Interesting article. Still digesting, though it seems to support what I have said about where their money losses are.
One thing I found a bit incompatible, is the fact the article is comparing the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Yahoo to Uber... yet unlike those other four, Uber from the start HAS actual sales and 'revenue from real-world activities'
Granted, he acknowledges this and goes on to say, "So long as the burn rate can be controlled or eliminated, the views of investors become immaterial",
yet Uber DOES appear to cater more to investors than their own 'salesforce'
of drivers; it seems pretty clear we are expendable and they do it "because they can
". Uber has mentioned that it plans an IPO in the next year and a half.
It's pretty clear that Uber has sufficient revenue to maintain a 'slow burn
And while it does not seem they are spending lavishly, they are certainly spending a LOT on market dominance.
"Geoffrey Moore showed a long time ago why rapid growth is important for innovative products. It's all about seizing market dominance so that buyers will choose your product or service over the also-rans in the market."
That is definitely what Uber is doing and why they are spending so much time, energy, and money to overcome the legal, legislative, and political obstacles necessary to enter each market across the globe. Esp China, where they have strong competitors using some of the same tactics as Uber. Uber sees that market as larger than the US, so they seem very aggressive in trying to establish their dominance there.
Clearly Uber understands marketing and has chosen ultra low pricing as part of a specific 'market dominance' strategy, however you would think once their brand name became a verb in the vocabulary of the general public, that they had achieved a significant amount of dominance over nearly every other competitor. Yet instead, Uber remains in this ultra-aggressive mode... like they are still at war with an enemy they already triumphed over. It would make sense in markets they have yet to breach sufficiently (such as China and even some cities in the US or Europe)... however they remain in that mode across the board and unfortunately, it means we are still expendable and along for the ride if we chose to 'partner' with them.