[ImPostingOnHN]

> I remember reading plenty of thought pieces a few years ago saying this was impossible

I'm not sure many actually said that

> that Uber was a house of cards gaining market share by subsidizing rides with investor money

they were

> That there were no economies of scale to bring costs down

the criticism I heard was, at then-current prices, _profits_ wouldn't come

turns out they had to severely jack up prices to profit, proving such criticism correct

> I would love to see a "what we got wrong, and what we still have right" post

see above

[relativ575]

>> that Uber was a house of cards gaining market share by subsidizing rides with investor money

> they were

They no longer are, and they don't lose customers. So no house of cards, because they didn't collapse when subsidy disappeared.

> the criticism I heard was, at then-current prices, _profits_ wouldn't come

Turn out users don't seem to mind. Bookings is back to the pre-pandemic level. Food delivery is at the record.

> turns out they had to severely jack up prices to profit, proving such criticism correct

They are not more expensive compared to the competition. So no, the criticism isn't correct, unless you're saying consumers are stupid. If anything they were able to control cost and increase booking. People come to them despite the increased price. Keep in mind also that they didn't have major layoff like other tech companies.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> > turns out they had to severely jack up prices to profit, proving such criticism correct

> They are not more expensive compared to the competition. So no, the criticism isn't correct

They are more expensive than they were. So yes, the criticism is correct.

Price vs. competition is a red herring, we're discussing if the prices they initially had could be sustained in the long term while still generating a profit.

Turns out, they couldn't, hence why they were jacked way up