Uber is imploding, but does anyone really care?
theverge.com
theverge.com
There are bootstrapped "startups", but if you're not taking VC funding and trying to go big, then it's less obvious what the difference is between a "startup" and a "company".
Obviously there are exceptions in both directions, and other factors to consider, but this seems to be a pretty good starting point for discussion to me.
The company I'm currently at has close to 1,200 employees, been around for close to 10 years, its own free cafeteria, profitable enough to fund several high-risk initiatives, but easily calls itself a start up..
My personal opinion: you're no longer a start up if you're able to afford your own "free food cafeteria". ;-)
From the article: "the company doubled its gross bookings to $20 billion in 2016, and its net revenue (excluding China) was $6.8 billion"
The company had $2.8 billion in losses in 2016 and it puts the company's long term prospects for financial viability into question which might mean a down round on the next funding but the company is hardly about to go under.
The article title should be "Uber got a bunch of bad press and a few execs left" but I guess that doesn't drive impressions.
On one hand, toxic company, we all know about it, they don't even pay as much taxes as they should. On the other hand, in Rome taxi drivers have been up in arms because they feel threatened by them, with violent protests in which people were beaten up and fascist salutes filmed. In my book, anyone who will put Roman taxi drivers out of business is a hero.
Toxic company or violent fascist taxi drivers. What a choice.