This is a bad analogy. Webvan failed because they had huge CAPEX needs. In contrast, Uber has relatively low overhead requirements but they are spending heavily on immediate and future growth. They doubled revenue from Q1 to Q3 which is incredible. Sure, costs nearly doubled but they're not buying cars, they're not carrying drivers as employees, they don't need office space and warehouses in every city they operate in. The fact that Lyft burns through less money is an indication that Uber is pushing for growth over profitability. Finally, they just need to dominate the market long enough for driverless cars to become a reality. At that point their profit margin with 2x-5x and it will be easy to finance the cars with debt.
Loss numbers, based in the experience with Amazon, are hard to parse, since people (sometimes, for whatever reason), don't distinguish expansion/investment expenses (basically optional) and operating expenses. I can't tell if these numbers are doing the same.
It makes a big difference whether your losses come from investment to expand, or from not charging enough to cover costs where you already operate.
it is worth knowing that the author of the article John Furrier is not a great researcher. he and his team normally spin out articles without proper research and this article about uber is just a clickbait one from someone who is too lazy to delve deep into facts.
Man, I can't imagine a world without Uber but that math is tough.