Except that didn't stop them from acquiring Nest for $3.2b in cash.[1] If the market opportunity is big enough, then shifting money from one pocket to another makes the pants equally as big.

[1] - http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/double-google-all-the-way/

Unless the long-term value of Uber is much greater than their $258 million investment. Is it better to exit? Or be the leader in urban mobility (and the revenue that comes with that position)?

Excellent point that I hadn't considered.

In which case I guess it is just a numbers game like you said.

    >Or be the leader in urban mobility (and the revenue that comes with that position)?

Small nit to pick, Google would be the leader in SUBurban mobility. The leader in urban mobility is the pedestrian (and lesser extent the bike rider). I live, work and for the most part "play" downtown. I already walk to work but Dallas isn't walkable and mass transit dense enough for me to totally ditch car ownership yet; but it is the eventual dream, to not have a car, rather than be driven around by a self driving one.

(yes, I fully admit I probably sound like an urban hipster douche, but sometimes you just have to embrace it)

That seems backward to me. I used to live in the suburbs; I likely wouldn't use Uber often or at all in that case, since you "have" to drive to get anywhere, and parking at your destination is usually free and plentiful. My Uber bill would likely be pretty high since things are more spread out.

I live in a city now, and use Uber frequently (despite still owning a car). It's faster than public transportation, walking, or cycling, and avoids the hassle and cost of parking.