[radicaldreamer]

And often subsidizing the drivers... a marketplace like Lyft or Uber is only lucrative when there's a lot of volume. Otherwise, you're constantly trying to keep a doom loop from happening when there isn't enough supply (drivers) which makes riders upset or not enough riders, which drives drivers (sorry) off the platform.

[ghaff]

It's tempting to ask why the subsidies continue given it's not like there are going to be widespread robotaxis anytime soon. Why not let prices settle at the appropriate market level?

But, if one is being charitable, one problem as you say is that there probably really isn't a market for unsubsidized rideshare in a ton of places--even if they are a better service than traditional taxis. I know where I live--50 miles outside of a major city and adjacent to a couple small cities--Lyft and Uber availability is very thin as it is. I couldn't really depend on it for anything.

[treis]

Rides aren't subsidized. They have a gross profit of 1.5 billion against 0.5 billion of marketing expense.

[ac29]

Not 100% sure about Lyft, but Uber definitely called their subsidies marketing.

[treis]

Right, but since marketing is 0.5 billion and gross profit is 1.5 billion the worst case is that they have 1 billion of real gross profit.

[radicaldreamer]

That's because they haven't expanded into new markets recently. That will flip if they entered Europe or Asia