Pushing a founder out is often a bad idea. This might very well be the beginning of Uber's demise. This won't be good for the company.
All CEOs make mistakes even great ones like Gates with antitrust or Zuck calling users dumb-fucks. They weren't kicked out, they instead were allowed to come into their own.
There's a distinct fire that a founder has for the company they founded. You can't hire that. Without this fire at the early stages of a company, the company will likely lose out to competitors like Lyft.
A hiatus is one thing but kicking a founder out is simply bad.
Mark my word and take that to the bank. This was a bad move.
I pretty much can't stumble upon an article about Uber that's not about controversy. I know that kind of news sells better. But in my perception now Uber had the pendulum swung far off center. I've been shocked by their (reported) ethics, to the point of not purchasing their services. I know that consequence is not taken by a majority of people, but I do sense a more than average disgust for Uber's ethics. If you'd asked me, I'd have welcomed their demise. The only thing to turn that around for me is new leadership.
A woman for Uber CEO would be a good signal -- if the best candidate for the job happens to be one. Didn't Marissa Mayer recently resign from her job, and be available?
I don't think Uber can go much lower, negativity around it was simply overwhelming. Desperate times require desperate measurements - kicking CEO is like saying: "ok, we did some wrong things - sorry, but we will try to change for a better".
It comes down to conviction and courage to follow through. I find it curious that just when he's out, one of the things that he'd fought against for so long has been done i.e. tipping.
The reason it's courage involved in such a situation is because, against all external pressure, he maintained that he thought it would create friction. I can see that and some people may disagree - and those people can use Lyft, but at the end of the day, most people use Uber the way it is because of a certain experience that's possibly inexplicable to them. They just like it. Travis and his team have created this experience.
If there's no courage and conviction, then Uber becomes indistinguishable from Lyft. I honestly don't think the next CEO will have as much courage to say something like, 'we know automation is coming and we have to be on top of it regardless of any negative feedback. If we don't, it won't matter because someone will do it anyway...'
Time will tell and I think it will tell the same story I've told here.
Completely agree. Uber (as a product) will turn into Lyft, rather than what should be the other way around on the merits. Uber is clearly a superior product. That is orthogonal to its quality as a company. I'm not convinced that having a good company culture requires the product to be shittier.
Disagree. I think some of these VCs are just trigger-happy when it comes to dealing with founders. I don't know why this is the case; may be they think it's easy and they know better.
How often do you hear VCs talk about how much they're on the founder's side like Vinod Khosla. At almost every turn, you'll hear Vinod go on about his reverence for founders. He does however add that this is not always the case. Sometimes, he says, founders must be asked to leave. When Vinod tells you to step aside, I think he'd most likely be right because you know his intentions aren't malicious. Do I think it had gotten to that point with Travis? My answer would be no.
All CEOs make mistakes even great ones like Gates with antitrust or Zuck calling users dumb-fucks. They weren't kicked out, they instead were allowed to come into their own.
There's a distinct fire that a founder has for the company they founded. You can't hire that. Without this fire at the early stages of a company, the company will likely lose out to competitors like Lyft.
A hiatus is one thing but kicking a founder out is simply bad.
Mark my word and take that to the bank. This was a bad move.