Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Has Resigned Due To Investor Pressure (recode.net)

Posted by msmash on from the bid-adieu dept.

Travis Kalanick has resigned as chief executive of Uber after pressure from investors, ending eight years of leading the ride-hailing company that has expanded round the globe but became mired in controversies. From a report: Kalanick had become a giant liability to the car-hailing company for a growing number of reasons, from sketchy business practices to troubling lawsuits to a basic management situation that was akin to really toxic goat rodeo. Thus, he had to go, even though some sources said he had the voting power to stay. But big investors also have leverage and a big enough group of them joined to use it. Those investors include Benchmark, Fidelity and Menlo Ventures, all of whom sent Kalanick a joint letter called "Moving Uber Forward" on Tuesday afternoon. Interestingly, Google Ventures was not among the group, even though its parent company Alphabet is now in a major lawsuit with Uber over the alleged theft of self-driving car technology from its Waymo unit.

36 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Toxic goat rodeo by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not sure what a toxic goat rodeo is. It doesn't sound good.

    1. Re:Toxic goat rodeo by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      If you've ever been to a horrible awkward silly clown words metaphor circus, it's a little like that.

    2. Re:Toxic goat rodeo by thegreatbob · · Score: 2

      Kind of like a dumpster fire clown shoes shit-show?

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:Toxic goat rodeo by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      "TGR is a gritty post-metal nü-country mariachi fusion band from Austin that's currently burning up the Central Texas fair and carnival circuit." -- Pitchfork, probably

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  2. That's OK by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Funny

    I understand there's still a vacancy at Yahoo

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:That's OK by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Marissa Mayer should go to Uber. From what I've read in "I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59" by Douglas Edwards, she had a reputation for getting things done at Google. Success at one company doesn't always translate into success at a different company. Maybe her experience at Yahoo was fluke and she could do a U-turn at Uber.

    2. Re:That's OK by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Marissa Mayer was Brins girlfriend while at Google. "I'm Feeling Lucky" is an apt title for the book.

    3. Re:That's OK by computational+super · · Score: 2

      she had a reputation for getting things done at Google

      She invented gmail.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  3. Lost users? by Sporkinum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am guessing they lost a ton of users, or haven't been gaining any. Since the whole operation is a money loser now and in the past, and they were pumping money in contingent on growth, the investors forced the situation.
    I loved Uber the few times I used it, but deleted my account and quit using it several months ago due to reports of harassment, and the way they treated their drivers. Latest thing was apparently their no-tip thing was that they paid fairly and tipping was built into the cost. Now they offer tipping in the app because they were shorting the drivers and the no-tipping thing was bullshit.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    1. Re:Lost users? by TWX · · Score: 2

      The whole point of current-Uber was to build the company to be ready to be a leader for self-driving technology, so that passengers are already used to summoning Uber when they need a ride. Since Uber didn't want to invest a lot of money in their own fleet of human-driven cars, they chose to contract-out so that they don't have to deal with depreciation of capital purchases and amortizing purchases over the duration of the life of the equipment, they just make the contractor do it.

      Unfortunately they're starting to learn the hard way that first, developing self-driving technology is very difficult for the kind of market that Uber wants to serve, as urban areas are fraught with hazards and exceptional conditions that the car must be able to cope with, and second, that stealing someone else's technology to attempt to deal with one's own shortcomings is frowned-upon by the courts.

      Uber as it exists right now is a chrysalis, it's not what the final form is supposed to be. Unfortunately it looks like that chrysalis is destined to whither and crumble rather than to produce a new, mature form, as the timing was off and the choices were bad. Uber wanted to be the leader in a world where people stopped owning their own cars and simply summoned robotic cars to move them around, but it looks like Uber misjudged the timing and in their desire to be first they forgot that sometimes those who blaze the trail end up heading off in the wrong direction.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Lost users? by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not so sure it was timing as much as Uber has incredibly bad business practices that would sink any company.

    3. Re:Lost users? by avandesande · · Score: 2

      As self driving cars become mainstream Uber will become irrelevant. Without the cost of driver involved cars will become simple utilities... and utilities have razor thin margins.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Lost users? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Honestly it will depend on what quality the users expect.

      Over the last few years people on this forum as well as others have discussed what the future would look like with self-driving cars, and the discussion of the random-vehicle subscription model has always gotten back around the the state of the vehicle. Typically the concern is that the car will arrive trashed, or soiled, or some other issue similar to what we see on mass-transit or with taxis. It may well be that different customers will willingly pay for different classes of service, some paying for the cheapest-of-the-cheap will get the cars most likely to be in bad shape, while some paying more will get what's more analogous to a sedan service, where the cars are better inspected, better cleaned, and where customers that abuse the cars either pay inordinately to remain customers or are dropped from this class of service. The top form would be customers that pay for an exclusive vehicle that they retain for extended periods of time, possibly rotated-out as it's due for major maintenance, but that they do not have to necessarily store at home or at work when they're not actively traveling, or could be nearby on-standby when they're running errands and will be picked-up at some as-yet undetermined close future time.

      The problem will be when it's no cheaper to subscribe to the service than to own. Even if future cars end up costing along the lines of the Tesla Model S or X, if the cars last a very long time then I would expect those who can afford to might want to own instead of using a service. In our household we keep cars a long time, and only replace when either the car no longer meets our needs, or when the frustration level grows so great that it's not worth the stress. We finally parted last-week with a sixteen year old car, and I have no doubt that we'll continue to see ownership of current cars for more than a decade. But there again, we live in a suburban area and not only have to drive everywhere anyway, but have room to keep vehicles garaged when they're not in use.

      In a truly urban environment where the individual may not have ready access to parking it might well make sense to subscribe to a car service, but only if the quality of the service is sufficiently high and sufficiently inexpensive. Offhand it's difficult to own in cities like San Francisco, Boston, New York, Chicago. Population density is high enough that parking at home is challenging, and parking at work might be expensive if one has to lease space in a garage or lot. When those other costs are factored-in it might make sense to subscribe to a service for those who don't commute by some form of mass transit.

      Until someone gets a viable, full-time, 100% self-driving car operating we really won't know what the market will look like though.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Lost users? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Oh I wholeheartedly agree. Their choice to pursue industrial espionage is the death-sentence for the company. If they're smart as a company they'll immediately scrap their entire self-driving program and probably fire/lay-off everyone that's ever worked on it or managed it and either start from scratch or else look for someone that's already making headway to partner-with, but then again, if they were smart they wouldn't have stolen someone else's development work in the first place.

      When people first started talking about Uber and the combination of incredibly low prices and good service compared to taxis I was skeptical, mainly because I've known people that drive cabs and it doesn't seem like anyone makes all that much money. Cabbies can make living wages but they're driving a lot, cab company direct workers that maintain the vehicles and work in the offices make wages basically on-par wih similar jobs in other industries, and even though owners usually make the most money, they're not exactly earning the money to live a jet-set lifestyle. That tells me that with Uber, unless somehow they've magically figured out how to squeeze blood from a stone, they're operating in-the-red or with some other defiance of rules that cost money to follow. It appears that Uber is doing both, in that they have come up against regulations they're ignoring, and they're still running on venture capital money, not profitable. When you look at that, you need to ask yourself why they're doing what they're doing, and the only explanation that I can come up with is the one I posted above, that they're trying to become a big player in the future, and that now is just a stop-gap.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Lost users? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      If you think about it Uber is a kind of social media company pairing drivers with passengers. There will be no social interest when the cars are self driving- just a mundane and dreary business that would be easily implemented (by anyone) in software.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:Lost users? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I don't think about them as a social-media company. I think of them as a company that masquerades as a ride-sharing company in order to avoid passenger livery laws in order to keep costs down while they work on their real service.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:Lost users? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Yes but the social media aspect/web 2.0 is the shtick they are using to hoodwink investors into buying their shares. Once that's gone they are nothing.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re:Lost users? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. I suppose it depends on if they've said nearly all things to all investors, or if there are some investors with a lot more involvement in what's really going on in the company and what its actual goals are.

      I remember the dotcom boom, and stupid investors throwing money at anyone with a website URL registered. Hell, Zombo.com was set up as a joke and even they apparently were contacted by investors even though all that site had was a silly flash animation.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. We're on a break by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    Indefinite leave of absence.... Just like "we're on a break". We are through, just not ready to admit it yet.

    1. Re:We're on a break by ZipK · · Score: 1

      WE WERE ON A BREAK!

    2. Re:We're on a break by chill · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think Travis is just the reincarnation of Lig Lury, Jr.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  5. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Travis hasn't done ANYTHING that we haven't seen in Robocop. What's the big fuss about? That he got caught? I'm tired of this fucking hypocrisy, it is still the same company with the same business plan - pretending they aren't running a taxi business to avoid taxes, and screwing drivers - why isn't THIS a problem?

    Fuck off already.

  6. Our national ride sharing nightmare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...is now over. Feel free to call a real, licensed cab driven by an insured and industry certified professional next time you need a lift.

    1. Re:Our national ride sharing nightmare... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Hahah "industry certified". You guys crack me up, thinking that taxis are "certified" in any way. You know what it takes to become a taxi drivers? Nothing. Maybe a small written test.

    2. Re:Our national ride sharing nightmare... by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...and about $1,000,000 for a medallion, right?

    3. Re:Our national ride sharing nightmare... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It used to be a million in NYC. But thanks to Uber it is now $400,000 and dropping.

    4. Re: Our national ride sharing nightmare... by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to call someone?
      I want to use an app with full transparency on where they are and how much it will cost me.

  7. Re:Building something new is hard. by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Building something new is hard. You can't have a touchy-feely CEO who walks on eggshells when you're building something like Uber.

    You can however have a constructive respectful CEO that doesn't break the law at every opportunity, doesn't hire utter cunts and defend their working practices, has proper control of their organisation and actually makes a profit.

    Sure, it's hard. Doesn't excuse being a cunt.

    The difficulty is with the suits (i.e. lawyers). Suits don't like change. They don't like having their industry disrupted. So sometimes you have to apply a force to make that disruption happen.

    So why aren't we hearing the same story about Lyft? Oh, you mean it's possible to do this without being a Kalanick?

  8. Re:Building something new is hard. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    I hope Lyft (and the others) stay around a long time, I agree. I hope Uber goes out of business as quickly as possible.

  9. Re:That poor man! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Well, it's probably undisclosed but leaving while being the co-creator of Uber, he has and got enough money not to have to work anymore for a few generations. If he does something, that's for the challenge (a bit like Trump)

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  10. Proof.. by LesserWeevil · · Score: 2

    Proof that if you're enough of an asshole as CEO someone will eventually notice.

    1. Re:Proof.. by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Or as they say, it's the 66 billion glass ceiling :-)

  11. Re:CEO is available... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    With Marissa Meyers leaving Yahoo, and being a female, she'd be the perfect candidate to be the CEO of Uber. Besides Uber uses Gmail.

    Mayer was paid a total of $239 million when she was terminated at Yahoo. She has enough now and doesn't need to be fired from Uber yet.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. Re:And this is what... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    But I want to make sure I'm one of the rich communists, how do I do that?

  13. Leading? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Yeah, leading it straight into the ground.

  14. Re:And this is what... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    A collectivist utopia would involve a modern efficient public transport system where ride sharing is a quaint 21st C anachronism.