Guess that didn't last long.
[1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-says-its-profitable-in-th...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/lyft-is-ga...
Guess that didn't last long.
[1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-says-its-profitable-in-th...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/lyft-is-ga...
Depending on who you're talking to, however, that can mean things like "it costs less to acquire a new customer than they're likely to spend", or that excluding things like salaries, rent, taxes and such, they're profitable.
In this case I'd guess it means that Uber pays less to drivers than the user pays them, and ignore everything else (marketing, salaries to employees, taxes, etc).
- How much is 1+1?
Correct answer: Whatever you want it to be.
This seems to suggest that everything else was taken into account in the profitability calculations, but a little skepticism does seem in order!
> For one contract, in July 2000, Enron and Blockbuster Video signed a 20-year agreement to introduce on-demand entertainment to various U.S. cities by year-end. After several pilot projects, Enron recognized estimated profits of more than $110 million from the deal, even though analysts questioned the technical viability and market demand of the service. When the network failed to work, Blockbuster withdrew from the contract. Enron continued to recognize future profits, even though the deal resulted in a loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Mark-to-market_a...
In other words, Enron-esque.