3 ms·
> Uber's success wasn't just the technology... Let me be pedantic here: Uber isn't successful. They were able to build large-scale operations by pouring billio
by smt88 4y ago
> Uber's success wasn't just the technology...
Let me be pedantic here: Uber isn't successful. They were able to build large-scale operations by pouring billions upon billions of dollars into it, and they haven't figured out how to make their business model work.
They're no more a "profitable transportation company" than the New York subway system.
I would argue that a lot of companies could scale that type of business if given $25B to burn.
Since Uber spends so much of its money on marketing and retention, you could easily make a case that the only way a taxi system can work is if there's a centralized, single system that the government mandates.
- gpt5 4y ago> Let me be pedantic here: Uber isn't successful. They were able to build large-scale operations by pouring billions upon billions of dollars into it, and they haven't figured out how to make their business model work. You are limiting success to a very narrow definition. They changed the world, and I'd argue for the better. I do not approve of the way they achieved this, but trying to minimize their success is also silly.
- smt88 4y agoThe definition of success I used is the same as the one used by the person I responded to: business success. Uber is not a successful business.
- gpt5 4y agoTheir $40B+ market cap says otherwise. What I imagine you are using is short-term profitability as your metric, which is a very narrow definition of success.
- smt88 4y agoPublic market cap is not success. It's a measure of speculation. No amount of market cap means anything if you can't figure out how to be cashflow positive. Uber is neither profitable in the short term or the long term. It's a failed business and business model (Lyft also can't figure it out) until it's able to prove otherwise.