[adventured]

It's pretty simple: they've hired a vast number of employees, they're spending an immense sum on building out a reliable global infrastructure (not an MVP product), and they're not making nearly enough money in relation to their current organization's size. Their bet is that later on that ratio will invert.

Facebook as one example also lost a lot of money (not $1.2b in six months mind you) for years before finally turning profitable. What was there for them to lose money on, social networks are just a couple servers, right? No, they were building out a massive foundation for the future. And now they're a money printing machine.

[thesimon]

>Their bet is that later on that ratio will invert.

Because later when the subsidies are dropped and the product price rises, the demand will increase?

[wastedhours]

But they have enough runway that it doesn't have to be one day cheap rides, the next expensive ones. You simple optimise the rate at which prices increase so as not to immediately alienate customers (isn't it something like we only feel a price rise pain if it's over 5/10% in one go?).