While never having been on one due to no helmets being provided, in Denver and in Dallas and in Austin they arguably revolutionized the city core and how younger people get around. For better and worse.

And while not fully diligent on this, isn't Uber still not profitable on a unit economic basis? And they are mature and public. Perhaps that statement isn't true but it provides one justification for investing in scooters

My impression in Austin is that it peaked last year. Not to say they aren't still common.

To be honest I think there's a possible real business here, but maybe only for one or two companies, and only in cities where they achieve a critical mass. The 4am collecting of abandoned scooters, becomes much more efficient if it's only one company per town, and they are commonly used such that there is much less distance between scooters of a given company.

I suppose that, like for every 1000 1999 e-business there was only one Amazon, the VC's are thinking there will be one or two survivors here who will eventually do well.

You are correct about Uber not being profitable. They’re burning cash quickly. And if you look at market performance, they’re not where they expected to be. Furthermore, they’re fighting things like employee unionization (See California) which will increase their cost.

And Uber is fundamentally different. It’s not seasonal, and the costs fall mainly on drivers rather than the company.

Investors are hopeful on Uber, but I bet if a scooter company tried to go public right now, it would get eaten alive.

> isn't Uber still not profitable on a unit economic basis?

Uber still has money to burn and is trying to grow even more. They could likely be profitable if they wanted, pretty quickly, by limiting spending/expansion.

VCs also get paid by getting other VCs to evaluate their companies as more valuable in a sort of Ponzi scheme:

https://youtu.be/NVVsdlHslfI

Most companies only go public when they are profitable.