> As long as Uber can keep the cost per ride lower than other competitors, it just needs to wait for the burn to end faster on the competitors side before turning break-even

Uber have joined loss leading with scale, a combination that works if one has access to an endless spigot of money. The scandals have impacted Uber's fundraising. Time for eyes to match stomach.

I predict, in addition to lay-offs, we'll soon see more Didi-style hand-offs of offshore ride-sharing markets. Southeast Asia to Grab et al seems reasonable.

Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell anything based on this Internet comment.

And hence the potential Softbank deal, who can broker these mergers across the various asian markets. This is also why Softbank is so keen on investing in Uber over Lyft. With Lyft, the best Softbank can muster is a parternship of equals amongst disparate localized companies, which is nothing but a mess in the end. Uber allows them true mergers where one side absorbs another and both come out with a net value-add. An Uber with one or more majority regions along with stakes across the globe can be a massive massive company.

Also Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell anything based on this Internet comment.

even if lyft's burn-to-revenue ratio is higher, their burn is still lower that uber's, and it's going to cost a lot fewer incremental dollars to prop up lyft's burn than uber's for a few years.

some interested parties (waymo/alphabet) might be happy to foot that bill.

I've had the feeling that Alphabet has been using Lyft as a cat's paw in its war with Uber. Given its buckets of cash and what Alphabet perceives as the opportunity to dominate the next big market, can't Lyft expect almost unlimited funding? Or even an acquisition once its independence is not an asset?

Definitely this. It takes a lot of effort to burn through as much cash as Uber is and moving the needle in Lyft's favor requires a lot less effort, which is where things get dangerous for Uber.