I'm not totally discounting the PR issues as a partial cause of the exits. As a c-level employee, you (more than most hires) have to answer for rotten company culture. I also, however, think both issue (lawsuit and PR issues) make it untenable for the current batch of executives to stay on.
"Yeah, computers don't do that yet. Don't worry, you just wait for awhile, and eventually they do. That's how technology works."
I saw red.
I know exactly who will repeat it, seriously, deadpan as if Q.E.D. shown, if I just encourage them a little...
There is is something about that which smacks of borrowing the internet for a day, for a show and tell....
In this particular example, remember that Charles Ponzi's books were totally fake; outright fraud. That does not characterize other phenomena such as other things like speculative bubbles or simple investment gambles that don't pay off. In contrast the Bernie Madoff scam is a recent example of an actual Ponzi scheme.
Maybe in the US. But Uber is everywhere. Given their penchant for "bending" the law, I wouldn't be surprised if they start deploying driverless cars in places with more lax regulation, which will 1) help their bottom line, 2) give them more training data, and 3) prove it works to make regulatory issues easier in the US.
That's of course if they can keep their tech, which seems less likely given the waymo suit.
What would it be worth in $ at this point? Does Uber have deep pockets for _that_ much money at this point?
We are fine if we can't raise more, so I am not panicked... just concerned.
There was a palpable shift from "prioritise growth above all else" to "let's think about about unit economics".
Honestly even that seems way overly optimistic in my opinion, if we're talking about R&D + regulatory acceptance & general adoption.
There already is an app for this, with over a billion existing users: Google Maps.
If you search for directions in London, there's a "ride hire" tab next to public transport. It gives you price estimates for Uber, London official taxis, and Hailo - all booked with a button from Google Maps, never having to open the Uber/Taxi/Hailo app.
But they're spending money like crazy because they still feel like it's getting them "upwind" in ways that will be lasting. New markets, and market dominance in existing markets.
If they scaled back their immense outflows, and used profitable markets to subsidize less profitable ones, I'd bet they could be profitable.
As a product, ride sharing is not quite a commodity, but it's not far off either. As a consumer, I care more about what the product does (a better taxi service) and how much it costs than exactly what company is providing it. Absent artificial constraints (e.g. taxi licenses) it's never going to be a high margin business.
So yes, they could hunker down and "exist", but that doesn't seem like a viable strategy to the get the kind of projected growth their current valuation depends on.
It's hard to see what inherent long-term advantages they have. Their core business is already a commodity. Even if they somehow get usable driverless tech better/faster/cheaper than anyone else, at some point that will become a commodity too. When that happens, there won't be much left on which to compete beyond price.
Don't doubt for a second that there is a ton of engineering that went on in Uber's app that allows it to handle scale. For example, I was in Austin a few weeks ago and used RideAustin. Same experience as Uber. Then I read on the news that the weekend of SXSW, the entire app was basically crushed from the volume of ride requests and couldn't service anybody.
And besides, who wouldn't use Uber if it cost the same amount as a taxi? For me, the advantages of Uber has always been the quality of service. The drivers are nicer, the cars or cleaner, the drivers don't demand tips nor insist at the last minute that their credit card machine doesn't work at the last minute.
And most importantly of all, I would argue that Uber's inherent long-term advantage is their brand. Anywhere in the world that has Uber, I get the same service. I can go to Honolulu and Uber works the same. I just open the app, punch my destination in, look for my driver and go. Same if I was in Mexico City. Same if I was in Delhi.
However, the same is not true for taxis. In certain places (notably South East Asia as a tourist), you agree on a certain fixed fare before getting into the taxi. In the United States they expect tipping, whereas other countries may not. They might insist their credit card machines aren't working in Toronto. There's no accountability of the driver, no GPS trip details in the app...the list goes on.
I think that kind of brand and user experience is highly valuable.
In my experience that's not true at all. In NYC it has to be a qualified black car driver. In LA it can be anyone.
There's an awful lot of other people's money in Uber. There's an Ayn Rand joke here, but I'll skip it.
Whether you have to pay someone.
And those updates have to percolate through federal, state, county, and city level regulations. Making it an inherently slow process.
Dataset availability is really really poor today. We can move with great confidence on known conditions, but so many edge cases remain to be solved.
The ultimate goal of self-driving car is to be driverless. But, if you want to produce a car without driver seat & steering wheel, then yes, from that perspective, driverseat-less car is different from self-driving car.
Otherwise, same.
I haven't seen them in the news at all in the last year or so.
They won't be able to retain talent when the talent will figure out they can't get the stock that was wrongly promised.