too much mustard and too much sauerkraut, and way way way too much beer. I think the beer was lagered, which would make a sort of onomatopoetic sense, if it led to ubering.

      Yes. The word is dumb. Using this particular one seems like a marketing campaign.

      Anyway, we already HAVE a term for this phenomena, "disruptive technology" and it's been around since the late 80's.

      Just because you fall for some marketing crap, doesn't mean the idea is new...

    29. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: It's not the *people* of the municipalities that don't want Uber, it's the *cab companies* and the *politicians owned by the cab companies* who don't want them.

      And the politicians don't want them because it eliminates opportunities for corruption and graft.

    30. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They ignored employment laws. They ignored safety laws. They just ignored laws in general. Ie, the rule that taxi drivers must have commercial insurance is not just some scam to keep out other taxi companies, it is there because such a public service must have better coverage than the generic driver.

      Yes, and while an uber driver is carrying a paying passenger, Uber provides additional insurance. The only time the driver doesn't have additional insurance is when they're driving to pick someone up. But while the vehicle is "in service", that is, carrying a customer, it does have additional insurance. So, I guess you have no objections?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber is making money because they ignore the law and regulations in the industry it is entering in.

      Can you quote the precise statues regarding the ride sharing industry that they are violating, please?

      You're a Fucking Idiot!

    32. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yes. The word is dumb. Using this particular one seems like a marketing campaign.

      This is perhaps a meta-comment about Slashdot in general, but it seems more and more like the people running Slashdot have decided on a story formula that reads: "Muckraking sensational stories bring in eyes."

      Most of the topics on the front page today seem to be that kind of thing: "Organization X is doing awful this!"

      It's bait for the marks, not news for nerds.

    33. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No, it makes millions because millions of kids are hooked on their smart phones. They don't hate taxis, but they think using an app is so much cooler even though essentially the services are identical.

      The solution to that is for Taxi companies to produce and promote the use of smart phone apps to contact and dispatch conventional taxis to people who need them. I'm surprised the taxi companies haven't latched onto that and made good use of apps in this way.

    34. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regular taxi is simpler. I send a SMS to my local company with a pickup time, they acknowledge. i am picked up and taken to the airport. At the destination airport I grab my bag and there are taxis waiting there right outside the door. When I leave my hotel or my office, there are taxis there. I took a 5 day trip, used a taxi 9 times, and all it took was one SMS message.

      Now.. if you are not in a city or at an airport, YMMV but then again, so will your Uber/Taxi experience regardless of how you summoned them.

      Back to the point of story.
      These companies do have a chance to stir the pot but every one listed seem to be perpetually in "startup" mode, making little to no money for years or if at all and all are keeping the doors open with additional VC funding. They are living quarter to quarter with very little assets with a prayer no one else will come in and do the same thing they are. Remember Myspace? It takes very little to disrupt these guys. People will switch from UBER to the newer competing UBER2 in a second if the app looks better.

    35. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uber was basically lying the whole time, claiming it was just "ride sharing" when it was patently obvious to everyone that it was just another taxi service pretending not to be one in order to avoid regulation.

      So Uber is the ride sharing equivalent of Paypal then?

    36. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh it's not the job of uber to rate them, the app have a driver rating for a reason

    37. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do have objections. While an Uber driver is on the road looking for fares, they are racking up extra miles, creating traffic and accidents (that's the way it is -- so many miles translates to so many accidents). A normal taxi or limo is insured -- by law -- as long as the car is on the road. Uber drivers not carrying passengers but driving to a pick up are still costing us money in the form of extra traffic and accidents. Uber needs to cover that. It's not fair to me as an insured driver to pick up those costs. Yes, I pick up those costs. Shared risk. That's what insurance is all about. Uber is creating risk and not sharing in its cost.

    38. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I do have objections. While an Uber driver is on the road looking for fares,

      No, they don't do that. They do go pick them up, of course. But anyone who drives more miles already has to pay more for insurance because they drive more, so again, what's the problem?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      StewBeans writes:

      At least complain at the right person, it isn't like Samzenpus had anything to do with this story in reality.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    40. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Private limos and vehicles that turn up after a phone call / app message / whatever, but can not pick people up from the street are covered by legislation that refers to taxis. In legal terminology, Uber is providing a taxi service, they just might not be in common usage terminology.

      You can flag down an Uber car that drives past? Don't think so. That makes Uber a private hire system.

      Uber cars turn up after an appointment is made to pick up a specific person. That's pretty much the definition of a private hire car in the UK. To be clear, in the UK, private hire cars can pick people up from the street -- it's just that the pickup must be arranged in advance.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    41. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      You mean they ignore laws lobbied by cab unions that drive up costs to consumers?

      Ahhh...the old anti-union troll.....go screw yourself.....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    42. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can the rating system let you know who is local, and who is just in town for the convention?

    43. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You can flag down an Uber car that drives past? Don't think so. That makes Uber a private hire system.

      Did you read what I wrote? The fact that you can't flag it down means that it's not a hackney carriage: you have to book it, so it's a taxi. Vehicles that can be flagged down and picked up in the street need a hackney carriage license. Vehicles that must be booked require a taxi license.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    44. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Um, who cares if a "municipality" wants them - it is want the consumer wants - what I want trumps what someone is wants to make me use.

      Yeah, what you want trumps everything, you special little snowflake.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the now-legendary "cab companies and government" conspiracy theory.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    46. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      You seem to be under the misapprehension that taxi == private hire. Instead, taxi == hackney carriage. For example, see this page.

      Or how about what Wikipedia thinks

      "In the United Kingdom, the name hackney carriage today refers to a taxicab licensed by the Public Carriage Office, local authority (non-metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities) or the Department of the Environment depending on region of the country.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    47. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When the payroll is on someone's desktop PC - or worse yet, a traveling laptop - and you're a Fortune Corporation, there's a lot of risk.

      You clearly have never worked anywhere with a payroll of more than a dozen people.

      Even moderate sized companies take great care to secure their payroll systems. You simply can't not pay your staff. You can hold off paying your suppliers, but if it's pay day and people's bank accounts don't get credited, you have the prospect of your whole company grinding to a halt.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You mean they ignore laws lobbied by cab unions that drive up costs to consumers?

      *golfclap*

      Well done for coming up with an even more ludicrous scapegoat than the "cab owners in league with corrupt politicians" one.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Uber is making money because they ignore the law and regulations in the industry it is entering in.

      Can you quote the precise statues regarding the ride sharing industry that they are violating, please?

      Or are you insisting on claiming they are taxis without medallions, and given the illegality of gypsy cabs, and gypsy cab with a passenger in it is subject to $100 fines in San Francisco, and San Francisco is notorious for fining the heck out of everyone ... I guess that money is just rolling in, right? Wait ... police don't stop Uber, because they've been told they are not to stop ride sharing services, only gypsy cabs?!? But wouldn't that meant ... they're not a taxi service?!?! OMG!!! That's *exactly* what the city of San Francisco is saying by not stopping each and every Uber car with passengers in it!!!

      So let's give up on this whole trying to classify them as a taxi to make them illegal crap, M'Kay?

      Fuck off, if you pay someone to take you somewhere in a car they're a taxi service.

      Ride-sharing involves no profit element.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    50. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      How is Uber not a taxi service?

      It's a private hire/limo company? How is Uber any different from someone calling a private hire/limo company, negotiating a price for the journey and then being picked up kerbside? All of which is legal in most cities. The only difference in the process (from the customer's point of view) is that it is much more efficient.

      A private hire limo is just a posh taxi.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private limos and vehicles that turn up after a phone call / app message / whatever, but can not pick people up from the street are covered by legislation that refers to taxis.

      You can flag down an Uber car that drives past? Don't think so.

      Wat?

    52. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should have some laws about operating a taxi and/or a fleet of taxis. But it's clearly not currently necessary to grant a monopoly to encourage people to take up the trade, and we should eliminate that portion of the law.

    53. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coren22, do you use administrator priveleges in programs?

    54. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Good analogy :-)

    55. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      A private hire limo is just a posh taxi.

      No, in the USA and UK it's not. Private hire limos are regulated differently from taxis in those countries. This doesn't mean that Uber is following all the laws that are relevant to private hire/limo services. In other words, Uber isn't an illegal taxi service, but it may be an illegal private hire/limo service.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    56. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by khallow · · Score: 0

      Taxi laws came about for more than just insurance. The unregulated taxi industry was literately gang warfare. If you called the wrong taxi company and they came into another taxi company's turf to pick you up, they would get shot at. Sure that wasn't happening everywhere, but it was happening in enough areas that city governments had to step in and those laws eventually spread around the country.

      Or they could have just enforced the laws on assault and battery.

      Uber has already shown us the type of cut throat taxi industry they want to create. Very early in their life they, by policy, were scamming other 'taxi' companies with false calls. Instead of spending their money in changing local laws to make their business format legal, they've been spending their money to twist and turn themselves into every shape possible to avoid the issues. I don't care if they offer a better service or not, the company itself is slime and completely morally corrupt. I can't wait until they're crushed. Anyone who trusts them not to turn extra super evil once the standard taxi industry is killed is a fool. Their own history says they will.

      I think this brings up an important point. The taxi regulation system has created an environment where slimy businesses are the only ones that can maneuver and exploit the situation. I think instead of trying to stop Uber when they clearly are filling an enormous unmet need, we change the system.

    57. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the customers want [is] irrelevant if laws are broken.

      If the customer wants a product or service, then laws that prohibit the trade are irrelevant. See drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Okay, they aren't "irrelevant" as they add to the cost of doing business.

    58. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, the now-legendary "cab companies and government" conspiracy theory.

      The people are voting their will with their wallets.
      The taxi companies are upset and whining, threatening no political contributions to the politicians.
      The politicians are not upset about medallions market value because the number of medallions is capped.
      Why aren't the politicians voting with the people, if that's who they actually represent?

      It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just the way politics has pretty much always worked since we quit requiring television and radio stations to operate "in the public interest", and quit requiring "equal time laws", and "local content" became irrelevant because of Dish, Comcast Cable, and the Internet. The only remedy would be individual contribution capped public funding of election campaigns, and disallowing companies being considered as "members of the public", or from paying for non-approved ads.

      That's not going to happen, because no sane politician who is an incumbant will ever vote themselves out of office by establishing those rules.

    59. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      But in the true capitalistic fashion, there would be an app for every taxi company. Some might band together and unite under a single one, as long as they each only serviced a certain area. The general quality of the apps would range from "truly abysmal" to "kind of works." To top it off, while it might be OK for locals to have a favorite cab company and get their app, how is a visitor supposed to choose from the sundry list of possible apps? If I'm traveling often, do I now have to have a half dozen taxi apps for every city I find myself in?

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    60. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the confusion comes from the way it was written..."this is not a taxi, but we call it a taxi. But this other thing is a taxi, so taxi laws apply".

    61. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most places require Taxi's to be inspected annually to make sure they are in being properly maintained/safe. Does Uber do that?

    62. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Uber, or at least the basic concept of Uber, is not crap. It is popular not only because it is less expensive, but also because it is an easier and safer way to get a ride.

      Advantages for passengers: you know before you book a trip exactly how much it will cost. (It may change from day to day or even hour to hour because of surge pricing, but you never get in the car without knowing how much you will owe.) You don't have to verbally communicate over the phone or in the cab about where you are going. You don't have to carry cash or pull it out in the cab, making you less of a target for theft. There are no shortages of cabs caused by political boundaries (cabs that can't pick you up because of being licensed by the wrong town). There is no artificial scarcity of cabs imposed by government regulation (the medallion system).

      Advantages for drivers: there is no risk of not getting paid. You don't have to verbally communicate with difficult to understand passengers. You don't have to carry or handle cash, making you less of a target for theft. There are no situations where you can't pick up rides because of political boundaries. There is no need to buy an absurdly expensive medallion, or lease one at a rate that makes it nearly impossible to make a living as a driver.

      You may have noticed the similarities between the two lists. That's because most of the problems with the traditional taxi model hurt both the passenger and the driver. The medallion system, in particular, hurts both; the beneficiaries are the owners of the medallions, which until recently were government sanctioned licenses to print money.

      There are some inherent problems with the Uber model. People who are technologically impaired (elderly, mentally challenged, disabled) or unbanked (homeless, undocumented, very poor) are left out of the system. It is impossible to travel anonymously, which could be a problem for refugees and the like. There are some remote areas where the model won't work because they lack the necessary communications infrastructure.

    63. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, you didn't pay extra because or the extra circling or because you were first taken to the wrong destination. If a regular cab driver made the same mistake, you would have because it would have meant extra time and mileage in the cab.

    64. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their weird arms-length sub-contractor situation really hinders their ability to train drivers and make sure they are up to the right standards. If they are actually required to employ everyone then I think it'll be a hell of a lot better.

      Check the Uber ATC job postings, they are building an autonomous car. The reason they don't want "employees" is because it costs money to terminate them. Contractors on the other hand, you can just shut off their account and send them their final payment.

    65. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

      The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

      ... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

      Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

      @DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

      Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

      YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

      In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

      @DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

      Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

    66. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, no, if you want to respond to tweets in the future, you will do it on Twitter. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

      Cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

      Second, no, that was NOT "the context". I had very good reasons for cussing at you, and that wasn’t it. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

      Yeah, it was a complete coincidence that cupcake was cussing at me while doubling-down on cupcake's absurd Slayer claim. Hey, cupcake might be right. Cupcake's "very good reasons for cussing" at me might be his crippling anger management problem and insecurity over his lack of any scientific experience.

      I told you years ago that your out-of-context bullshit was going to get you in trouble. You should have listened. Your utter inability to see any wrongdoing in your own actions is going to be your downfall. At the time, I didn’t expect that trouble to involve ME, and said so. But so be it. You made it so. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

      Cupcake is even more adorable when cupcake makes statements which certainly aren't threats. Not when cupcake makes them. Cupcake is special.

    67. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

      Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

      Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

      As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

    68. Re:I'm going to try to avoid getting nauseous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

      I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

  2. and Fake *Ubered* by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    oh yeah, already been done.

  3. Outsourced IT has been around forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And if you work for a company even considering it, it's time to prepare your resume anyway because your bosses are clueless.

    1. Re:Outsourced IT has been around forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Like being MBA'd is new to IT. Where the fuck have you been for the last 5-10 years?

    2. Re:Outsourced IT has been around forever by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yes. I had to laugh when I read this.

      If there's a new threat to people in IT it's services like AWS, which reduce the number of people you need to maintain servers.

  4. No. No verbing for you. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your company name gets verbed ONLY when it's both appropriate and a new word is necessary. You get verbed by popular consent. I'm not saying a massive advertising campaign won't do it, but it's damn hard to force a meme. Xerox. Jeep. Scotch tape. They were verbed because they offered something new. Google. Skype. They were verbed because so many people used their products. But even a massive advertising agency couldn't do it for, say, Bing. So what has Uber done to justify verbing? Sure it's shorter than, say, "out-innovated". But "Ubered"? It just sticks in my craw. No thanks. And take your viral marketing with you.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:No. No verbing for you. by cas2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what have they done?

      they've made people think that piecework and pushing all running expenses onto the worker is an acceptable way to hire people.

      their driver ranking system is also a great way of undermining worker solidarity.

      that's why MBA types love them - they've undone over 100 years of hard fought industrial struggle or, at least, in the process of doing so.

      they're also the ultimate parasitising middle-men.

    2. Re:No. No verbing for you. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      But even a massive advertising agency couldn't do it for, say, Bing.

      I don't know...I had spicy tacos last night and took a giant Bing this morning. Then my Binging car wouldn't start so I had to walk to work, and wouldn't ya know it, I stepped in a big ol' pile of Bing.

      "BING! BING! BING!" I screamed, as I tried to scrape the Bing off my shoes. My boss, who is a total Binghole yelled at me for being late, so I told him to Bing off. I got fired and now I feel like Bing.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:No. No verbing for you. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Curious here.....what exactly does "to jeep" mean as a verb?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:No. No verbing for you. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Hmmm ... poo Binging monkeys ... up Bing Creek without a paddle ... Bing for brains ...

      You may be onto something.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re: No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One sec, let me altavista that.

    6. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's perfect for this. It's completely obliterating an entire industry's way of doing things. More specifically, because that old industry was abysmally bad at what they did and simultaneously so out-of-touch that they didn't see their complete obliteration was only months away. Now there's nothing they can do. It's too late. For traditional taxi service, as all of us have known it our entire lives, it's all over but the shouting.

    7. Re:No. No verbing for you. by rebelwarlock · · Score: 4, Funny

      Libertarian spotted! Oh boy, let me bust out the libertarian jokes. Why did the libertarian cross the road? I have no desire to answer that. Am I being detained?

    8. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying a massive advertising campaign won't do it, but it's damn hard to force a meme.

      Been there, seen that. What were Mitsubishi thinking with their "it's a Mitsy" advertising campaign? Everyone I know still calls them Bits-a-shitty.

    9. Re:No. No verbing for you. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Curious here.....what exactly does "to jeep" mean as a verb?

      Off-roading, mudding, camping, etc. Basically, going on an adventure/sporting trip. Its one of those things that some people who play in the big blue world enjoy doing. But this is Slashdot, so it's okay if you understand... (grin)

    10. Re:No. No verbing for you. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Curious here.....what exactly does "to jeep" mean as a verb?

      Off-roading, mudding, camping, etc. Basically, going on an adventure/sporting trip. Its one of those things that some people who play in the big blue world enjoy doing.

      But this is Slashdot, so it's okay if you ...don't... understand... (grin)

    11. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a libertarian at all. At least not in any way people have used that word over the last decade. Why would you think that?

    12. Re:No. No verbing for you. by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      Jeeping? Off-roading is the term in my neck-of-the-woods. Maybe they meant they're a jeepster
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-G7-yLFmCQ? Which also makes no damn sense either.

    13. Re: No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite. No real off-roader would describe it as 'jeeping'.

    14. Re:No. No verbing for you. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Bing as a verb is never going to work, as we already have the verb 'to binge', which would have the same written past tense as 'to Bing' and doesn't exactly have a great connotation.

    15. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply eBing.

    16. Re:No. No verbing for you. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Road? Paid by public funds, right? The so-called "road" was created by nothing more than theft-by-force of the hard earned money of businesses and individuals. I therefore reject such communist notions and refuse to recognise "road". Furthermore I shall... *SPLAT*

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman_mir, is that you?

    18. Re: No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean it's steamrolling or bulldozering the competition? New verb unrequired.

    19. Re:No. No verbing for you. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Bing as a verb is never going to work, as we already have the verb 'to binge', which would have the same written past tense as 'to Bing' and doesn't exactly have a great connotation.

      Past tense of "Bing" would be "Bung"

    20. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Context can help, but even if the sentences are the same, capitalization will show the difference. Article, book, and other media titles and also comic book interior text over-use capitalization, so context will matter there.
      I binged on your pizza. (That's okay)
      I Binged on your pizza. (Why would you ever?)
      Florida Man Binges On A Pizza (News titles almost always use present tense)
      Florida Man Admits He Binged On A Pizza (confusing, but the rule of man-bites-dog lets us know what the news is)

    21. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xerox. Jeep. Scotch tape. They were verbed

      Of those, only Xerox has been verbed.

      Nobody jeeps, and getting scotched probably has something to do with either drinking whiskey or airing grievances against the English.

    22. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what has Uber done to justify verbing? Sure it's shorter than, say, "out-innovated".

      No, getting Ubered meant someone ignoring all the laws and regulations your company is subjected to, so they can undercut you and steal your business. Your only hope is for the law enforcement to catch up with them before your company bled to death.

    23. Re:No. No verbing for you. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Curious here.....what exactly does "to jeep" mean as a verb?

      A jeep is a conveyance. To jeep is to convey... in a jeep

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, someone that actually sees the picture. You must be really lonely out there.

    25. Re:No. No verbing for you. by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Never heard of 'he jeeped' or 'he has jept' but for 'let's go jeeping' I found 163k hits when I Googled it.

    26. Re:No. No verbing for you. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      So what has Uber done to justify verbing? Sure it's shorter than, say, "out-innovated". But "Ubered"?

      Not to mention that we already have a perfectly good stupid-fad-term for the phenomenon: disrupted.

    27. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      In other words: using mechanical equipment to fuck up areas of land that were better off before the 'jeep' arrived. You don't need to get up off your swivel chair or take your hands off the keyboard to know that.

      What we need more of is tire-spiking, where 4-wheeler enthusiasts use chains and winches to pull stranded wrecks out of the muddy entry-points of said land.

    28. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, that sounds like a hole we don't want to go down.

    29. Re: No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment would be somewhat less ignorant if you replaced "jeep" with "horse", or perhaps "bison path".

    30. Re:No. No verbing for you. by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      See, because I'm a geek and the closest I've ever gotten to that is watching Top Gear - I thought it was called "subaruing"...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    31. Re:No. No verbing for you. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That is what I was going for, well, except for the getting run over on the unrecognised road bit.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    32. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Binging cloverfield, that bings. I completely understand your cloverfield day.

    33. Re:No. No verbing for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman_mir's critique is exactly correct. Marx had a similarly apt diagnosis of the problem that he saw. Both had to overlook vital parts of human nature in order to conjure up a "simple" solution.

      Yes, governments and taxes are theft by force. You can opt to pay taxes voluntarily though. You don't get to have government without violence because violence is the *definition* of government: a local monopoly on the use of force. Non-coercive government is simply anarchy. Anarchy is an unstable local minimum, which ends when two thugs decide to partner up against a third. There is no way to take violence out of government; we can't even take it out of maximum security prisons.

      It's a good thing we have people like him championing libertarianism.

    34. Re:No. No verbing for you. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      English isn't exactly a consistent language, especially when it comes to conjugation and pronunciation.

      Technically, the -ung conjugations are irregular cases (making their verbs strong):
      http://english.stackexchange.c...

      One could argue that 'bing' is closer to 'ping' than to 'sing' or 'ring'. When was the last time you pung a box?

  5. PP slogans won't cut it by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it. Even Google struggles with that, as Sergei Brin lamented the other day. Also, I fail to see how Uber, Spotify and AirBnB are eating those IT departments' lunches. The businesses they serve, perhaps, but not those departments.

    And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords. "Leverage relationships with decision-makers", "Move at the speed of trust" (Really? Really?! What does that even mean), "If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it", "Use process as business accelerator". These are copied verbatim from the article, and if this is what the best and brightest CIOs in the bunsiess have to offer us, it is small wonder that the IT profession is in such a shite state. I've seen similar statements on a great many powerpoints, and they all failed to make one iota of difference. Yes, you CIO's are going to have to "shift the culture" in your departments, as you like to say. And yes, most of you are woefully unequipped for the task.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by khasim · · Score: 2

      The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it.

      Which does not seem to be addressed by any of the people in TFA.

      I see it as a manifestation of the The Dunningâ"Kruger effect. Those people got their positions NOT through creating something new and valuable but through relationships with other people.

      So, should they be worried about getting "Ubered"? If by "Ubered" you mean "having your business cut out from under you by some who understands IT better than you" then yes.

      The LAST thing I want is some idiot CIO trying to "fix" things that are not broken.

    2. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I fail to see how Uber, Spotify and AirBnB are eating those IT departments' lunches.

      I agree with this. The biggest impact I've seen is Amazon Web Services (aws) - they've made it so easy and cheap to quickly spin up virtual machines, servers, and also S3 to store a lot of data. Our team stopped asking IT for these things once we got permission to use Amazon.

    3. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see that in a tech company, but in most companies AWS tends to be handled by the IT departments, too, because most of the company is non-technical. And in that case, it's pretty anecdotal, but I haven't seen AWS result in any kind of a hit to IT staffing. It does shuffle it around, but it also creates a big pile of new stuff that has to be done. You have fewer people managing physical infrastructure, and instead have a veritable army of DevOps people shepherding all your instances around, building and updating Docker containers, writing and maintaining Ansible scripts, rewriting all your systems so they can handle AZ outages and failover properly, etc., etc.

    4. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      The LAST thing I want is some idiot CIO trying to "fix" things that are not broken.

      Oh, that was: 7. If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it.

    5. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you explained it right there. "Best and brightest CIO" really isn't all that smart. When you're at the C level you are not supposed to have any idea whatsoever what the departments under you do, it's not your job anymore. At the C level you just cheer on your other C level colleagues and collect stock options and hope they pan out some day. The only thing you need to know as a CIO is how to suck up to the CEO and recommend anything Microsoft tells you to.

    6. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords.

      This. A thousand times, this.

      I thought I was having a brain aneurism when I read "move at the speed of trust". What is that? Some kind of lame-o version of Green Lantern's power?

      Then they pulled out the horrid "DevOps" cliche'. In reality those guys transitioned from a 40-year-old mainframe and software to something more modern. What's that you say? Your version control, integration, builds, and automated testing got faster? What a surprise!

    7. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're at the C level you are not supposed to have any idea whatsoever what the departments under you do, it's not your job anymore. At the C level you just cheer on your other C level colleagues and collect stock options and hope they pan out some day.

      With some companies, that appears to be painfully close to the truth. It's not generally true, though. At my company, it's nothing like that. Everyone at the C level is actually quite smart and knowledgeable about their respective part of the organization to surprisingly deep levels.

      (I interact directly with several of them on a regular basis, so the above is based on direct and personal observations over time. No second- or third-hand crap.)

      YMMV, I guess.

    8. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords. "Leverage relationships with decision-makers", "Move at the speed of trust" (Really? Really?! What does that even mean), "If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it", "Use process as business accelerator". These are copied verbatim from the article, and if this is what the best and brightest CIOs in the bunsiess have to offer us, it is small wonder that the IT profession is in such a shite state.

      Exactly. Which is the very reason why they'll be übered, thoroughly, again and again.

    9. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by jomama717 · · Score: 1

      I've seen the same thing regarding AWS. We had already moved away from locally managed hardware to a "private cloud", managed remotely through tickets/change requests/etc. and now we are moving again to AWS. Through all of it we've never had to reduce infrastructure staff, in the case of remotely managed private cloud thing you still needed a team that could take requests from product and translate them into sensible hardware/config requests. With AWS it's even more on the shoulders of our own staff as we will no longer have this remote service group to handle change requests.

      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    10. Re:PP slogans won't cut it by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I honestly think this AWS has to be an artifact of our accounting system where OpEx is better than CapEx, and you want to minimize CapEx in IT. Otherwise, I never see how it pans out - if you can't lower headcount, and you can't use less hardware (assuming you didn't massively overbuild every time you do an infrastructure refresh) then logic for me would say adding a profit in there will always make AWS more expensive than owning your own. It sort of has to be?

      It seems to me like many people are going P2V as well as to the cloud, and mistaking the benefits of virtualization as benefits of the cloud...

      Or... I'm missing something major.

      Where I work we have moved lots of things to the cloud. It pretty much always got worse. We couldn't escalate a ticket like you can in house. You can't flexibly set SLAs. You make scads more work for your legal dept doing contracts for the cloud providers - which don't actually help uptime. You make scads more work for your security dept doing vendor analysis in addition to the existing application security checks they still have to do, etc.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  6. wtf does this article mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    getting "ubered" is an industry thing... not a departmental thing. it's advising IT departments on how they can keep from getting disrupted but there's no fucking danger of that!

  7. Next Big Thing? by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Baring all the corporate jargon, the next big thing more often than not is quite simply a scam managed by venture capitalists and hedge fund managers to create the illusion of the 'next big internet company', pump it up to the biggest bubble possible and then sell it to gullible investors and pension funds (investment managers paid commissions to buy) and 'KABOOM', time for the 'next big thing' (they are not fucking around at all, those bubbles are at minimum hundreds of millions of dollars in size and quite a few end up in the billions range - all bullshit public relations and marketing). Seriously how many more of the dot bombs have to fail before people and investigatory agencies wake up and realise it is all mostly just a well orchestrated scam.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Next Big Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Last week I went on a bit of a binge reading about some of these "disruptive unicorns", and guess what they all have in common? Despite making millions/billions for their initial investors, they've never turned a profit.

      Imagine that; you can start a business which spends more money than it takes in for its entire existence (we used to refer to these as "failures"), and come out of it a billionaire. Let's face it; the stock market, whatever its initial purpose, is simply a platform for legalized theft and fraud on a massive scale. God bless America, huh?

    2. Re: Next Big Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds EXACTLY like the startup I work at. The founders keep pumping us up like what we're doing is cutting edge and never been done before (newsflash I worked for an identical company 15 years ago) but I realize now their only objective is to get more cash from the investors. Business is great as long as they keep buying our snake oil.

    3. Re:Next Big Thing? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      We used to refer to these as 'Enron'. Failure is not quite the term for it, things can fail quietly.

      To 'Enron' means, crank up a corporate culture full of libertarian bravado breaking all the rules you can in order to build a valuation bubble that you use to push things harder and harder until somebody significant gets caught in a position they can't weasel out of, for whatever reason.

      At that point, the top bosses first tell all their employees to buy all the stock they can get their hands on, and then as the thing begins to collapse, lock the employees out of transactions (still not sure how Enron managed that but it's on record they did) while the bosses dump all their stock, driving the price to a hundredth or a thousandth of what it was by the time the employees and regular investors can bail out.

      Uber will be doing this too, the only question is when and why. Maybe the new velocity of information will cause these 'unicorns' (as a unicorn fancier, I'm offended and suggest 'Enrons' as a more suitable monicker) to pop quicker?

  8. Presuming this means "replaced by a new guy" by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then try not sucking at your job? Seriously, the reason that Uber has been successful vs traditional taxis is because taxi services suck. Their service tends to be sub optimal and they don't make use of modern technology to allow people to hail and pay for their ride. Uber does better in that regard, and so is popular. Cost really is secondary.

    Well, same shit with IT work. If you are "Mordoc the Preventer" then ya, you could well be subject to getting replaced with a service (or person) that better meets their needs. However if you stay on top of what your customers need (customers in this case being the people that call you for service) and try to improve things as you can, then you are more likely to be fine.

    I haven't been doing IT all that long, about 15 years now, but in that time I've seen what users need and expect change a lot as technology has changed. They still need and want IT, but what they want from them is different. The IT departments they bitch about are the ones who still think it is 1990 and refuse to update the way they do things.

    1. Re:Presuming this means "replaced by a new guy" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well, same shit with IT work. If you are "Mordoc the Preventer" then ya, you could well be subject to getting replaced with a service (or person) that better meets their needs.

      Sometimes preventing things is the right thing to do. I'm not saying the end users (referred to us "customers" by people who don't have to deal with them) never have good ideas, but they're outnumbered ten to one by the impossible, unworkable, dangerous and downright impossible.

      I haven't been doing IT all that long, about 15 years now

      You don't appear to learn very fast.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Presuming this means "replaced by a new guy" by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If preventing things is the default action, you deserve for your 'end users' to hate you.

    3. Re:Presuming this means "replaced by a new guy" by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Internal IT often is not there to be an internal "Geek Squad" but to manage the entire companies technology stack. They are charged to do what's best for the whole company, not what's best for each individual user.

      Plenty of people hate accounting and PO processes, but that doesn't mean that most people are thinking of just handing each employee a corporate credit card with a 200k limit and letting them do what they want.

      Have you ever worked with outside collaborators? Even where you are allowed to be your own IT, it gets pretty crazy fast - one person insists on Skype, the next Vydio, the next SIP, the next WebEx. Now you have how many different clients installed and trying to keep up to date, not to mention potential licensing or service fees? Now think about document exchange - one group might be Wiki, next EverNote shared notebooks, next OneNote shared notebooks, next Word docs you e-mail around, next PDF, and the last LaTeX.

      And what do you as a user, or even as IT do when suddenly the LaTeX people running Ubuntu need to work on a project with the OneNote on Windows 8.1 people? Good luck with actually getting them to do more than maybe mail around PDFs.

      This is why internal IT tries to standardize and becomes a 'preventer' - because you can't all use the random software on the random platform you found that you liked today. Not if the Company wants to have work output they can refer back to after you leave, or want you to work with anyone else on a project...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    4. Re:Presuming this means "replaced by a new guy" by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      and this is why you will never be a CIO, you know what you are talking about, understand the real issues that concern IT and have a clear vision of how IT should run.

  9. the IT department at my employer is awful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like most IT departments are filled with lazy dorks who are more interested in gaming and watching anime than geeking out and doing work. I'd love to see them replaced by people who actually enjoy working in IT. On the other hand if being "ubered" just means the lazy American assholes just get swapped out for some lazy Indian assholes then it's not worth the trouble.

    1. Re:the IT department at my employer is awful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big part of the problem is unappreciative companies that would just as soon ditch workers who want any reason, any reason at all, to remain loyal.

      Give us reasons to remain loyal and we'll perform.

      (And before any Republican apologists chime in, a paycheck isn't enough.)

    2. Re:the IT department at my employer is awful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are these magical companies where one can enjoy themselves at work doing IT? I have yet to see any IT organization that isn't understaffed and overworked and usually that goes along with grossly underpaid for the work output. News flash, if the IT department has time to goof off, they are probably at least good at what they do. You obviously, like very obviously, have no clue what IT does. The only reason IT gets replaces is because end users accept garbage service. Now if your service sucks with your IT people, you're probably a jerk. Sorry to say this, but that's usually why someone who gets into a job involving problem solving doesn't want to help you solve a problem. Either that or your management sucks and hired their nephew or some crap. Good IT people are always working, even if games are being played or crappy anime is on. The only truly bad IT people are those that are Star Wars fans.

  10. Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by timrod · · Score: 5, Informative

    What I think the article (really more of a short, buzzword-filled list) fails to address is that IT workers aren't leaving major, established corporations for "unicorns" for no reason. Most workers aren't going to give up seniority (and the perks that come with it like better pay and benefits) at a big company for a job at a startup for no reason other than because they can. In reality, it's probably that the startups are offering higher pay and better working conditions, thus giving workers a reason to leave.

    This honestly reminds me of where I work right now, where the management is stumped at why they keep having people quit when they have managers going around every night telling people how much they want to fire them and how at risk they are of losing their jobs.

    1. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Most workers aren't going to give up seniority...

      But I've left several good jobs since no one technical was allowed to take vacation time, or in most cases, even a weekend day off. Of course, changing jobs has never helped since most companies are so understaffed that they can't allow any vacation time.

    2. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Startups also lie to workers, telling them that the stock options are going to make them wealthy some day. You get better pay and better hours working at an established corporation.

    3. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I've left several good jobs since no one technical was allowed to take vacation time, or in most cases, even a weekend day off. Of course, changing jobs has never helped since most companies are so understaffed that they can't allow any vacation time.

      This is one of the big reasons why I don't ever intend to return to the US for work.

      Civilised countries recognise that workers are humans who require a certain amount of down time, and make sure that employers are held responsible for providing it.

      In October of the first full year I worked here, I got an email from HR informing me that I'd only taken 1 week's vacation thus far and that if I didn't schedule at least 3 weeks more before the first of December, they'd put me on *mandatory* vacation the last 3 weeks of the year, explaining to me that the *company* would face legal penalties if I didn't take at least 20 of my 30 paid vacation days within the year.

      They also sent copies to my boss and to his boss as well.

      What a pleasant shock that was.

    4. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Vokkyt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I want to echo this a bit. It was really jarring getting work in Russia of all places and right off the bat I make a fool of myself when I see that I get 30 days paid time off for vacation + select holidays; I asked how the available time off was calculated and the HR woman had no idea what I meant. I explained how my last job had vacation time generated based on the time I was actually at work and there was a cap as to how much vacation I could bank at any given time, and she really didn't understand it at all.

    5. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always true. I work at at a mid growth startup. I get better pay, the usual lunch/free coffee/soda, great benefits, as much vacation as I can justify to my boss, great benefits, and a really great team to work with. That's not to say it isn't stressful, and that I'm not overworked. It's just that here I know my work is appreciated and the company goes to lengths to tell us and show us we're valued and part of the family. My first startup and my favorite job I've ever had.

    6. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been duped by the "American Dream". It's quite silly, but so is your implementation of parliamentalism.

      In Europe, we've now got "the greens". Slowly, people are starting to dismiss the manipulative notion of "left vs right".

    7. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Startups also lie to workers, telling them that the stock options are going to make them wealthy some day. You get better pay and better hours working at an established corporation.

      It's rare that a start up becomes a large company on its own. Usually it's bought out by another company which leaves you kind of screwed as a worker. The owner walks away with a couple of million and you might get a job with the new company but probably not with the same level of responsibility. I've worked for a couple and the biggest problem with startups is the owners. They're a pretty selfish lot. On group I worked for took credit *by filing a patent) on work done by the developers. Another used to fire people for disagreeing with him. He fired six people before he got to me; seems the only way to stay there was to not give your opinion on anything.

      You're also right about the pay. I liked working at a start up, but the offer I got to work at a large company was $25K more than I was making and I'm doing a whole lot less. At the start up I didn't have to do performance reviews. I later learned that they don't do this because people expect raises after a perfromance review.

    8. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Most workers aren't going to give up seniority

      From my experience as an I.T. support contractor, seniority by staying put at one company translate into 2% raises. Meanwhile, I make 80% more money than the people I work with because I'm not expected to stay around to collect those 2% raises.

    9. Re:Isn't this really a problem of treatment? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      American colleagues : Yeah, taking some FTO next week.
      Me: FTO?
      Them: Forced time off.

      I mean, really? Just fucking admit it:

      Me: I feel like a break, I'm off next week. Laters.

  11. Alex, I know that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is a cloud shill, Alex.

  12. Mine doesn't allow SSDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I save about an hour a day using one I bought with my own money. If the company bought them for all of the devs, they'd pay for themselves in less than a month, but instead we're stuck in the 1990s.

    Also, we have a policy against dual monitors. I got in trouble by being a smart ass and using three monitors which wasn't technically against the rules since company handbook said we couldn't have two. It didn't say anything about more than two.

    1. Re:Mine doesn't allow SSDs! by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "I save about an hour a day using one I bought with my own money. If the company bought them for all of the devs, they'd pay for themselves in less than a month, but instead we're stuck in the 1990s."

      Why they should do it!? No matter how fast their investment gets returned it's even better if they have the benefit with zero investment.

      You buying your own SSD are part of the problem, not of the solution!

    2. Re:Mine doesn't allow SSDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuck in the 1990's? The servers I support were made between 1993-1998!

      I put together an upgrade plan and submitted it. I was told that I had to justify the upgrade so I collected costs of maintenance contracts, cost of getting replacement parts, time to manager the old servers, etc.

      The response was to show me that you can get parts cheep on EBAY and to let me know that they dropped the maintenance contracts years ago because they were too expensive. When the server from 1993 that did ERP crashed, we were ordering parts from EBAY and installing them ourselves. Tried to use that as an example, I was shown how the parts and time cost less than a new server and only happened every couple of years.

  13. It's not about "Uber" by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The issue is that monopolies like taxis get so focused on profits or whatever, that they forget they only get income from customers. With no competition, why should I treat my customers well?

    Also most companies are middle-men, so finding a way to cut out the middle man for a middle man company doesn't seem to make sense. Gas stations sell you fuel someone else refined, that someone else dug up. They "add value" in the middle, but are all middle men. So "Ubering" in the sense of more directly connecting the customer to the service or product is the opposite of the goal of most companies. Personally, I'd love it if the manufacturers were to make their products available directly. Order monthly subscriptions to Coca Cola and get what you want delivered directly to your house monthly. For a price near the wholesale price for the store. That's the ideal. Any store marking up 50% or 500% will never compete with that. But it doesn't happen.

    That's where Ubering comes in. When a company sees a need, and refuses to meet it.

    Don't be dicks, and you won't get Ubered.

    1. Re:It's not about "Uber" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same as what Tesla is doing to the car sales industry. Too many middle-men became too greedy with the knowledge that "all must go through me". If the middle-men get greedy enough then the economy adjusts to make them irrelevant via precisely these sorts of changes. If you're not cost-efficient then you're replaced. This is the way it should be. You only need to worry about being Ubered if you don't add value, and we all face this problem...not just IT departments.

    2. Re:It's not about "Uber" by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      monopolies like taxis

      Monopoly - a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
      Which one of the 400+ cab companies in New York has the monopoly?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:It's not about "Uber" by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Economic progress is all about doing more with less. What these companies are really doing is automating middle management using economic theory. This is staring with relatively easy service based businesses. But on the other end you have companies like Valve that run with a very flat structure. It will be interesting to see what else people can come up with in more capital intensive or places with better defined tasks.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re:It's not about "Uber" by shentino · · Score: 2

      The problem with wholesalers bypassing retailers is that unless the wholesaler can get a direct market connection with the end consumers it is vulnerable to pressure from retailers that want to protect their own profit margins.

      I've heard cases where wholesalers that try to bypass retailers get boycotted out of the retail market.

    5. Re:It's not about "Uber" by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's not a monopoly, but a cartel is pretty close.

    6. Re:It's not about "Uber" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if "being a dick" is what your company is based on? How do you avoid getting ubered?

    7. Re:It's not about "Uber" by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      monopolies like taxis

      Monopoly - a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Which one of the 400+ cab companies in New York has the monopoly?

      Whilst 400+ companies might be a monopoly in the strict sense it is due to regulation and barriers to entry I live in another country where taxi plates could cost as much as a nice house and using your credit card in any cab would incur flat $10 surcharge even if the amount was less getting a cab meant calling a cab company who had subcontracted drivers. If you used cabs often you would learn to get the phone numbers of the drivers in your area and this let you skip quite a few surcharges - sounds like uber in a before the tech for uber existed.

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    8. Re:It's not about "Uber" by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      The issue is that monopolies like taxis get so focused on profits or whatever, that they forget they only get income from customers. With no competition, why should I treat my customers well?

      Don't know what it's like where you are, but here taxis are relatively expensive because of the annual Taxi License fees that the state government charges. I can understand the taxi services getting upset when Uber drivers come in offering the same service but avoiding the license fees. The way to solve the problem isn't trying to restrict Uber's operations with new laws and court battles, it's dispensing with the Taxi License fees to make it an open market.

    9. Re:It's not about "Uber" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc

      Of which individual medallion holders are all members. Now, it's a government monopoly, self-regulated in coordination with all the medallion holders, but there is a single authority and a single set of all rules under which all operate. A monopoly. You are licensed by the TLC, or you don't operate. Uber tried to break that monopoly, and that's why there was an issue.

    10. Re:It's not about "Uber" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I walked out of a Toyota dealership when I was young. Had a good first job, and was trying to buy an MR2 Turbo. The Gulf States Toyota adds on distributor markup, and distributor features, like "underbody coating" (claiming it's needed on all cars, as the "gulf states" is coastal, and could be exposed to salt air. I lived 200+ miles inland. The wheels were worse than stock, and expensive, and shit like that. I walked out. Looked at buying used, but ended up with a different car.

      Why buy $5000 of stuff you don't want, just to get something you do? Oh yeah, monopoly. Good thing there are exclusive distributorships to prevent us from being abused by manufacturers.

    11. Re:It's not about "Uber" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Valve Ubered Gamestop and EB Games. They tried to play nicer, and so didn't make as big of a fuss about it, but I don't think anyone can cut them out, as they add some value (stored libraries and the like) at a minimal markup.

    12. Re:It's not about "Uber" by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      The way to solve the problem isn't trying to restrict Uber's operations with new laws and court battles, it's dispensing with the Taxi License fees to make it an open market.

      Of course, the other solution is to stop the race to the bottom, and tell Uber that if they want to compete as a taxi service, they shall damn well play by the same rules as existing taxi services.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    13. Re:It's not about "Uber" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Of course, the other solution is to stop the race to the bottom, and tell Uber that if they want to compete as a taxi service, they shall damn well play by the same rules as existing taxi services.

      The problem is twofold. One, often the number of licenses is limited. But two, even when it isn't, all licensing does is prohibit competition and encourage evil. Let me explain. Why do we "need" taxi licensing? The argument is to protect the public safety. But licensed taxi drivers do assault people, etc., and yet in fact, the job is far more dangerous for the drivers than it is for the passengers. The drivers need protection, far more than the other way around! And taxi licenses don't protect anyone from anything. It's not like they're made of titanium plate, and slip into a pocket on the back of your vest to protect you from being stabbed through the seat.

      The "race to the bottom" is exacerbated by taxi licensing. If taxis need inspections because they are used more than other cars, then we should probably be inspecting all cars based on their mileage per year. If they are used hard, then inspect them, regardless of whether they are a vehicle-for-hire or not. Requiring more injury insurance could easily be solved by the application of national health care, instead of this national health insurance company handout bullshit. Etc. That's the real race to the bottom, and all this divisive taxi licensing crap is just a hand-waving distraction from it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:It's not about "Uber" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as what Tesla is doing to the car sales industry. Too many middle-men became too greedy with the knowledge that "all must go through me". If the middle-men get greedy enough then the economy adjusts to make them irrelevant via precisely these sorts of changes. If you're not cost-efficient then you're replaced. This is the way it should be. You only need to worry about being Ubered if you don't add value, and we all face this problem...not just IT departments.

      So you're expecting things to be better by dealing with the manufacturer who will be the only market for this product? Do you really think that car companies will provide a better price? Maybe the reason to get rid of middle-men is because they're not providing away to get deals, that is they sell only at the manufacturer's suggested retail price. That's the problem on the internet right now. Everyone sells at the same price so my decision ends up being based on shipping costs and tax.

    15. Re:It's not about "Uber" by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Riggght. Replace a regulated marketplace with a single middleman playing piece workers against each other is not a race to the bottom.

      I'm not even going to discuss this with you, you're an idiot.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    16. Re:It's not about "Uber" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Riggght. Replace a regulated marketplace with a single middleman playing piece workers against each other is not a race to the bottom.

      Who is planning to replace it? Uber exists alongside traditional taxi services. But if Uber did supplant them, then competitors to Uber would be able to spring up as rapidly as did Uber, by taking advantage of a legal landscape prepared for them by Uber. Therefore, you would not have a single middleman. But right now, you do have a single middleman; the state*, which grants (or does not grant) taxi licenses.

      * Or whatever local government is responsible for that

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:It's not about "Uber" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Valve Steamed Gamestop and EB Games.

      FTFY - It's Steam, not Uber, that made Valve successful.

    18. Re:It's not about "Uber" by GlennC · · Score: 1

      Riggght. Replace a regulated marketplace with a single middleman playing piece workers against each other is not a race to the bottom.

      I'm not even going to discuss this with you, you're an idiot.

      Arguing with "anarcho-capitalists" like this is useless.

      They only care about one thing; getting what they want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else and damn the consequences.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    19. Re:It's not about "Uber" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Arguing with "anarcho-capitalists" like this is useless.

      I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I want single-payer health care, and vehicle regulations which are applied equally to all drivers and their vehicles? Back slowly away from the keyboard, take a deep breath...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:It's not about "Uber" by jcr · · Score: 1

      They only care about one thing; getting what they want as cheaply as possible,

      You say that like it's a bad thing, comrade.

      Go ahead, try to come up with some reason why customers should put up with an inferior product or service when a superior one is available.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. like Airbnb, Spotify, Square? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unicorns?

    These are Business models what does it have to do with IT?
    Uber and airBnB are going to rent what next? Assuming they can survive all the laws they break to operate.
    Square is going to what Process for Walmart next?

    If your point is fortune 500 companies move slower than start ups. Yes. Do they need to be more nimble, yes for decades.
    will nimble unicony start ups put them all out of Business , No so far.
    uber is affecting small cab companies. AirBnB small hotels. Square, no one they target companies that are too small for real CC service.

    So all a company has to do is Guess the next big thing.
    OK.

  15. Businesses adapt or fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called Capitalism!

  16. Getting "Ubered" by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    A lot of people have expressed some doubt as to what this word means. So let me explain it to you. Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry. Even though you will probably lose your job, you are secretly happy that this will finally give you the opportunity to realize your dreams of working for the company that "Ubered" you, even if it is just as a poorly paid driving contractor with no benefits, it;s totally the best decision you've ever made.

    Getting "Ubered" basically means falling in love all over again. You don't care that your mistress is a criminal. You are willing to travel the ends of the earth to be with her, or at least vote for politicians who will change the law to make her innocent again.

    But most of all getting "Ubered" means not resisting this beautifully elegant idiom permeating the English language completely.

    You've been "Ubered" and you love it so much all you can think about is getting "Ubered" again and again.

    1. Re:Getting "Ubered" by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry.

      We used to call that "obsoleted".

      The dubious benefits of using "Ubered" instead of "obsoleted" are:

      (1) You will sound cool and tech savvy, since you are associating yourself with something cool and tech savvy (namely: Uber)
      (2) You will have formed an "in crowd" vs. "out crowd" discriminator so you can laugh at those who look at you "Like WTH, dude?" when you say it
      (3) You will have save 2 of 4 syllables

      If #3 seems that valuable to you, may I suggest you use the MMORPG term everyone uses for when your treasure is stolen out from under your nose after you put in all the work to make it available, but haven't yet picked it up? You'll get more understanding, although you will be less "leet" (exclusionist) if you use the term "Ganked". Plus, if pronounced correctly (ked = t), you can save an additional syllable.

      "Dude! Your market was ganked!"

      They will also understand anticompetitive behaviour better with this type of terminology:

      "Dude! Those taxi company asshats are camping on the new business respawn point!"

      See how naturally that works, compared to "Ubered" (and, I guess, for the other side of the coin, "Taxied"...)?

    2. Re:Getting "Ubered" by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      A lot of people have expressed some doubt as to what this word means. So let me explain it to you. Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry. Even though you will probably lose your job, you are secretly happy that this will finally give you the opportunity to realize your dreams of working for the company that "Ubered" you, even if it is just as a poorly paid driving contractor with no benefits, it;s totally the best decision you've ever made.

      Getting "Ubered" basically means falling in love all over again. You don't care that your mistress is a criminal. You are willing to travel the ends of the earth to be with her, or at least vote for politicians who will change the law to make her innocent again.

      But most of all getting "Ubered" means not resisting this beautifully elegant idiom permeating the English language completely.

      You've been "Ubered" and you love it so much all you can think about is getting "Ubered" again and again.

      What you are describing is a "disruptive technology" and the term has been around for 30 years.

    3. Re:Getting "Ubered" by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think my definition went well beyond a "disruptive technology".

  17. Cloudified? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    I thought the threat was "cloudification", not "uberification". The buzzwordification is confusificating me.

  18. here's a f_cking novel idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about, treat the employees with respect, pay them what they're worth, and they just might develop some loyalty toward their employer instead of leaping for the next opportunity.

    1. Re:here's a f_cking novel idea... by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that horse has left the barn quite a while ago...

    2. Re:here's a f_cking novel idea... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      As an IT support contractor, I get paid 80% more money than an IT worker who collects 2% raises by staying put and showing loyalty.

  19. Mobile, always-on consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've personally been increasingly stationary during last 15 years myself, and my batteries are often dead. I apparently should feel like a dinosaur because of that.

  20. BREAKING NEWS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Dvorak to wed John Sculley. News at ELEVEN!

  21. FTFA: buzzword bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did anyone read the article? those guys have perfected their C*O speak.

    1. Re:FTFA: buzzword bingo by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      did anyone read the article? those guys have perfected their C*O speak.

      You just don't understand the verbification of customer-facing, vertically-oriented, dynamic whiteboard portals. So in effect, these collaborative cross-platform methodologies employ seamless paradigms to repurpose transparent, misidentified strategic communities.

      I'll take my "CEO Achievement" badge and golden parachute now, thankyouverymuch.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  22. WTF??? by PNutts · · Score: 1

    What did I just read?

  23. Worry about getting Disneyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT departments should worry about getting "Disneyed".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html

  24. This is nonsense, written for page views..... by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Come on.... I've worked in I.T. for almost 30 years now and the changes tend to happen incrementally, at a pace largely dependent on the release schedules of the vendors involved.

    I don't know of a single person in corporate I.T. who feels threatened by the potential of some "upstart" business model appearing out of nowhere and wiping out their job.

    If there's a single trend I would say "upset the apple cart" more than anything else for I.T. -- it would be cloud services. But even there, I.T. quickly got a handle on the concept and embraced it selectively in most cases, applying it where it added real value and ignoring it where it was just hype and buzzwords. It probably shifted the number of people doing server support towards the large data centers to an extent not seen since the microcomputer took off in the 80's -- but people with those skills still found places to work using those skills. And more recently, I've seen the cloud technologies begin to get "rolled back" into in-house solutions. For example, our company tried out CrashPlan for backups and put all of our mobile workers on cloud based backup with them. Worked well, but we eventually shifted to the "Enterprise" version of the product, where we run the CrashPlan servers internally and people back up to them over the Internet or any office LAN or wi-fi connection. Saves us money paying someone else for the storage space and gives us the ability to do a restore much more quickly, if needed.

    I know several pro photography people doing a similar thing with DropBox. They liked the service but when they really started using it heavily, realized uploads of huge batches of RAW photos was SLOW (partially because upload speeds to DropBox in the cloud are throttled). Now they're looking at alternatives like Transporter, where again, your mass storage is local, on site -- but it works like the cloud in the sense you can upload to it from anywhere.

    1. Re:This is nonsense, written for page views..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know of a single person in corporate I.T. who feels threatened by the potential of some "upstart" business model appearing out of nowhere and wiping out their job.

      Yeah, we all feel threatened by the potential of some greedy executives hiring fucking offshore Indians and wiping out our jobs!

    2. Re:This is nonsense, written for page views..... by Asgard · · Score: 2

      where again, your mass storage is local, on site -- but it works like the cloud in the sense you can upload to it from anywhere.

      One of the prime benefits of backing to a cloud-provider instead of a local storage appliance is that a fire that takes out most of your desktops / laptops is is not also going to take out your backup storage farm.

    3. Re:This is nonsense, written for page views..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know I hear that point very often. Unfortunately, the reality based on years of risk management experience is that the likelihood of a fire for most corporations (at least their IT locations) is very low and even when it occurs the potential damage to actual IT services is even lower (unless you install sprinkers in your DC). In audits, I rarely if ever flag the risk of fire damage nowadays. Current building codes and contractor best practices basically makes this point moot.

      Things like extended power outages, sabotage, and floods (many many orgs have their DC in the crappy basement) are much more likely.

      Most of the clients I deal with that have their own DCs, have exactly that, the plural, Data CentreS. There's a redundant location with the core services running like DHCP, email, Internet connectivity, storage, your key apps, etc.

    4. Re:This is nonsense, written for page views..... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't know of a single person in corporate I.T. who feels threatened by the potential of some "upstart" business model appearing out of nowhere and wiping out their job.

      Not only that, but I think most IT people I know would be pretty ambivalent if something did wipe out their job. Sure, it's hard to lose a job and have poor prospects, but on the other hand, most aren't exactly thrilled serving the role of "computer janitor". There's a high frequency of being yelled at, belittled, and being asked absolutely retarded questions.

      And you also spend so much time doing things that nobody should have to do. I don't mean "things that are so terrible that nobody should have to endure them." I mean either, "This is so stupid it just shouldn't be done, but some VIP decided it needed to be done, so I'm stuck doing it," or else, "This really should just be a nice, easy, automatic process, but [Microsoft | Apple | Google | whoever] is too [stupid | lazy | greedy] to make this work properly." So much of the work IT people do simply shouldn't be necessary. If someone could make computers and networks work so well that I was no longer necessary, frankly I think I'd be relieved.

    5. Re:This is nonsense, written for page views..... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      So get both worlds by using both. Use your local storage applicance for speed, and have it back up to the cloud on it's own time.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  25. Not what I thought it meant by mswope · · Score: 1

    When I read the title, I thought that the article was going to be about the large number of people being hired away from large corporation to work at Uber...

  26. Dear Corporate IT by brxndxn · · Score: 1

    First of all, fuck you. You have made way too much money by having access to the right decision makers to sell them on expensive ineffective bullshit. You have cushy jobs because you only need to actually work 2 hours a week since you have convinced management that the entire corporation cannot do anything with tablets or cellphones or bring your own device in the name of security. You have used the firewall to block everything productive or potentially disruptive to requiring your 'expertise' from the Internet access for common office workers. You have outsourced your networking experts to foreign countries. You have sold outsourcing as a way to eliminate all technical people from local offices. You have given lucrative IT contracts to friends in the business that have zero skills required. You hold the keys to the kingdom because you use loose technical mumbo jumbo to convince management that they need to wait on your slow solutions to problems easily solved by anyone in the know - anyone available outside your corporate IT kingdom. You force common office workers to spend more time working around your self-imposed technical hurdles to transfer a file than creating the actual files needed to transfer. You hold your entire company back. Second, we're coming for you and we're happy to help eliminate your worthless positions. Dear Management.. quit paying these losers already.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Dear Corporate IT by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      > You have outsourced your networking experts to foreign countries.

      "This is IP Soft, how can I help you?"

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    2. Re:Dear Corporate IT by snookiex · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon, but I do hope that companies like Unisys crash and burn eventually.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  27. "All Grue, and no Minions..." by tlambert · · Score: 1

    The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it. Even Google struggles with that, as Sergei Brin lamented the other day.

    I propose: "All Grue, and no Minions..."

  28. Uber is a corporation, yes? by Drewdad · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure Uber has "corporate IT."

    Will all "corporate IT" functions shift to managed services? Hell no. Managed services suck.

    If Uber achieves market domination, then Uber will suck, too.

  29. ???? What is this all about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nonsense. IT departments need to be stable. If you adopt break fast and often, you'll have zero stability. You can only do this if you can adequately separate the two paradigms. Not to mention the huge amount of paperwork to adequately trace errors in deployment. They're more likely to be displace by teams of software based robots.

  30. That is not really what it is by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    That is really not what Ubered is. These next big thing companies are not only different in that they are fast and lean and dynamic; Primarily they are different because instead of a corporate behemoth employing hundreds of thousands of people, one programming wiz and his friend just program an automated app. A corporate behemoth with departments and HR and thousands to millions of employees cannot ever compete with two guys and an automated app; and they cannot adapt into one. There is no way to avoid being ubered, you just have to hope that your entire corporation is not the next to be automated away with a few thousand lines of smart code. You might as well talk about shaking up a search results factory, where millions full of workers find and return results to internet searches in the hope of never getting ubered by Google.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  31. Simple answer... by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

    Businesses can stop being "Ubered" (seriously?) by:

    Offering maximum value (price, convenience, quality, ...) to the customer. If you are the customer's best choice your business will thrive. If not, you (probably) won't.

    This hasn't changed since the dawn of human commerce.

    What a waste of time article.

    1. Re:Simple answer... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Offering maximum value (price, ...) to the customer.

      The above is how the beancounters saw your post. And now whole departments are getting Grouponed.

  32. Buzzword compliant by spatley · · Score: 1

    and content-free

    Seriously, who writes this garbage pretending to be shit pretending to be I have no idea what.

    1. Re:Buzzword compliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't block ads or you'll lose great content like this.

  33. here's an idea... by gr33ngiant112 · · Score: 1

    1 way to make your IT department "move faster": Actually invest in it.

    The people, the tech. Stop over scrutinizing every fucking line item, and LOOK TO THEM FOR GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION,
    not just when you have a problem that needs to be "fixed".
    Valuing your technical and operations teams (and paying them like you value them) goes a long way for productivity.

    Just because your product isn't IT related does not mean you should treat them like any other overhead operation: A throw-away dept that you don't understand.

    1. Re:here's an idea... by gr33ngiant112 · · Score: 1

      also, working in IT, the title of the referenced article makes me sick to my stomach, can't help it...

    2. Re:here's an idea... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Companies think good IT people are expensive, but really they are not expensive when you account for the efficiency and productivity they enable and the cost of the outages and security breaches a company could have had without good people who are sufficiently empowered.

  34. Re:It's the marketplace, stupid! by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

    "solidarity" is just part of the game. What you "leftist bashing" types miss is that when you're playing a game you should use every advantage you have. Forming unions, and creating solidarity between a group of players increases bargaining power, and allows you to make sure that you get the outcome you desire from the market.

  35. PHB-A-Tron (Re:PP slogans won't cut it) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It reminds me of the online "Dilbert Mission Statement Generator" of the 90's. Here's a smaller sample:

    http://www.strauss.za.com/sla/...

    I used the DMSG for filler text for draft reports and websites. Often the managers didn't know it was filler and it stayed around into production.

  36. I was disrupted by a unicorn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it sounds like an urban legend. There I was, at the IPO launch party of the most disruptive golden unicorn startup the world had ever seen. I had a little too much to drink as the gorgeous redhead from marketing kept telling me how great her "services" were. We took the party back to my AirBnb pad for a little FaaS, if you know what I mean. I woke up the next morning, groggy as hell and cold, so, so... cold! What the hell? I was in a bathtub up to my neck in ice! There was a push notification on my phone: Thank you for using Uber-Lyft, the new organsharing experience in matching up organ donors with organ recipients. Two kidneys have been removed from you and your account has been credited $1,200 (after Uber-Lyft fees have been deducted). Please rate your experience...

  37. Re:It's the marketplace, stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what have they done?

    they've made people think that piecework and pushing all running expenses onto the worker is an acceptable way to hire people

    One can spot a leftist by the anti-marketplace sentiments oozing out

    The marketplace will always be the final judge - no matter how many interference you leftists have erected in your attempt to block the normal operation of marketplace

    No matter how much 'solidarity' you guys have managed to forge amongst the drivers, the paying customers will still have the final say

    Wow, this is the same message some people had when gassing the Jews. I suppose you want to suck anti-semetic cock too, you fucking inbred retard. Do the world a favor and put a .357 to your head and pull the trigger.

  38. Square? by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    Square is merely a shell of its former self, holding all their IPs hostage until they run out of money. They are nothing like Square or Enix were in the 80s/90s.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Square? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Square, Inc was not around in the 80s/90s (started in 2009) and is doing quite well.

    2. Re:Square? by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1
      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
  39. Time for an union by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Time for an union and / or a change to the OT laws with salary employees

    1. Re:Time for an union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a company that has a very large Union. I approached the Union representative to discuss setting up an IT Union. His response was "Your Salaried, that makes you management. You can't be in a union if you are management."

      I tried explaining that we were salaried because they work us 80 hour weeks, deny vacation, etc, etc. He simply shrugged and said "Sounds tough but its not really a union problem. You make good money so they compensate you for it."

      With an attitude like that, it is no wonder the unions are shrinking.

    2. Re:Time for an union by toadlife · · Score: 1

      "Your Salaried, that makes you management. You can't be in a union if you are management."

      Yeah, that's stupid. *Any* group of employees can unionize.

      There is nothing to stop you from circumventing your company union and unionizing under another parent union like the AFL-CIO, Teamsters or SEIU.

      Most company unions are not islands unto themselves. They exist under one of the aforementioned national unions.

      Anyway, good luck.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  40. Don't keep pissing off your customers then by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 0

    Nearly every IT department that I have ever encountered treated the other employees like children. Bring your own device, how about no. Remove the spyware installed by IT, fired. Want to access your email on your mobile device, sorry you are going to have to wait until the 22nd century for us to catch up to that.

    But the key problem is that nearly every IT department is set up the same way; they often report directly to the very top. But the very top is populated but technologically incapable people. So when the IT people point to a manager's request and say, "If we do that we run the risk of being the next Sony Pictures." when all the manager wanted to do was to use an iPhone instead of a 4 year old blackberry.

    But the people who typically populate the upper management of most companies might not be techno-wizes but they know when they have encountered an obstacle and their jobs are to go around those obstacles. So they find an IT department they can control. Something outsourced can be outsourced again if the first outsourcing company doesn't play ball. So when they say I want a pink website then the IT people won't be able to say no. There will be a pink website.

    But this sort of competition and knowledge that they will be replaced in an instant suddenly has the computers being upgraded from windows 95 to something less than a year old. Suddenly the software that wasn't allowed on the old system is everywhere. The blackberries are in the dumpster along with all the Novell install floppies.

    Most IT people see themselves as unsung heroes coming in at 2am to prevent the lastes DDOS from taking down the network. Most people outside of IT see them as Captain NO. As in NO you can't do that, or NO we won't do that.

    1. Re:Don't keep pissing off your customers then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spoken like true upper management.

      Having been in IT for over 30 years, I can say that you don't understand IT.

      1) Our job is not to cater to the whims of every user. Our job is to protect and manage corporate assets and to keep the corporate systems running.
      2) Our job it to provide the users with services that support the business need. These are not your home computers and you can not use them like your home computer. So
              a) No you can't have admin on your computer
              b) No you can't have root on the server.
              c) No you can't install that app on your computer that you downloaded from some unknown website.
              d) Just because you open a ticket that says "Reboot Server XYZ" does not mean that we will reboot the server. WE DIAGNOSE THE ISSUE AND PROVIDE A SOLUTION! Providing us a solution to implement only shows us that you do not know what the hell you are talking about.
      3) You are using a 4 year old blackberry because there was no money in the budget to upgrade to a modern system. Accounting has a 5 year amortization cycle and as such you can not get funds to update a system less than 5 years old. Take it up with your bean counters.

      4) We are heroes: If we did not come in at 2am to fix
                  a) That broken SAP computer you would not get a pay check! Company invoices would not get paid, the companies 10K filings would be late, the companies tax filings would be late, etc.
                  b) That time entry system that crashed, you could not enter your time.
                  d) That crashed card key system, you could not get into the building.
                  e) The crashed drive shares, then no one in the company could work.
                  f) The crashed E-mail server, then no e-mail and companies stop working with out e-mail.
                  g) The crashed web server, then there are no sales via the web and $$$,$$$ are lost every hour it is down.
            This list goes on and on, without IT you are screwed when it goes down. So you may want to be a little thankful that we are here.

      As to the Pink web site, if you want the website pink, ill make it pink. However, I need that in writing so that when sales plummet and the CEO comes down looking for the idiot who made the website pink, I can show him that I was ordered by the manager/director/CIO to do it. It is amazing how many times I have asked for stuff like that in writing and been chewed out by the requester. "Im telling you to do it, you do it. I dont need to open a ticket, or send you an e-mail."

    2. Re:Don't keep pissing off your customers then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post shows that you are a prime example of someone that has zero clue about the legal requirements IT departments have to deal with. You don't even have any clue what BYOD even involves and just heard it as a buzzword on The Verge. Also, there is no spyware on your computer, there is asset and license management software used to maintain legal compliance.

      Here's your buzzword homework for tonight: Sarbanes-Oxley.

    3. Re:Don't keep pissing off your customers then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly every IT department that I have ever encountered treated the other employees like children. Bring your own device, how about no. Remove the spyware installed by IT, fired. Want to access your email on your mobile device, sorry you are going to have to wait until the 22nd century for us to catch up to that.

      BYOD: HIPAA. Full stop.
      Email on personal smartphones: HIPAA. Full stop.
      Spyware installed by IT: Wasn't our idea. It was mandated by senior management who, of course, exempted themselves. Actually, I torpedoed the idea at my current job. I'm the one that prevented the spyware from being installed in the first place.

      Often, IT is the messenger. We say no but most often, it is because we have to say no. Usually, when we say yes to a non-tech's technical idea, it doesn't work as the non-tech expected and gets forgotten after much time and money has been wasted. Usually, there is already a solution to the non-tech's problem in place. These in place solutions are rejected because they don't have a trendy name, the icon is the wrong color, it isn't what their geek friend recommended, etc.,...

      Oh, and other members of the staff are not 'customers' - they are co-workers. We are no more of a cost center than HR, Accounting or Facilities who also do nothing to directly bring in revenue.

  41. Re:It's the marketplace, stupid! by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

    "Enroned"? That's where we first heard of 'rank and yank'. We can say IT departments are trying to avoid getting Enroned: obliterated by a thing made of market capitalization that embodies toxic and perverse outcomes, destined to be spectacularly self-destroyed after doing incalculable damage to society.

    Uber is Enron redux, complete with rewriting the rules to its own benefit, completely dependent on its own valuation to continue cancerously expanding or blow up. It'd probably be better for everybody if it blew up or got blown up quickly, rather than spawning a whole class of 'unicorn' act-alikes.

    Terrorists 'disrupt'. This whole twist on advanced-stage capitalism is perverse as hell.

  42. Grubered by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    As opposed to the American people, who have been Grubered.

  43. 2 cents by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    I will chime in with the 'this is crap' crowd. Exactly which "Fortune 500 companies and longstanding corporate giants are losing to startups"?

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  44. What a stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use buzzwords and buzzphrases and you will keep up. This article was retarded.

  45. Re:It's the marketplace, stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well sure. But if I'm Uber's customer, not their driver, then let's not pretend that I benefit from this particular form of gameplay.

  46. Re:It's the marketplace, stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The marketplace will always be the final judge - no matter how many interference you leftists have erected in your attempt to block the normal operation of marketplace

    No matter how much 'solidarity' you guys have managed to forge amongst the drivers, the paying customers will still have the final say

    I find it laughable when people trust the marketplace like it was some immutable truth, derived from natural laws.

    The marketplace is protected by things like copyright, patents and trademarks on one hand, where society has agreed to protect the interests of individuals and businesses from others making an unfair profit of their labor. On the other hand, the consumers are defended by consumer laws, from unscrupulous business owners trying to scam consumers. Workers are protected from their employers and vice versa. Unions are there to prevent employers from creating sweatshops and give fair wages to the employees.

    Still, all of these mechanisms can and are daily being abused. The system is far from perfect. But thinking that you have "normal operations of marketplace" without regulations is stupidity, ignorance or both.

  47. Premise incorrect by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    We're not "Ubering" because we're more mobile. We're becoming more mobile because companies are being Ubered. This is not an effect, this is a cause. Companies are Ubering because that way they can eliminate pensions, benefits, salaries, wages, and even the employees - Uber, for the uber example, plans on replacing all those "contractors" with robot cars. That means: all taxi drivers, gone. All Uber drivers, gone. Net result: the "inevitable" funneling of all profits to the owners and to Wall Street. The cost of public assistance to the newly destitute will, of course, be borne by taxpayers and the rest of society. Loss of retail revenue, loss of homes to bankers as mortgage holders default in poverty, decline of some neighborhoods that once housed the poor and lower middle class, with an increased crime rate which, of course, will be blamed on the lack of morals and gumption of the poor. So, more prisons, more pauper's graves, more of the usual invisible disaster that hyper-capitalism is greedily enabling.

    Let's not even talk about what is going to happen to the tens of millions of truck drivers.

  48. Sorry You're Butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right, many/most people think IT is The Department of No. But rather than just being butthurt about it, let's look at it from a slightly less self centered perspective.

    All you want to do is... what you want to do. New toy du jour. 'I wanna play with it.' Screw IT and their requirements. Forget about the fact that they are responsible for keeping you from giving up the company, or that they don't have a budget to implement the management systems necessary for your new toy, or that there are more important projects ahead of you, or that other projects impact all users and the entire company while your new iMaxipad benefits no one at all, not even you.

    You're issue is that you want what you want and they won't give it to you. The company needs for you to be able to make/take phone calls and send/receive email securely. The Blackberry you refer to, a bad example, does exactly that. The iPhone does NOTHING more for the company than the Blackberry does. But it's shiny and fashionable and you want it. Plus you can play Candy Crush on it and the Blackberry can't play shit! How does that help the company again? Why should IT toss everything in the dumpster and put all projects on hold for your iMaxipad? It does not and your desires are irrelevant to the company and to your job, therefore the answer is NO.

    While we do frequently see about a company being highly successful using some technology or another, we don't see the stories about ten times as many companies trying to use that same technology and crashing and burning. It's IT's job to not let self centered morons drive the company into bankruptcy. A LOT of the time, that means telling you; NO!

    Realize IT for what it is and don't be so butthurt about it. It's not their fault that you are clueless and selfish.

  49. How to not get Ubered .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    In the case of Uber, have the conventional taxi companies offer a similar service. That means where there isn't a conventional taxi available, then the trip is offered to the on-line drivers.

  50. Unicorns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all unicorns. Unicorns say neigh. NEEEIIIGGGHHH! NEEEIIIGGGHHH! Neigh unicorns NEEEIIIGGGHHH! Neigh say the unicorns. YOU UNICORNS!!

  51. Re:Dear Workforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'd love to give you the keys to the kindgom. We'll see how long it is before your competitors have all your information from strategic business intelligence firms, and I'd love to see what you'll do when a virus completely takes out your Tablet or iCrap device - have fun convincing management to buy you a new one when yours is bricked and your corporate email is blacklisted for spam! (And bonus good luck when your data has not been backed up and cannot be restored!)

    IT policy comes about not because of you being a smart office worker. It comes about to protect the company from your DUMBEST worker, who thinks they're allowed to do anything and damn the consequences. Or your most corrupt worker, who decides to take that file and try and sell it to your competitor.

  52. We were ubered before uber was uber by servant · · Score: 1
    I spent my career in IT. In the '70s, the 'big thing' was shrink wrap software. It was as transformative as Uber-ish companies are today. It took the 'custom software only' model, and made it 'commodity software.

    .

    Uber took the 'establishment hack owners' that had all been vetted, insured, regulated, taxed, all in the name of public safety, and threw it out the window, because the customer wanted a lower cost option, and was willing to take risk for the sake of flexibility.

    Market disruptors ALL take on new/change everyday. The latest round is just same song, next verse.

    Data centers are now 'cloud service centers' because of a perceived difference due to a name change.

    Easy to install software (typically at consumers request) is called an 'app' rather than software or an application. The biggest change is many are developed in basements and garages and starbucks, and uploaded to stores rather than heavy development teams.

    Many more examples can be thought of quickly. Again, just more examples of same song, next verse.

    My question is 'what next'?

    --
    ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
  53. Ubertarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There. I said it. Now I just have to write a book, start a party and hit the lecture circuit.