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.

36 of 233 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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?

    10. 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!
    11. 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
    12. 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.

  2. 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 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?

    4. 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.
  3. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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 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.

    2. 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.'"
  8. Cloudified? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

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

  9. 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 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.

  10. 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!

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. Time for an union by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

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