njj023

An apples to apples comparison would standardize across:

1. GAAP v.s. non GAAP. Different media sites are reporting between 1.5B and 750B for Uber because of this discrepancy.

2. Timelines - Uber numbers are from Q3. Lyft from H1

3. Size discrepancies - it's better to look at loss per trip given that Uber is far bigger.

And hence the potential Softbank deal, who can broker these mergers across the various asian markets. This is also why Softbank is so keen on investing in Uber over Lyft. With Lyft, the best Softbank can muster is a parternship of equals amongst disparate localized companies, which is nothing but a mess in the end. Uber allows them true mergers where one side absorbs another and both come out with a net value-add. An Uber with one or more majority regions along with stakes across the globe can be a massive massive company.

Also Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell anything based on this Internet comment.

Wasn't the case in the beginning of the year and isn't the case at the end (I know people who have left this week for FANG). And that period arguably coincides with the most intense PR snafu for Uber. Most companies are smart enough to distinguish between a rotten top-mandated culture against individual actions, and not generalize 14k+ employees. Also worth noting that a large contingent were already former FANG employees so some are just returning back home.

With regards to why not move sooner, isn't the company going through an entirely top-down overhaul starting with the CEO? If someone wants to be part of that change, and if they still believe in the ride-sharing space and if they were never in the crossfires of any of this anyways, then all of these are valid reasons to stick around.

Every person who I know has left Uber this year is at some company HN would probably agree as "better" (FANGs as backup, startups if more adventurous). So unless you're in the handful caught in the crossfire of these issues, Uber is an extremely strong brand name on a resume.

Thank you for calling out what seems like an incredible -- almost intentionally ignorant -- hive mind HN tends to have at times.

This has got to be one of the most surface-level analysis of Uber that I have come across (even by HN's standard of near consistent animosity towards Uber and any other pre-IPO startups including FB in its day). To illustrate:

"Uber cannot support its operational business without massive VC subsidies (without drastically raising prices and losing their primary competitive advantage"

- As another poster replied, this is pure speculation that is outdated by a couple of years at this point. The VC subsidy point is essentially moot in most mature markets.

"It's too easy for small, local competitors to enter the market"

- Read up on GETT, Via and their struggles. You need massive operational investments to enter this industry which reduces the field to one or two competitors in all regions. Uber just appears to have so much competition given the amount of markets they are in.

"Uber has been trounced in two of the largest non-US markets"

- 36% stake in one large competitor and 20% in another is your definition of "trounce"? This puts them at a better position than even Google or FB who are non-existent in the very markets you talk about -- and it could provide them with their Alibaba moments where these stakes themselves carry parts of their valuation (Didi was valued at 50B recently marking Uber's stake at 10B)

"Waymo legal mess"

- Plenty of news about potential settlement not to mention the severe weakening of Google's position post Anthony's firing

"The sheer volume/scale of scandal engulfing the company may be impossible to recover from"

- For the most part only applies to the bay area bubble most of us are in. They still continue to be in a highly dominant position in US.

"Current valuation makes an IPO under less than perfect conditions very challenging."

- Fair point.

FB was not a premier tech company when Sheryl joined. She played a big part in making it one. In fact, Hacker News as far as I remember was deeply critical of Facebook for a long time.

Not saying Uber will go down the same path as FB but I am pointing out the flaw in your logic.

It should be in terms of what went wrong and needs to be fixed. You're right that they may have been blindsided to a large extent in this period of hyper-growth and wrongfully crossed certain lines numerous times. But the introspection and change usually does always come from a catastrophic event like Susan Fowler for example.

But an event(s) like these does not take away the need for a deep analysis. Travis not leaving but rather becoming more mature while at the same time keeping that same focus, intensity and dedication that got Uber where it is today is just as plausible -- and as is apparent -- the preferred approach for many Uber employees.

Yikes, such unbelievably strong pre-conceived biases in your post. How about the alternate and more plausible scenario where Uber employees who arguably have the most clear understanding of the culture issues internally recognize the various dynamics at play – unlike a very black and white view you seem to be extrapolating from the outside?

You'd have to be one foolish hiring manager to make blanket generalizations on Uber employees like this – and thankfully I haven't seen many instances of that. Most Uber employees that do leave tend to have no issues finding a job at the FANGs of the world. This is easily verifiable on LinkedIn.