Repeatedly dirty, at that: http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/

The frustrating thing is that they're so damn good at their product, and sticking it to an industry that desperately needs a firm foot up their behind.

But I agree, I'm not going to give my money to a company that's so willfully unethical - and unapologetically, repeatedly so.

I find this problem really strange to be honest. Lyft guys are capable of solving dispatch issues, so why don't they introduce limits in their ToS? For example 5 cancellations in a row - ban. 25%+ cancellations over a period of time - ban. Or instead of a ban, start charging for cancellations over some threshold. If they set the threshold and the resulting action properly, they should be able to handle the bad behaviour with little loss.

I see this as one of the few social problems that can be solved with technology. Use the tech to make the incentives for this behaviour go away.

Agreed. This certainly doesn't excuse Uber's behavior, but as a startup you have to adapt and adjust to whatever issues you are confronted with. When abusive cancellations became a problem, they should have made it either impossible or expensive for the behavior to continue.

I get the sentiment, but is this pertinent to the article? Do you plan on posting this on every Uber-related HN submission?

Uber is a dirty company. Well then.

I hope you don't wear t-shirts made by slave kids in Honduran sweatshops, eat food fertilized by Monsanto, or buy anything that gives money to the Koch brothers. I hope you never drink Coke, since they kill unionizers in Colombia and Guatemala. While you're at it, I hope you never use Eclipse, since IBM supplied the Nazis.

Every company is dirty. Every single one. Even your YC-startup is taking money from VCs taking money from east coast money guys making money from all of the above. Capitalism is a dirty game.

Realizing this, you have a few alternatives. You can try to smart-consume your way out of the situation, which is laughably futile; you can turn libertarian and start justifying it in terms of economic efficiency; or you can realize that we have no option but to play a rigged game while there isn't another game in town and start creating something better.

Choose wisely.

That's defeatist and dismissive. On a marginal level we should be exposing immoral decisions made by companies so that they at least try to give the perception of being moral, which a lot of the time means having to make a moral decision. On our spare time we should be agitating and propagandising and what not, but just because the most efficient and affordable companies are usually the most exploitative, it doesn't mean we should act like there's nothing we can do about it.

I've spent a large part of my life doing various pro-union anti-corporate-misbehavior etc activism and have come to the conclusion there is literally nothing us plebs can do at this point. The MEND/AQI style asymmetric warfare is literally the only option left, and that only works on the periphery, not the core. Consumer and traditional activism is entirely toothless because the economy has shrunk to the point where concessions can no longer be made. The labor-capital relationship of the 50's and 60's is dead now.

Uber is certainly not the least moral company and being upset about them prank-calling Lyft is just laughable. When was the last time you drank Coke or wore a Gildan t-shirt? Hell, look at the tags on the clothes you're wearing right now and try to come up with the moral authority to chide Uber.

I think the thing I find most objectionable about Uber's behaviour is that they're already winning anyway. They don't even need to do this kind of thing, and punching down never looks pretty.

So the amount of value they provide? The pleasant drivers? The unique value they provide over taxis? The ease of everything? This should all be overlooked because they scaled quick and a few things got out of control?

It's very he-said-she-said: http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/uber-lyft-slap-fight/

This is not an example of "he-said, she-said". That would be if Lyft accused them of canceling rides, and then Uber denies having done it.

Here Uber never denies that they canceled rides, only that Lyft did the same.

Also Uber did this to another competitor, Gett, and pretty much copped to it.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/ubers-dirty-trick-campaign-again... http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/

You're correct there's a better term than "he-said, she-said" for accusing someone of a dirty tactic that you've used yourself.

It's called "hypocrisy". Lyft is being a hypocrite.

It's normal to have users cancel rides (driver just missed the freeway offramp to get to you, etc), so over a year if you have 50k requests with an average 10% cancel rate... That's 5k cancellations. Nothing crazy here.

Still not as dirty and corrupt as the taxi industry.

This isn't a contest.

Of course it is. In many places (eg Toronto) I can only choose between Uber and Taxis so I'm going to go with Uber.

There is a third choice: neither. You're in Toronto for crying out loud - despite the kvetching of its residents the TTC is one of the best transit systems on the continent.

Uber is shady as fuck, so is the cab industry. Pointing out the degrees to which they are shady is not particularly useful and serves only to rationalize supporting unethical actors.

What's shady about an Uber ride? I've taken dozens and not a single one gave me any problems whatsoever.

No one's going to care how the front office of Uber acts if the product they offer is solid.

That's not the same product. I do use the TTC whenever it's convenient.

I'm curious if you use Uber because of the convenience or vehicles? I use Hailo for the convenience, but I'm curious if Uber is more convenient or you just prefer their vehicles and/or driver service.

I started using Uber in SF and continued in Toronto. This is the first I'm hearing of Hailo, might give it a shot next time I'm in Toronto.

lyft is dirtier

Proof?