4 ms·

No they didn't. Ever since the new CEO joined, he said 2019.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lawrenceyan 8y ago
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKCN1BA0JL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKCN1BA0JL > "His plans include rebuilding Uber’s culture and growing market share as well as possibly conducting an initial public offering in 18 to 36 months, according to people who attended the meeting. It is common for venture capital-backed companies to signal an IPO at a vague time in the future." That Uber has chosen to go towards an earlier IPO rather than later from the upper end of 36 months to the lower end of 18 months is a fact. You can definitely argue that choosing to IPO earlier isn't necessarily a negative thing, but you can't argue away the fact that Uber has chosen an earlier timeline over a later one. Dara has never given a hard date for an IPO by the way, so I'm not sure what you mean by your statement of "he's always said it would be in 2019".
- pfarnsworth 8y ago
  What you're saying is absolute bullshit. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/uber-ceo-says-2019-is-the-target-for-ipo/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/uber-ceo-says-2019-is-the-... He publicly stated over a year ago that 2019 was the year to IPO. To characterize this as a "rush" is being disingenuous. The 36 months that you're pointing to was never public, so who knows if was even correct or what the context was. His first PUBLIC statement above was 2019, and that was only 3 months after he joined Uber, so 2019 has been the year he has ALWAYS stated publicly.
  - lawrenceyan 8y ago
    There was consideration of a wide range of timelines. Given the information we have, it seems like this range was most probably within the stated 18-36 months. A decision was ultimately made to choose an earlier timeline over a later one. Again, this is an irrefutable statement, a fundamental fact of reality. The only thing that we can discuss and try to figure out from that then, is whether this choice of an earlier IPO over a later one means something. In my opinion, it does. Is this a basis with which we can at least agree on? A discussion without some kind of common foundation to derive from is meaningless otherwise.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKCN1BA0JL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo-idUSKCN1BA0JL > "His plans include rebuilding Uber’s culture and growing market share as well as possibly conducting an initial public offering in 18 to 36 months, according to people who attended the meeting. It is common for venture capital-backed companies to signal an IPO at a vague time in the future." That Uber has chosen to go towards an earlier IPO rather than later from the upper end of 36 months to the lower end of 18 months is a fact. You can definitely argue that choosing to IPO earlier isn't necessarily a negative thing, but you can't argue away the fact that Uber has chosen an earlier timeline over a later one. Dara has never given a hard date for an IPO by the way, so I'm not sure what you mean by your statement of "he's always said it would be in 2019".

pfarnsworth 8y ago
What you're saying is absolute bullshit. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/uber-ceo-says-2019-is-the-target-for-ipo/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/uber-ceo-says-2019-is-the-... He publicly stated over a year ago that 2019 was the year to IPO. To characterize this as a "rush" is being disingenuous. The 36 months that you're pointing to was never public, so who knows if was even correct or what the context was. His first PUBLIC statement above was 2019, and that was only 3 months after he joined Uber, so 2019 has been the year he has ALWAYS stated publicly.
- lawrenceyan 8y ago
  There was consideration of a wide range of timelines. Given the information we have, it seems like this range was most probably within the stated 18-36 months. A decision was ultimately made to choose an earlier timeline over a later one. Again, this is an irrefutable statement, a fundamental fact of reality. The only thing that we can discuss and try to figure out from that then, is whether this choice of an earlier IPO over a later one means something. In my opinion, it does. Is this a basis with which we can at least agree on? A discussion without some kind of common foundation to derive from is meaningless otherwise.