4 ms·

There's no reason to assume someone capable of taking a company from zero to $60bn is necessarily capable of taking it from $60bn to $120bn, or even just mainta

There's no reason to assume someone capable of taking a company from zero to $60bn is necessarily capable of taking it from $60bn to $120bn, or even just maintaining a $60bn valuation. Quite often the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something. Theranos comes to mind.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Theranos comes to mind I don't think the Theranos comparison is appropriate. We can quibble about $12 or 25 or 68 billion. But Uber is selling over $5 billion a year [1]. There's something there. Theranos has nothing. It is, in my opinion, a fraud. That's different from a real business with--glaring as they may be--serious blemishes. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-loss-exceeds-800-million-in-third-quarter-on-1-7-billion-in-net-revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-lo...
- ckastner 10y ago
  Theranos had that Walgreen's partnership, close ties to the DoD (a potentially huge client), and high hopes. Uber may be selling over $5bn a year, but they are doing so at a tremendous loss. Regardless, judging from its current valuation, investors also seem to have high hopes for the future. The initial success of both companies can be attributed to their respective CEOS; however, grandparent suggested that the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something and I believe that that suggestion is just as applicable to Uber. Just as Holmes failed to realize Therano's potential, Kalanick may fail at realizing Uber's potential. Many even expect this (seeing as we are discussing an article title Why Uber Won't Fire Its CEO). Side note: I share your opinion that Theranos was a fraud in general, but Uber has been accused of that, and far worse, in recent times. Case in point, this other article currently on the front page: "Uber said to use “sophisticated” software to defraud drivers, passengers", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14053011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14053011
- lovich 10y ago
  I'm no completely certain, but I'm pretty sure I could sell 7-8 billion worth of services for 5 billion as well. Just because they are taking in such a high number as their revenue doesn't mean anything if it's because they are heavily subsiding their service
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago
  >But Uber is selling over $5 billion a year [1]. There's something there. Anyone can do $5BB in revenue by selling dollar bills for fifty cents. Uber is a cool idea, but it's pretty hard to judge demand when you're subsidizing the price. I'm skeptical that they'll be able to simply "turn up prices" once they've captured the market. How much of Uber's value comes from it's self-driving fleet potential, which might be starting from scratch?
  - 5thaccount 10y ago
    Which partly makes the CEO so key. Dispassionately, what Uber needs right now is someone who can convince investors to keep the money taps open. If you lose $X BILLION a year, you need $X Billion + y% to maintain that burn rate. So the question is: Is there a CEO that can continue to raise money, OR that can turn a $X Billion loss into a mild loss, whilst still raising the money required to keep the enterprise alive? That's a pretty damned niche request!
Chris2048 10y ago
100 people throw a 20-sided die; anyone who throws a 20 makes it to the next round, having "proven to have the skills making them capable of rolling a 20"... Bayes! Bayes! Bayes!...

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> Theranos comes to mind I don't think the Theranos comparison is appropriate. We can quibble about $12 or 25 or 68 billion. But Uber is selling over $5 billion a year [1]. There's something there. Theranos has nothing. It is, in my opinion, a fraud. That's different from a real business with--glaring as they may be--serious blemishes. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-loss-exceeds-800-million-in-third-quarter-on-1-7-billion-in-net-revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-lo...

ckastner 10y ago
Theranos had that Walgreen's partnership, close ties to the DoD (a potentially huge client), and high hopes. Uber may be selling over $5bn a year, but they are doing so at a tremendous loss. Regardless, judging from its current valuation, investors also seem to have high hopes for the future. The initial success of both companies can be attributed to their respective CEOS; however, grandparent suggested that the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something and I believe that that suggestion is just as applicable to Uber. Just as Holmes failed to realize Therano's potential, Kalanick may fail at realizing Uber's potential. Many even expect this (seeing as we are discussing an article title Why Uber Won't Fire Its CEO). Side note: I share your opinion that Theranos was a fraud in general, but Uber has been accused of that, and far worse, in recent times. Case in point, this other article currently on the front page: "Uber said to use “sophisticated” software to defraud drivers, passengers", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14053011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14053011
lovich 10y ago
I'm no completely certain, but I'm pretty sure I could sell 7-8 billion worth of services for 5 billion as well. Just because they are taking in such a high number as their revenue doesn't mean anything if it's because they are heavily subsiding their service
bigtimeidiot 10y ago
>But Uber is selling over $5 billion a year [1]. There's something there. Anyone can do $5BB in revenue by selling dollar bills for fifty cents. Uber is a cool idea, but it's pretty hard to judge demand when you're subsidizing the price. I'm skeptical that they'll be able to simply "turn up prices" once they've captured the market. How much of Uber's value comes from it's self-driving fleet potential, which might be starting from scratch?
- 5thaccount 10y ago
  Which partly makes the CEO so key. Dispassionately, what Uber needs right now is someone who can convince investors to keep the money taps open. If you lose $X BILLION a year, you need $X Billion + y% to maintain that burn rate. So the question is: Is there a CEO that can continue to raise money, OR that can turn a $X Billion loss into a mild loss, whilst still raising the money required to keep the enterprise alive? That's a pretty damned niche request!

Chris2048 10y ago

100 people throw a 20-sided die; anyone who throws a 20 makes it to the next round, having "proven to have the skills making them capable of rolling a 20"... Bayes! Bayes! Bayes!...