Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs Garrett Camp and Travis Kalanick had a big year in 2007. Garrett Camp
had completed the sale of StumbleUpon to eBay and Travis Kalanick had sold Red Swoosh to Akamai
Technologies. In December 2008, the two found themselves in Paris for the annual LeWeb
conference for startups and web entrepreneurs (Kalanick).
Whats next? That was the question both were asking themselves. In a blog posting, Travis
Kalanick wrote, Garretts big idea was cracking the horrible taxi problem in San Francisco getting
stranded on the streets of San Francisco is familiar territory for any San Franciscan. The
conversation between the two co-founders marked the conceptual founding of Uber.
The initial vision to address the taxi problem involved connecting passengers with drivers using
mobile technology. Over the next several months, Camp worked with a small team on a prototype
for a mobile application. Travis Kalanick joined in 2009 to assist in guiding the initial product launch,
which involved building up a network of drivers and refining the business model. In June 2010, 18
months after the founders began discussing the idea in Paris, Uber officially launched in the San
Francisco market as a disruptive, mobile technology enabled alternative to the traditional taxi and
transportation options available.
1. Overconfidence. As the disruptive companies emerge, the incumbents view the new entrants as
specialized toys that could never threaten their decades-old franchise. This is the time for the
incumbents to take action and innovate, but instead they usually ignore the new entrants, or often
try to delay them with regulatory actions, such as forcing UberCab to change its name to Uber. Uber
and Lyfts early skirmishes with regulatory bodies are good examples of this standard tactic.
Similarly, Airbnb has been pursued by the hotel lobbyists in NYC.
2. Sudden collapse/downward spiral. Sudden realization that things have changed. Realization is
typically sparked in the incumbent through a drastic turn of events e.g. the incumbent
unexpectedly misses a quarter in a big way when its business evaporates faster than anticipated. A
sharp collapse in its business is often the singular signal that the industry has hit a tipping point and
an irreversible downward spiral kicks in for the incumbents business.
This is happening right now with Uber more taxi drivers are switching to Uber, which means there
are more cars on Uber, which means more people use Uber and fewer use taxis, which means more
taxi drivers switch to Uber.
Downward spiral
These sorts of downward spirals start off slowly (so the incumbents ignore them early on) and then
hit a phase transition and shift into overdrive often over the course of just a few months or a year.
In Ubers case it is a network effect that drives fast compounding for itself, and a rapid phase
shift/cliff for the incumbents.
3. Too little too late. Incumbents try to take action but often dont do enough quickly enough. For
example, the SFMTA and cab companies in San Francisco are now adding new medallions to increase
taxi numbers in San Francisco, but it is probably already game over in the long run. This and other
actions (such as building their own on-demand taxi app), should have been taken a few years ago
when Uber first appeared on the scene as a black car centric company. Instead, the taxi companies
responded by forcing Uber to drop the word cab from its name and lobbied extensively on the
regulatory side.
4. Ongoing decline. Incumbents may survive for many years post collapse, but are no longer really
relevant (e.g. BlackBerry). Instead they suffer from ongoing layoffs and downsizing of their
companies with a subset going bankrupt early. In the taxi example, the individual drivers will thrive
as they move to Uber and Lyft, while the taxi companies themselves will suffer. For the next N years,
people will still order Yellow Cabs and other taxis. There will just be fewer and fewer drivers and
customers for these traditional services. Eventually, branded taxi companies will become an old
lady use case, i.e. only a small subset of the most conservative prior generation of users will
continue to use the dramatically downsized incumbents.
Kalanick explains: We think that cities deserve to have another transportation alternative. It sounds
crazy to have to say that but you have to do that because you have incumbent interests which are
often trying to curtail innovation and curtail sort of transportation alternatives that might compete
with their existing business. And, because of that, it requires us to take a very local approach to how
we go after a city. We have launchers that go into [cities] and turn nothing into something. I like to
say they drop in with parachutes and machetes [and] get highly involved with the suppliers, people
who own cars and run car services, and really just make sure that we can launch a service that is high
quality from the start. Being local and speaking with local voice is important when you're doing
transportation and means you know what's going on for the city.
A city in which Uber has seen unprecedented growth is Washington D.C. Kalanick explains, Were
not really sure exactly why, but D.C. really, really likes our product a lot. That is reflected in our
growth, and the sort of overall demand weve seen has been unprecedented. He claims that, month
over month, growth is in the 30 to 40 percent range. When asked if this growth in D.C. reflects that
people are not happy with their alternatives, Kalanick replies, I think one can make that
conclusion. Uber makes sure that their marketing and business efforts are in full support of fuelling
that word of mouth engine, driving local growth.