3 ms·

well when they started, the whole concept of ridesharing was unproven. They didn't just set out to replace taxis, the idea was to offer a service initially so c

well when they started, the whole concept of ridesharing was unproven. They didn't just set out to replace taxis, the idea was to offer a service initially so cheap that people who otherwise wouldn't even think about getting a car, would start doing it on a regular basis (same with Eats). So yes, i'm pretty sure they have been subsidizing rides, and in certain markets probably still are. So now the question is: can this market - where some people even grew accustomed to commuting to work on Uber - sustain itself, or is it too expensive and people will just revert to the old mode where (outside of NY) getting a cab was a rare event. tldr - i don't think it's the staff that's the expensive part. Also, they do a bunch of non-trivial things with maps, etc, so not quite a simple crud app.

pdntspa 3y ago
Of course... the specifics of routing so many rides at scale is certainly non-trivial. But in 2019 they had 26k employees, 32k in 2022 according to https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UBER/uber-technologies/number-of-employees https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UBER/uber-technolo...
- twelve40 3y ago
  dunno... that's probably a lot, but unlike say twitter, they do a lot more stuff. With Eats, you have to coordinate with restaurants locally, etc etc. So while it sounds a bit bloated, i think there are worse examples elsewhere in tech. But I don't think it matters very much at all. If people are the problem, they can be quickly cut. But if their market fundamentally shrinks or is unable to pay for itself, you can't really fix that.