Just off the top of my head there's starbucks whose main marketing innovation when they opened up was that they use only "fair trade" beans. And there's American Apparel, which despite the recent controversy, started off with the marketing promise that they are sweatshop free.
I don't know how much ethics matters, but certainly it matters to some extent.
That's not all that's at play and ultimately, Denmark did do something: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/28/uber-to-pull-out-of-denmar...
I can't say I was a part of that hashtag "mob", but I got rid of it and haven't considered it since. Furthermore, even though they are one of the potential employers on the Udacity SDC Engineer Nanodegree "shortlist" - assuming I make it that far - I won't be sending my resume their way (or Otto's way, I guess); to me it seems like a toxic culture I want no part of at this moment.
Could they change? Sure - right now it is too early to tell, but I have noticed movement in that direction. They still have a long way to go, though. I'm not hitching myself to that boat just yet.
> The public has a very short memory
I understand that I am an exception to the rule, nor do I really consider myself a part of the "general public"; simply being a poster here sets anyone apart from that particular grouping, generally.
My memory about some things tends to run longer; Nadella's gestures to the open-source community aside, I am still wanting an apology for Microsoft's former business practices, especially their hostility toward Linux. I know I will never get it.
Secondly, I am still rather angry over how, a few years back, the Susan B. Komen Foundation did this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/do-not-donate-to...
...don't think I'll ever forgive that one.
From the Parent:
> beyond conquering the few percent of the market who can afford to care and care enough to pay a premium
That's pretty much a confirmation of the stated view - only people "who can afford to care". And by "afford to care", I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that is (with 99.9% likelihood) someone who posts on Hacker News and could send their resume to Uber (but won't).
And, for how much they pay, they'll easily find a good/better coder anyways. Everything has a price, and if bad culture can be compensated with a big(ger) paycheck, people will continue to work and apply there.
I don't know about everywhere else, but i consistently find lyft to be cheaper than uber for rides here in Seattle.
Are there really people who think being an investor is cool ?
If you live somewhere with a healthier balance of careers where not everything is focused around tech, it would come off as incredibly dull and tone-deaf.
Exactly, public opinion doesn't really have any weight anymore.
It means that public opinion is complicated because people can hold more than one idea in their head at once.
In practice, network effects/'brand name' recognition/QA make for a generally reliable customer base from those who don't remain informed or care about your policies/practices or are just used to your product, and that's even before high barriers to entry and other market factors limiting competition to those who engage in the same cost-cutting-oriented models and so end up optimizing the same way.
TL;DR: Probably not.
Uber is a private company that, from everything I've read, is bleeding money and currently getting a ton of bad press.
How has it made anyone rich (yet)?
The real reason they won't replace him is that he built a unicorn from nothing for them, making them very rich and cool in the process (imagine being able to say "I was an early stage investor in Uber"), and by all accounts he has not changed, with Uber being run as a large, efficient company that delivers globally with McDonald's level reliability.
Investors also know that what people say and do are very different things. In aggregate, customers will publicly complain and say they will take Lyft, but privately will vote with their wallet (after all who sees what you book), in the same way that publicly they decry energy wastage whilst they take holidays on other continents and drive SUVs to their giant McMansion. I literally cannot think of a company that "won" by promoting its ethical competitiveness, beyond conquering the few percent of the market who can afford to care and care enough to pay a premium. I wonder how many of the #DeleteUber reinstalled it quietly a few weeks later. The public has a very short memory - as a Frenchman I remember being called cheese-eating surrender monkey by the same Brits who today protest against "American imperialism".
Governments won't do anything since Uber has tons of positive externalities such as reduction in drunk driving, creation of many part time unskilled jobs and generally electorate happiness in having a reliable and affordable taxi service. They think in terms of net welfare and a few Californians having some issues at work is the least of their worries.