| This is nonsense I'm afraid. I was demonstrating to OP that even if he is concerned by the losses Uber is making, and doesn't consider $3bn of losses on $6bn of revenue to be "healthy", it doesn't matter if the plan and the numbers are headed in the right way as far as investors are concerned. > On the fifth day a miracle happens and your mom gives you another 10 dollars This is precisely my point. This does not happen (except at huge economic cost to the company and its founders) unless you are demonstrating a plan which you are executing on. > Uber doesn't have a business model. Yes, it does. You may not like it, and you may think it's stupid and you know better than the people who put $15bn into it, but it does have a business model. > They can't make money continuing to operate the way they do now, fares don't cover their operating costs, even if you factor out costs of "building" or "expansion". Really? A 15% price increase = Uber is profitable[1], and you don't think they could generate a commensurate margin shift from losing central cost? Get rid of the team working on driverless and it's a profitable business. > Their paths to success are either forcing everyone out of business by undercutting them Yep. > somehow managing to get self-driving taxis on the market Yep > or simply continuing to build huge volume, as they have been, and then cutting their central costs back to achieve profitability Oh, you didn't suggest that much easier path to profitability which they could execute on tomorrow. Weird. [1] https://twitter.com/naval/status/853033099101323264 |