Slashdot Mirror


Travis Kalanick To Uber CEO Candidates: I'm 'Steve Jobsing' It And Will Return (recode.net)

Kara Swisher, reporting for Recode: Warring factions within factions, conflicting back-channeling, intense media scrutiny, questionable foreign influences and a capricious leader whose jarring moves leave everyone in a state of perpetual uncertainly. The Trump administration, right? Well, yes, but also Uber, as it nears its much anticipated decision on who will be its next CEO. And, according to sources, that top leader is not going to be a woman, as the board of the car-hailing company struggles to move forward. To add to the drama: Some directors worry that its former CEO Travis Kalanick -- who was ousted -- is trying to game the outcome in his favor, after he told several people that he was "Steve Jobs-ing it." It is a reference to the late leader of Apple, who was fired from the company, only to later return in triumph.

64 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Like Everyone by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Everyone, esp. in SV, wants to be Steve Jobs. But I have yet to see someone else pull off the Reality Distortion Field, the black turtleneck, or the fired and return CEO.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Like Everyone by megamind · · Score: 1

      That nervousness you feel when you pee, that isn't nervousness, it's cancer.

    2. Re:Like Everyone by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      If he means dying of incurable cancer, then I'm all for it. Proceed!

  2. The difference is by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

    Steve Jobs was clearly a genius while Kalanick maybe has an MBA

    --

    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:The difference is by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Funny

      Found an MBA!

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:The difference is by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Steve Jobs was a brilliant asshole.

      Kalanick is just like Jobs, except for the "brilliant" part.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:The difference is by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not a part of the Cult of Jobs or the Cult of Apple, but I can acknowledge that Jobs was very good at determining what people would want before most people even realized it, and was technologically savvy enough to know when to attempt to push the product development such that it was viable and could be brought to market. He was also very good with at least evaluating interface design, don't know if that was more of a veto-power sort of thing or if he had a real hand in it, but either way, Apple products under Jobs generally had good design. That hockeypuck mouse on the first iMac stands out as the opposite, and I'm certain that we can find other glaring examples throughout the years, but by and large, both the software interfaces and hardware aesthetics were quite good, and were well liked by the nontechnical buying-public and even by some tech-savvy users.

      I don't see how anything in this relates to Uber. Apple is a products company, while ultimately Uber provides a service, and a service that once the phone app portion is concluded is not different enough from competitors' services to stand-out. The CEO of Uber trying to compare himself to Steve Jobs is like comparing Apples and Automobiles. It just doesn't make any sense.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:The difference is by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually it's mutually exclusive.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:The difference is by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      more like:
      Uber is a hype company, providing growth in the short term to investor's based on this hype. The car rental nonsense is incidental to the hype.

      Uber is also a house of cards that could collapse at any moment in time.. mark my words, within 10 years there'll be a simplified version of the tale of Uber a la 'wolf of wall street' or 'the big short'

  3. Riiiight by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Travis continues to have delusions of grandeur, while pissing investors' money away. Steve Jobs actually built companies. This guy just spends other people's money.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Steve Jobs built Apple. NeXT burned through investor's money without producing a viable product, and would have failed if Apple haven't bought the OS for Mac. Pixar was a company he bought off from George Lucas, who needed cash after his divorce, that burnt through his money until Toy Story came along, and then took credit for something he had almost nothing to do with..

    2. Re:Riiiight by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pixar was a company he bought off from George Lucas, who needed cash after his divorce, that burnt through his money until Toy Story came along, and then took credit for something he had almost nothing to do with..

      When did he take credit for anything at Pixar except funding it for the initial 10 years? He never said that he did any of the work in those early years. For the first 10 years Pixar did run on Job's money, however, he engineered the first Disney deal that led to Toy Story. Jobs also took Pixar public. Jobs was CEO until Disney bought it out in 2006 which saw Pixar rise to be the juggernaut it is today. So Jobs did a lot for Pixar.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      When did he take credit for anything at Pixar except funding it for the initial 10 years?

      According to "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs" by Alan Deutschman, when Steve Jobs presented Toy Story at SIGGRAPH 1995, an industry group that he has no affiliation with. The animators, who were affiliated with SIGGRAPH, had to watch from the backstage. Steve Jobs funded the second decade of Pixar after purchasing it from George Lucas.

    4. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The NeXTcube was apparently so very nonviable that Tim Berners-Lee used one to invent the World Wide Web.

      The NeXTcube cost $10,000. That's $7,000 more than what Steve Jobs promised the universities that were supposed to be his customers. Tim Berner-Lee worked at CERN that could afford $10,000 workstations.

    5. Re:Riiiight by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The web was born on a next machine, as was Doom....Regardless of commercial success, the next machine has a stunning legacy. Up until Toy Story, Pixar made its money from licensing Renderman..

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Riiiight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Back in the 1990ies I used to do some IT for an engineering company that almost exclusively used NeXTstations. The company owner wanted me to admin their NeXTstations, almost forcing me to borrow a ton of manuals, but back then I was a DOS and OS/2 guy, so after some time trying to make sense out of NeXTStep (and my English wasn't that good back then hence reading those manuals was difficult) I've declined. I kinda regret it now - could have earned a lot of money.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A man of your age and vast experience has used them, yes?

      Nope. My work experience has always been Windows on PCs, and occasionally Macs at more enlighten companies.

    8. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Up until Toy Story, Pixar made its money from licensing Renderman..

      Pixar burned holes in the pockets of George Lucas and Steve Jobs. IIRC, Renderman was a $30,000 computer for a niche market. Pixar even did TV commercials for a while. They weren't financially successful until Toy Story came out.

    9. Re:Riiiight by Chryana · · Score: 1

      It fits with some stories I read of him being a fan of Ayn Rand. His belief that Uber needs him to prop it up fits neatly with that. I almost wish he would get the CEO job back so that he can be at the helm when it finally sinks.

    10. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Don't you have some lusers Windows laptop to fix? I can just imagine the reactions on their faces when they realize it's creimer coming to fix their computer. They're going "oh god, not the smelly fat fuck that's full of himself. Please tell me he's not going to try to sell me his crappy book again."

      1) I don't do break fix.
      2) I wear Old Spice.
      3) None of my coworkers know about my ebooks or websites, as they're not my intended audience.

    11. Re: Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You literally contributed nothing to the story.

      Nonsense. I provided a very insightful comment (attention, mods!), a link to a book that I've personally read that is relevant, and a YouTube link with Steve Jobs at SIGGRAPH. You're not obligated to click on any of the links.

    12. Re:Riiiight by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Pixar was a company he bought off from George Lucas, who needed cash after his divorce, that burnt through his money until Toy Story came along, and then took credit for something he had almost nothing to do with..

      When did he take credit for anything at Pixar except funding it for the initial 10 years? He never said that he did any of the work in those early years. For the first 10 years Pixar did run on Job's money, however, he engineered the first Disney deal that led to Toy Story. Jobs also took Pixar public. Jobs was CEO until Disney bought it out in 2006 which saw Pixar rise to be the juggernaut it is today. So Jobs did a lot for Pixar.

      From your story, it sounds like Disney did a lot for Pixar.

    13. Re:Riiiight by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      From your story, it sounds like Disney did a lot for Pixar.

      And Pixar did a lot for Disney. Do you remember what Disney do for the Pixar films? They didn't fund them. Pixar did that. They didn't make them. Pixar did that. Disney distributed them. Initially Disney also owned the rights to the early films which Pixar found onerous. So Disney mades tons of money off Pixar in multiple ways. What would Disney been between 1995 and 2006 without Pixar.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      RenderMan is software. It's not a computer. Perhaps you should shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

      What part of IIRC don't you understand?

      I mean you could have at least read the damn wikipedia page about RenderMan

      It was the Pixar Image Computer. Like NeXT, Pixar went from being a hardware company to a software company.

    15. Re:Riiiight by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs presented Toy Story [youtube.com] at SIGGRAPH 1995, an industry group that he has no affiliation with. The animators, who were affiliated with SIGGRAPH, had to watch from the backstage

      Er what? Are you saying that Pixar didn't actually make Toy Story? Is that what you are saying?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re:Riiiight by AndroSyn · · Score: 1

      $10k was a pretty common price point for Workstations during the early 1990s, especially graphics workstations. Very comparable to the prices SGI was charging for their workstations.

      In short, people who needed real computing power that wasn't x86 garbage on Windows 3.1 were very much willing to pay. x86 PCs were considered toys compared to workstations.

    17. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Er what? Are you saying that Pixar didn't actually make Toy Story? Is that what you are saying?

      Steve Jobs taking credit for Toy Story even though he had nothing to do with project than own the company. The animators should have presented at SIGGRAPH.

    18. Re:Riiiight by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      $10k was a pretty common price point for Workstations during the early 1990s, especially graphics workstations.

      I'm currently reading "Steve Jobs & The NeXT Big Thing" by Randall Stross. The NeXT computer was supposed to be better than the Mac and priced at $3,000 for the university market. When the NeXT computer got introduced, the universities balked at the $7,000 price tag for their students. Apple owned the educational market the inexpensive Macs.

    19. Re:Riiiight by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Pixar was veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery lucky to get attached to the Disney name.
      Disney without Pixar would still be Disney.

    20. Re:Riiiight by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs taking credit for Toy Story even though he had nothing to do with project than own the company. The animators should have presented at SIGGRAPH.

      The only awards shows that animators present at are The Annies. Steve's job (heh) at the time was to talk up Pixar, especially to a trade show audience, and back then no one was better. It was a speech not just about the achievement of Toy Story, but a prediction of the future of animation. This wasn't just a regular speech, it was the keynote presentation at the show -- naturally the executive producer and owner is going to speak.

    21. Re:Riiiight by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Up until Toy Story, Pixar made its money from licensing Renderman

      Renderman sales weren't quite that big. What kept Pixar afloat were TV commercials for companies like Listerine and Life Savers candy.

    22. Re: Riiiight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You are missing my point - for that company the NeXTStations were a viable product.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    23. Re:Riiiight by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Please state what point of the speech did he take credit for Toy Story? At no point did I see him actually do that.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    24. Re:Riiiight by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      And what Disney animated properties from 1996 to 2006 made Disney the most money? Pixar. That's one reason Iger bought out Pixar. He realized when touring Hong Kong Disneyland that the popular characters were Pixar originated.

      Iger said the importance of Pixar to Disney's future had become clear to him during opening ceremonies for Hong Kong Disneyland in September 2005, just a month before he became chief executive. He noticed the many characters from Pixar films featured in the kickoff parade. But there was nothing from Disney's recent animated movies, whose latest characters weren't popular.

      That and Disney animation films were in a rut producing less and less at the box office. These are just facts man. Both companies benefited from the deal. To pretend Disney didn't is pure denial.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  4. Pancreatic cancer FTW? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Funny

    I mean, it's what Jobs would do....

    1. Re:Pancreatic cancer FTW? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well. Planning a premature death, are you Travis? In sticking with the black turtleneck theme you might be better off (Elizabeth) "Holmesing" it, but a bro like you would probably prefer to be dead than broke and irrelevant anyway.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. Going back to his Jam Pad by paratek · · Score: 1

    This should be interesting.

    --
    Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!
  6. Real leaders don't imitate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing that these sorts of people fail to realize is that real leaders don't imitate; they define.

    The moment somebody tries to replicate what a successful leader did, this person has inherently become a follower, meaning they can't be a leader.

    To make matters worse, the imitator likely couldn't even fully or properly imitate their inspiration, either. This means that the imitator will have a greater chance of failure than even the imitated leader did.

    This isn't just true for people. It's true for organizations and open source projects, too.

    Look at Firefox. It's like it has tried to imitate Chrome, the true leader among web browsers. But it's like the developers behind Firefox just don't "get" what makes Chrome the leader. So Firefox tries to mimic the look of Chrome, but it's never anywhere near as good as Chrome is.

    It's the same for GNOME 2, which tried to imitate Windows in many ways, and GNOME 3, which tried to imitate OS X. Neither version of GNOME could really compete with the desktop environment that was being imitated.

    Systemd is another example. It tries to imitate the Windows approach, but with Linux as the kernel. And it's a total disaster, in my opinion.

    A real leader, like Theo of the OpenBSD project, sets his own goals and his own direction. He doesn't try to mimic somebody else. He doesn't measure himself compared to others. He knows what he wants, and he gets it. He's a real leader, not an imitator.

    1. Re:Real leaders don't imitate. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, Firefox was the leader, until it started copying one of its rivals.

    2. Re:Real leaders don't imitate. by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      huh? Firefox was never the leader

      Before Chrome, Firefox topped out at a 70-80% share of web sessions. They were indisputably the leader until 1) Google pulled their financial support and made their own browser, and 2) Mozilla started caring more about the political past of its management than the quality of its product.

    3. Re: Real leaders don't imitate. by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      Depends. Instagram has copied Snapchat to huge success.

      The key is that Firefox couldn't copy Chrome's speed. If they could have made it as light and fast as Chrome before they lost their market share, it would have worked.

      Copying works IF you're at the top and are quick about it.

      Another negative example would be Microsoft's obsession with copying the look/feel (and high margins) of Apple, without understanding why Apple does things the way it does. Not only did MS forget that their actual strength is in being the mass-market, low-margin OS provider, but that distraction allowed Google to swoop in and dominate the mass-market, low-market phone/tablet market that Microsoft SHOULD have been concentrating on instead, and has also allowed Google to make inroads in threatening both Office and the very-low end of the commodity PC market.

  7. Just proved he's not CEO material by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The job of a CEO is to ensure the growth and financial success of a company. Poisoning the well of potential CEOs is a sure-fire way to spike that future growth. Not only does that prove you are NOT CEO material - it also means, Travis, you probably cost yourself several billion dollars. And guaranteed you will never come back because those with enough power/leverage to oust you will ensure you never return (lest they look like fools, and bring back a man who they not only rightfully pushed out - but one who negatively impacted the growth of the company once forced out).

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. Re:It's not "jobsing" by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Not far from Gom Jabbar which you want to avoid with your neck

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  9. Good on ya by mr.dreadful · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Travis, you're going to go off, start another self-driving company that is technically more advanced, wait for Uber to be almost dead, and then be bought out and brought back by the original company as a hail mary? And then re-invent the smart phone, which arguably saved the company more then anything else did? *grabs popcorn*

  10. Oh, so Nexting and Pixaring? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, um, create two other companies, one hugely successful and one that gets acquired by Uber, and then we'll talk.

  11. That's not "Steve Jobs-ing it". by shess · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Steve Jobs-ing it is "You're all fucking idiots, I'm out of here." It wasn't some big plan where he was going to go chill out in the woods for a bit and come back stronger. Jobs intended NeXT to take over everything, he was just 10 years or so too early.

    Further, "Steve Jobs-ing it" is selling all of your shares but one, because who wants to invest in idiots? Then after Apple acquired NeXT, he sold almost all of _those_ shares, too.

    1. Re:That's not "Steve Jobs-ing it". by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't have happened if Bee had priced itself at a reasonable value. NeXT was the backup.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Re:And then what? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

    He doesn't even have Jobs's ego. Ego usually describes a person's inflated idea of their own genius. Jobs really was about as good as he thought he was.

  13. It's for the best. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    The more assholes that die from ignoring medical advice from experts, the better off the world will be. (Sorry Apple fans but Steve was a real dick)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  14. Jobsing by c · · Score: 1, Informative

    It is a reference to the late leader of Apple, who was fired from the company, only to later return in triumph.

    It may also be a reference to the late leader of Apple, who killed himself by trying to cure cancer using quack remedies rather than actual medicine.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:Jobsing by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      who killed himself by trying to cure cancer using quack remedies rather than actual medicine.

      Steve did use actual medicine: he was diagnosed in 2003, and had surgery nine months later to remove the tumor. The particular type of cancer he was initially diagnosed for has an unusually good prognosis for Pancreatic cancer. He was one of the "unlucky" few for whom the surgery wasn't curative. The doctors apparently suspected the cancer spread to his liver, and they took the unusual step of replacing it. That put him on anti-rejection drugs.

      Because of the anti-rejection drugs his immune system is compromised: if there's any cancer left, the cancer cells grow completelyunchecked, and the prognosis is extremely poor; the only thing left at that point is palliative care (ie. make him comfortable while he dies).

      When medicine says "sorry, we can only make your death less painful", I can't fault anyone for turning to alternative medicine.

      Fuck cancer.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:Jobsing by hord · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess, I'd say it was the fruit that killed him. Fructose is bad for the pancreas and from what I read he ate a lot of fruit. Once your pancreas goes, there is nothing that can be done. It doesn't regenerate, you only have one, and it provides some life-critical chemicals.

    3. Re:Jobsing by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      While Jobs was a Raw Fruitinarian for a while, it's important to note that diabetes != cancer; they're totally different diseases;

      We've discovered a 'link' between diabetes & pancreatic cancer, but we're not sure which way the arrow points - it may be that pancreatic cancer may be a cause of diabetes, but not the reverse).

      The nine months between the cancer diagnosis and the start of treatment was likely a far bigger problem; given the debilitating nature of most cancer treatments, it's not unusual for patients to delay treatment, in spite of the risks.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    4. Re:Jobsing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He said himself that he regretted the initial delay while he sought 'alternative treatments'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Jobsing by hord · · Score: 1

      Where did I say diabetes? Fructose is bad for the pancreas, period. No human cell can metabolize it directly and it is processed in the liver in a manner similar to alcohol. My understanding is that this process produces by-products which are harmful to the pancreas over the long-term. Severe alcoholics are also known to have pancreatic issues with little or no sign of diabetes.

  15. Re:It's not "jobsing" by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Not far from Gom Jabbar which you want to avoid with your neck

    Thank you Muad'Dib.

  16. Investors to Travis Kalanick: by cunina · · Score: 1

    "No, you're not. Now shut up while we find a grown-up to run the company, because we want our money."

  17. Classic by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Uber is a classic case of what you get when the problem is dictating the solution.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  18. Re:Yeah. And it's a choice of car or motorcycle, t by TWX · · Score: 1

    Since you can't return "in" a motorcycle in a conventional sense, maybe it was in a sidecar bolted to the motorcycle.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  19. So... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    ...he plans to die?

    He's a shining example for most CEOs I know, that much I have to give him.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Tough if he is an ex-con by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    Travis may end spending some time in the big house first, and I think that means he cannot be a CEO of anything.

  21. Re:Yeah. And it's a choice of car or motorcycle, t by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Since you can't return "in" a motorcycle in a conventional sense, maybe it was in a sidecar bolted to the motorcycle.

    Seems like you studied under George Carlin:

    About this time, someone is telling you to get on the plane. "Get on the plane. Get on the plane." I say, "fuck you, I'm getting IN the plane! IN the plane! Let Evil Knievel get ON the plane! I'll be in here with you folks in uniform! There seems to be less WIND in here!"

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  22. Jony Ive by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Let's not give Steve Jobs too much credit for employing Jony Ive.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  23. How will he "Jobs" it by Manqueman · · Score: 1

    Uber's present model has lost billions of dollars which it cannot, will not make back -- at least not for decades and a change in the livery business other than calling a car by tap instead of a phonemail. Jobs 2.0 made Apple one of the biggest moneymakers -- and highly profitable -- on earth. What does Travis and his board of lackeys have in mind to turn Uber into a huge, profitable moneymaker? Anything?