<i>"Uber released new financial data this week, showing full year 2017 GAAP operating losses of $4.5 billion, and an operating margin of negative 61%."</i><p>Finally, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles numbers from Uber. And they're awful. Lots of startups whine about having to produce GAAP numbers (all US public companies have to) because they can't exclude "extraordinary expenses". But GAAP numbers are real, not "earnings before all the bad stuff" numbers.<p>Right now, Softbank is keeping Uber alive. They put in $10 billion at the end of last year.[1] Softbank is now Uber's largest shareholder.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/funding_rounds_list" rel="nofollow">https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/...</a>
The only thing Uber can ever deliver is people and things to their final destinations. When Uber shuts down and goes out of business I as a consumer will just roll into the next service, and will not shed even a single tear for all who invested in Uber.<p>Sorry, but thanks for all the cheap rides.
The main value prop for Uber hasn’t changed for quite some time, probably not much since UberX, the innovation there is pretty much done.<p>This puts Governments in the perfect position to disrupt Uber, if they build their own version, feature for feature (let’s face it, it’s a complex app but not that hard to copy) and mandate it on their already regulated taxis / ban uber, their user acquisition costs and marketing costs will be almost zero. They can run it without making a profit and keep fares lower or close to the current Uber position. Win win for everyone
In the claim in the article that they're inflating top line revenue growth, is the argument that they're selling a $100 ride but giving a $20 discount and calling it $100 in top line revenue?