There doesn't seem to be evidence of that.
Uber is apparently profitable in its mature markets (mainly the US).[0]
The money is mostly used to prop up new markets, where you have to give lots of incentives to get both sides of the market in place fast (keeping supply and demand matched is the constant challenge of nascent two-sided marketplaces).
That being said, the fact that they're having to turn to Saudi money (nobody's preferred source) isn't encouraging.
I wouldn't trust a thing that company says about their cashflows until they are in SEC filings.
Capitalism giveth, and capitalism taketh away.
[1] https://news.fastcompany.com/elizabeth-holmess-net-worth-is-...
> Forbes said it has reexamined and revised Theranos' $9 billion valuation in light of recent investigations and allegations against the company.
> Citing conversations with venture capitalists and analysts, Forbes estimates that the company is actually worth a great deal less: $800 million. That takes into account its intellectual property and financing, according to Forbes' Matthew Herper.
> Holmes' 50% stake in the company would effectively be worth nothing at that valuation, Forbes concludes, because her investors would be paid back first (they hold preferred stock, not common stock like Holmes).
The taxi company I drove for has contracts with many government agencies to transport poor & unfortunate people around. People have to get to their doctor (Arizona Medicaid) appointments, to the hospital, home from the hospital, foster kids transported to meetings with their parents, etc.
These fares pay better than Uber's non-surge fares.
/methinks "ride share" companies are run by founders suffering from delusions of grandeur. When they run out of venture capital, the realities of transporting people from place to place will reassert themselves.
That would be like Uber buying every road and every manufacturer.
I also don't think Uber's biggest competition is cars or taxis, I imagine it is public transport. The markets with the best scale (esp outside of US) have good public transit. People aren't going to go from paying a £10 uber to a £30 black taxi in London, they'll go back to getting the tube or the bus home after a night out.
Also worth noting: Los Angeles is not like London or Paris or NYC where you can very often walk to a nearby mass transit station. In many parts of Los Angeles, Uber can serve as a useful complement to the public transport system. For example, one can quickly take Uber to a rail station which then travels the rest of your route underground -- thus avoiding traffic jams.
If Uber did not exist in LA, one would be more likely to just get in one's car for the entire journey: buses take too long to get you to the underground station, and taxis are too expensive.
It's also important to keep in mind that, in Los Angeles, Uber cars arrive really promptly by comparison to public transport buses. If your time in, say, the office, is really valuable, then the Uber service offers more value than a bus, because buses require a lot more time to transport you than an Uber car does.
I know this sounds like an ad for Uber, but I have no connection to the company, except as an occasional customer.
Like a taxi?
Uber will never come close to moving the sheer numbers that public transit does. You can't do it, not enough road to fit all those cars. Especially in downtown cores.
So Uber competes with public transit as much as taxis compete with public transit.
> Uber will never come close to moving the sheer numbers that public transit does. You can't do it, not enough road to fit all those cars. Especially in downtown cores.
I never suggested anything of the sort. Especially not at commute hours.
> So Uber competes with public transit as much as taxis compete with public transit.
I think we agree. I just noted that if Uber prices rose, some Uber users would prefer to use public transit rather than pay higher Uber prices or Taxi prices.
Eventually governments will get wise to the fact that this is not magic. Just a new way to dial up a ride.
Governments didn't allow individuals to install a radio into their private car & drive around making rides. Why should they allow the same just because you have a smartphone?
So I don't think Uber needs to buy roads. All they need to do is have a broad enough base and deep enough pockets that they can drive everybody else out of business. Or, possibly better, keep a few sickly competitors forever on the margins. That way they can pretend they're really competing.
There may be some equilibrium somewhere, but I don't believe it will be in the users best interest having to wait for cars.
Just my thoughts. I'm probably wrong.
Now of course, maybe also need to be concerned about autonomous cars using this p2p app, in which case just need to pay a slave robot with the minimal energy it requires to drive.
I sure as hell am not getting into a car with an unlicensed driver
A more cynical version: they're trying to pump up their valuation, IPO, and dump their stock before anyone notices.
It depends what you mean by "actual costs," but I would suspect that Uber's will still be lower than cabs' under any reasonable definition.
What people pay for an Uber still varies a lot by city.
At home in Ohio, Uber is more expensive than taxis in several cases, for example, to/from the airport, and short trips from the city center to the bars (2-3 miles). Taxis are also generally cheaper here for longer trips (maybe 30+ miles).
Similarly taxis can still be cheaper (and are still ubiquitous) in NYC.
While price increases do happen, they generally have nothing to do with driver incentives. Incentives for drivers are (usually) meant to build supply, not cut the cost of rides.
The only strategy I can see with the absurd amounts they are raising is that they are trying to get enough money to sustain the subsidies until they kill all existing competition, at which point they can raise their prices and people will have no choice but to pay them - much like Standard Oil did. In today's world though, I'm not sure that such a strategy can work.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Perhaps there is a chance of success. But if Uber were a public company, personally I'd be shorting every share that I could.