Steve Jobs was, on balance, likely a horrible person and needlessly cruel. I’m still very happy he did what he did. These people are human, and are not without sin. Entrepreneur worship is weird, I agree, however I wouldn’t dismiss the additive things otherwise miserable people did for society.

Jobs is a great point, for the other argument. Jobs didn't break the law, but he disrupted multiple industries from computers to phones to music to retail.

> Jobs didn't break the law

Jobs often took an “ask for forgivenss” approach. Copying Xerox [1], screwing Wozniak [2], the naming schtick with the Beatles, et cetera.

[1] http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple...

[2] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/steve-wozniak-cried-jobs-kept-atari...

>> Jobs didn't break the law

> Jobs often took an “ask for forgivenss” approach.

So we agree: He didn't break the law. Being a jerk to his co-founder is not at all comparable.

> screwing Wozniak

This is an unpopular opinion, but if it weren't for Jobs, Woz would have remained an unknown HP engineer.

> This is an unpopular opinion, but if it weren't for Jobs, Woz would have remained an unknown HP engineer

I completely agree. I also think Steve Jobs was a great man. Part of his greatness was knowing which rules he could bend, which rules he could break, and deftly negotiating the aftermath.

> greatness was knowing which rules he could bend, which rules he could break, and deftly negotiating the aftermath.

Greatness isn't hurting other people, but finding ways to get things done that benefit all stakeholders, including society and community.

You’re absolutely right. And Travis needs to be criticized for that (and he is). If the question, though, is about judging a company’s contribution to society based on how morally upstanding the founder is I think the point I’m trying to make still stands.

> contribution to society

I think it’s too early to judge Uber’s “contribution to society” when the investors are basically footing the bill for all of Uber’s customers. Let’s see Uber make a profit and it still be less costly/better service to what consumers get now and then we can talk about their contribution to society.

Making a profit isn’t a fair standard in this case. I left LA recently, but uber made social interactions in that city I’d otherwise pass on totally possible. It honestly opened up moving around LA County in a way that public transit never could. So, no, it’s not too early to judge. We’re already seeing the benefits.

I personally tend to think that I'd value ride sharing services even if prices increase to parity with traditional taxis. After all, just getting a cab in many cities is a real pain point. I also think that ride sharing services are here to stay, and that both individual consumers and society as a whole are better off for it.

However, the parents point is more general and I think you're talking past it. You can't evaluate Uber's societal contributions based on short term and possibly ephemeral benefits. For example, if ride sharing services suddenly disintegrate once VC funding dries up then they can't be said to have made a meaningful impact. Sustainability is actually crucial.

> If the question, though, is about judging a company’s contribution to society based on how morally upstanding the founder is ...

Far more than Kalanick's behavior, it is the company's practices that are the problem. They willfully broke the law and they also mistreated many people from employees to drivers to rape victims.

I’m agreeing with you, if you can’t tell.

Not the poster, but I don't think it "justifies" and of the bad stuff that happened.

But I think it is important to recognize both the bad and the good stuff that happened.