They're viable in a lot of cities, at least pre-pandemic. They could likely just dump all non-profitable cities and be in the green very soon. They just spent a lot of money getting a foothold in future markets. You know... investing... like a business is supposed to do

There is no evidence that they're profitable in any single city. Notably, the companies themselves haven't even tried to claim this.

When they've said they're profitable in any city, they're ignoring major administrative overhead.

"Drive me somewhere" is not a brandable business. It's a commodity. It's a race to the bottom on both sides of the market (drivers and passengers) which is why it has never been a profitable business without the reduced competition of a medallion system.

> Uber Says First Adjusted Profit Possible This Quarter

> Uber’s disclosure comes after Lyft Inc. LYFT posted its first profit on the same basis in this year’s second quarter, and food-delivery rival DoorDash Inc. DASH surpassed the ride-hailing giant’s market capitalization last week.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-says-it-will-post-its-firs...

Uber is lying. They're using a definition of "profit" that is extremely unusual and doesn't match any reasonable definition of profit.

This exact topic was also directly addressed in the article which you apparently still haven't read.

From the article:

> "After burning through billions of venture capital dollars, Uber said it was on a path to profitability last year, using an accounting metric that ignores many of the costs that actually make it unprofitable. By the same measure, chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi is projecting this quarter could be profitable. That remains to be seen."

There is a Gizmodo article that explains in more detail[1] exactly what accounting tricks Uber is using to tell people they have positive EBITDA.

Lyft is doing the same thing[2].

1. https://gizmodo.com/uber-says-its-on-track-to-maybe-make-a-f...

2. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uber-and-lyft-are-staging-...