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
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?
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!
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-lo...