6 ms·

They're a global company that operates in 900 cities. I don't understand why so many people on this site seem to think it should be a few programmers and some s

They're a global company that operates in 900 cities. I don't understand why so many people on this site seem to think it should be a few programmers and some suits to sign the checks.

Barrin92 6y ago
because for the past 11 years, and people tend to forget how long this company has existed, they have been burning through money faster than star athletes after retirement while inventing increasingly convoluted metrics to claim to be actually profitable. Many people are just tired of seeing glorified sales and taxi companies disguising themselves as tech companies. The defining feature of a technology firm is reduction of marginal costs at scale. If you're adding human labour with every city you expand into you might have a problem on your hands if your banking on making facebook margins.There is an underlying exhaustion among some people, myself included, who want to see investments into basic research and real technological advances rather than yet another app delivering pizza being valuated at 50 billion dollars.
- hckr_news 6y ago
  Uber’s engineering infrastructure is nothing to scoff at.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Yes, and I think that's the problem. The infrastructure is actually a cost for Uber. It's better to have less infrastructure. I have sometimes the feeling the infrastructure team at Uber is trying to build the tower of Babel to touch the heavens or something rather than considering that the end goal is giving people rides and not building more infrastructure. I think people should recognise that the taxi market has an advantage. It's a distributed system and a market. Taxis organise themselves. If you're going to replace an entire market with a centrally planned system and a giant electricity and compute eating machine then you better have something to show for it in terms of efficiency.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Exactly. It's like measuring the success of building an airplane by how much it weights. What's especially interesting to me here is how the landscape has changed since Uber launched 10 years ago. In 2010, you legitimate had to build a lot of your own stuff; at that point Amazon hadn't even launched SNS or Redshift. [1] Docker didn't exist. Etc, etc. So the question for me isn't, "Can Uber justify their apparently large infrastructure?" It's more, "If somebody started an Uber competitor today, how much of the work could they get from open source, PaaS, and SaaS providers?"
      - kavalg 6y ago
        A really interesting question indeed. While Docker containers are a blessing from many perspectives, their orchestration is far from easy (yes k8s I am looking at you). Another consideration of a CTO, when choosing buy vs build, would be the cloud vendor lock-in and pricing consideration. Big cloud vendors may be a good offering for startups, when you need to move fast, growth is more important than margin and vendor lock-in is not an issue. However, as you grow, these things become increasingly important. Just to provoke some constructive thinking, I urge you to consider what businesses would become possible if running cost of IT & online payments equaled zero :)
    - skny 6y ago
      Your naïveté and misinformed idealism are quite amusing. Uber had to solve huge problems in realtime marketplace management, mapping, transport economics, financial systems, safety and fraud prevention to make the magical experience of pressing a button and getting a ride possible anywhere in the world. Don't assume you have the answers that a twenty thousand organization couldn't figure out.
      - james_s_tayler 6y ago
        "anywhere in the world" being the challenging part. If you're think about it from the perspective of a local taxi company, sure, it doesn't make sense. If you're a global service then it's probably different.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  (Serious questions, seeking clarity in my own mind) Is Netflix a tech company? Is a company that sells ebooks a tech company? What about scientific journals? Are they tech companies? Is Instagram a tech company? What about ad brokers?
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    I'd suggest the OECD definition: Hatzichronoglou, Thomas: "Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification", OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 1997/02, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/revision-of-the-high-technology-sector-and-product-classification_134337307632 https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/revisi... Page 7 specifically divides manufacturing industries (it doesn't address services) into four technology levels, high, medium-high, medium low, and low: High technology: Aerospace, computers, office machinery, electronics-communications, pharmaceuticals. Medium-high technology: Scientific instruments, motor vehicles, electrical machinery, chemicals, other transport equipment, non-electrical machinery. Medium-low technoogy: Rubber and plastic products, shipbuilding, other manufacturing, non-ferrous metals, non-metallic mineral products, fabricated metal products, petroleum refining, ferrous metals. Low-technology: Paper printing, textiles and clothing, food, beverages, and tabacco, wood and furniture. Given J.S. Mill's wonderful definition of technology, 'the study of effects", there's little in human activity which is completely atechnological. There remains, however, much that is quite some remove from the cutting edge. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12004/12004-h/12004-h.htm#FNanchor11 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12004/12004-h/12004-h.htm#FNa...) In the technology adoption lifecycle, high tech are innovators. An early-adopter firm is itself still not high tech itself. (Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22884971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22884971)
  - gonzo41 6y ago
    Yes, Netflix is a tech company. Eventually all companies that are enabled by technology and software become tech companies. Even banking is becoming a tech industry.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dave5104 6y ago
That's 30 employees per city, for those who didn't do the mental math. Seems way more reasonable considering for each given market, you'll need a number of support staff + supervisors, marketing people, staff to support drivers and their enrollment, and staff to support an office if one exists. Divvy up corporate HQ heads (engineering, exec team, etc.) and I can see that number hitting 30 per city.
- oblio 6y ago
  Don't forget people that deal with all sorts of compliance issues.
munificent 6y ago
Most programmers are completely oblivious to the world of sales and how large it is.
aazaa 6y ago
> I don't understand why so many people on this site seem to think it should be a few programmers and some suits to sign the checks. I don't, either, but then again I never said that. I'm merely wondering how the jobs break down.

They're a global company that operates in 900 cities. I don't understand why so many people on this site seem to think it should be a few programmers and some suits to sign the checks.

Barrin92 6y ago

because for the past 11 years, and people tend to forget how long this company has existed, they have been burning through money faster than star athletes after retirement while inventing increasingly convoluted metrics to claim to be actually profitable. Many people are just tired of seeing glorified sales and taxi companies disguising themselves as tech companies. The defining feature of a technology firm is reduction of marginal costs at scale. If you're adding human labour with every city you expand into you might have a problem on your hands if your banking on making facebook margins.There is an underlying exhaustion among some people, myself included, who want to see investments into basic research and real technological advances rather than yet another app delivering pizza being valuated at 50 billion dollars.

hckr_news 6y ago
Uber’s engineering infrastructure is nothing to scoff at.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Yes, and I think that's the problem. The infrastructure is actually a cost for Uber. It's better to have less infrastructure. I have sometimes the feeling the infrastructure team at Uber is trying to build the tower of Babel to touch the heavens or something rather than considering that the end goal is giving people rides and not building more infrastructure. I think people should recognise that the taxi market has an advantage. It's a distributed system and a market. Taxis organise themselves. If you're going to replace an entire market with a centrally planned system and a giant electricity and compute eating machine then you better have something to show for it in terms of efficiency.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Exactly. It's like measuring the success of building an airplane by how much it weights. What's especially interesting to me here is how the landscape has changed since Uber launched 10 years ago. In 2010, you legitimate had to build a lot of your own stuff; at that point Amazon hadn't even launched SNS or Redshift. [1] Docker didn't exist. Etc, etc. So the question for me isn't, "Can Uber justify their apparently large infrastructure?" It's more, "If somebody started an Uber competitor today, how much of the work could they get from open source, PaaS, and SaaS providers?"
    - kavalg 6y ago
      A really interesting question indeed. While Docker containers are a blessing from many perspectives, their orchestration is far from easy (yes k8s I am looking at you). Another consideration of a CTO, when choosing buy vs build, would be the cloud vendor lock-in and pricing consideration. Big cloud vendors may be a good offering for startups, when you need to move fast, growth is more important than margin and vendor lock-in is not an issue. However, as you grow, these things become increasingly important. Just to provoke some constructive thinking, I urge you to consider what businesses would become possible if running cost of IT & online payments equaled zero :)
  - skny 6y ago
    Your naïveté and misinformed idealism are quite amusing. Uber had to solve huge problems in realtime marketplace management, mapping, transport economics, financial systems, safety and fraud prevention to make the magical experience of pressing a button and getting a ride possible anywhere in the world. Don't assume you have the answers that a twenty thousand organization couldn't figure out.
    - james_s_tayler 6y ago
      "anywhere in the world" being the challenging part. If you're think about it from the perspective of a local taxi company, sure, it doesn't make sense. If you're a global service then it's probably different.
randomsearch 6y ago
(Serious questions, seeking clarity in my own mind) Is Netflix a tech company? Is a company that sells ebooks a tech company? What about scientific journals? Are they tech companies? Is Instagram a tech company? What about ad brokers?
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  I'd suggest the OECD definition: Hatzichronoglou, Thomas: "Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification", OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 1997/02, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/revision-of-the-high-technology-sector-and-product-classification_134337307632 https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/revisi... Page 7 specifically divides manufacturing industries (it doesn't address services) into four technology levels, high, medium-high, medium low, and low: High technology: Aerospace, computers, office machinery, electronics-communications, pharmaceuticals. Medium-high technology: Scientific instruments, motor vehicles, electrical machinery, chemicals, other transport equipment, non-electrical machinery. Medium-low technoogy: Rubber and plastic products, shipbuilding, other manufacturing, non-ferrous metals, non-metallic mineral products, fabricated metal products, petroleum refining, ferrous metals. Low-technology: Paper printing, textiles and clothing, food, beverages, and tabacco, wood and furniture. Given J.S. Mill's wonderful definition of technology, 'the study of effects", there's little in human activity which is completely atechnological. There remains, however, much that is quite some remove from the cutting edge. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12004/12004-h/12004-h.htm#FNanchor11 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12004/12004-h/12004-h.htm#FNa...) In the technology adoption lifecycle, high tech are innovators. An early-adopter firm is itself still not high tech itself. (Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22884971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22884971)
- gonzo41 6y ago
  Yes, Netflix is a tech company. Eventually all companies that are enabled by technology and software become tech companies. Even banking is becoming a tech industry.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dave5104 6y ago

That's 30 employees per city, for those who didn't do the mental math. Seems way more reasonable considering for each given market, you'll need a number of support staff + supervisors, marketing people, staff to support drivers and their enrollment, and staff to support an office if one exists. Divvy up corporate HQ heads (engineering, exec team, etc.) and I can see that number hitting 30 per city.

oblio 6y ago
Don't forget people that deal with all sorts of compliance issues.

munificent 6y ago

Most programmers are completely oblivious to the world of sales and how large it is.

aazaa 6y ago

> I don't understand why so many people on this site seem to think it should be a few programmers and some suits to sign the checks. I don't, either, but then again I never said that. I'm merely wondering how the jobs break down.