# Data could help justify its $68 billion valuation CNBC 4/4/17



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/04/thes...ld-help-justify-its-68-billion-valuation.html
*These Uber business proposals show how data could help justify its $68 billion valuation*
CNBC April 4 2017

Uber has considered at least two business models where it sells specific services to local governments, The Information reported Tuesday.

One idea was to sell access to the vast amount of ride data it has collected to government officials to help them make infrastructure improvements, the technology news website reported. Another proposal was to transport workers in underdeveloped neighborhoods, supplementing poor transit systems in exchange for government money, the report said.

Uber has since released a free tool for governments to view traffic data, The Information said. It comes as a rivalry with Google has grown deeper - Google's Waze has a similar free program called Connected Citizens, launched in late 2014.

That kind of data is in high demand. New York City has launched initiatives that track drivers entering and leaving the city, as it looks to beef up infrastructure and surveillance.

The two business models show how crucial data is to the ride-hailing start-up's huge valuation, estimated to be $68 billion by CB Insights. Data is also a key input for self-driving cars, a technology that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said is crucial for the company's long-term survival.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...-senior-engineering-post.134849/#post-2000937
"*Anyone who thinks that Uber's valuation (and future) is based on rideshare revenue (rather than the data collected from rideshare) just isn't paying attention.*" - Jan 21 2017 Uberpeople.net by Me.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

So I'm high value because my God view could sell to the gov?

Glad to see that unlike Google and Apple who tries to protect their clients, Uber is eager to sell.


----------



## Gooberlifturwallet (Feb 18, 2017)

UberLyfting and it's true purpose. Surveillance.


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Lol, ISP's already have dibs on that, their business model was dead from the start.

So that makes uber worth what? Ten billion 20 billion now?


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

Good, the data is where the money's at. .. so when they gonna stop taking 40%?


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

The more money Uber loses the higher their valuation becomes.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Jagent said:


> Good, the data is where the money's at. .. so when they gonna stop taking 40%?


When we stop signing up to drive and stop driving or they can make the move to autonomous cars..


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

When Uber stock holders in the orphanage get sad, there is always another Fairy Tale article about profitability Tomorrow.

*



*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Information like this is basically only valuable to marketing firms. There is nothing of value in riders trip history to goverments at all. They don't even upgrade their streets to begin with. Even if they do, it takes years to put plans into work. For those that live in big cities, there isn't much upgrades they can do to roads nowadays.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ca$h4 said:


> When Uber stock holders in the orphanage get sad, there is always another Fairy Tale article about profitability Tomorrow.


Data has always been the big play for investors, imo - the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow. What other explanation is there for no one really stepping in to demand that Kalanick 'right the ship'?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Data has always been the big play for investors, imo - the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow. What other explanation is there for no one really stepping in to demand that Kalanick 'right the ship'?


It's all about the self driving car nonsense. That's the pot of gold that investors think is going to happen, that is going to make the IPO worthwhile.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Information like this is basically only valuable to marketing firms. There is nothing of value in riders trip history to goverments at all. They don't even upgrade their streets to begin with. Even if they do, it takes years to put plans into work. For those that live in big cities, there isn't much upgrades they can do to roads nowadays.


You need to look at what retailers are already doing with Uber's data - not the least of which is in-app advertising that is laser targeted (or as the industry calls it 'micro-targeting').



uberdriverfornow said:


> It's all about the self driving car nonsense. That's the pot of gold that investors think is going to happen, that is going to make the IPO worthwhile.


I don't think so. Everybody in the world is working on SDCs. But nobody has the kind of data that Uber has collected over the last 6 years. And as importantly or more - Uber will be a consumer of SDCs, and maybe license out some of their technology - they are not a car manufacturer.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You need to look at what retailers are already doing with Uber's data - not the least of which is in-app advertising that is laser targeted (or as the industry calls it 'micro-targeting').


This article is about the government. And I have yet to see any ads in the Uber app. Not saying it's not going to happen.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> This article is about the government. And I have yet to see any ads in the Uber app.


Think for a minute about how much Uber knows about its regular users... where they live, where they work, where they go out on Friday nights, where they shop, where they travel (for work, for vacation)... and how that info can be used to feed micro-targeted advertising to users in the app - or to sell to other companies to use in their apps.

On your way to work in an Uber - and often use your Starbucks card at that place near your office? - wham - an ad for that Starbucks appears... or an ad for a Starbucks competitor near that location appears.

See: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/12/10752304/uber-trip-experiences-API-deep-link-brand-ads-content
And: the Uber App Development site for all of the companies integrating Uber into their own apps.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Think for a minute about how much Uber knows about its regular users... where they live, where they work, where they go out on Friday nights, where they shop, where they travel (for work, for vacation)... and how that info can be used to feed micro-targeted advertising to users in the app - or to sell to other companies to use in their apps.
> 
> On your way to work in an Uber - and often use your Starbucks card at that place near your office? - wham - an ad for that Starbucks appears... or an ad for a Starbucks competitor near that location appears.
> 
> ...


Credit card companies know much more than Uber. I think the article is just Uber marketing. Travis probably paid CNBC to publish this.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Jagent said:


> Credit card companies know much more than Uber. I think the article is just Uber marketing. Travis probably paid CNBC to publish this.


It could really go either way. It could be Uber spin or it could really be that they are going to sell data to the highest bidder.


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's all about the self driving car nonsense. That's the pot of gold that investors think is going to happen, that is going to make the IPO worthwhile.


Don't think the investors were bought by driverless taxis bulldust or some data sheet..
They just looove monopoly


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It could really go either way. It could be Uber spin or it could really be that they are going to sell data to the highest bidder.


I don't know about 'highest bidder'... more like 'anyone who will pay for it - or use it to drive (no pun intended) more business to them. Data, I don't believe is incidental: it's is the business plan.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Ubereater said:


> Don't think the investors were bought by driverless taxis bulldust or some data sheet..
> They just looove monopoly


No way in hell people invest in a company that loses billions(thats billions with a B) every year unless theres a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and that pot of gold is the thought of getting paid out from an ipo that resulted from a sdc roll out(that we know will never happen).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> No way in hell people invest in a company that loses billions(thats billions with a B) every year unless theres a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and that pot of gold is the thought of getting paid out from an ipo that resulted from a sdc roll out(that we know will never happen).


You had me with you up until "that resulted from a sdc roll out".
I'm of a different school of thought - and here's why: If/when SDC do rideshare - or even hit the roads - all companies will benefit somewhat equally. It is Uber's data that separates them from everyone else.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You had me with you up until "that resulted from a sdc roll out".
> I'm of a different school of thought - and here's why: If/when SDC do rideshare - or even hit the roads - all companies will benefit somewhat equally. It is Uber's data that separates them from everyone else.


Ubers data isnt going to result in any real meaningful earnings increase that would result in them being profitable.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Ubers data isnt going to result in any real meaningful earnings increase that would result in them being profitable.


You forgot to end that with "... in my opinion".
I'll bet you $5 it does.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You forgot to end that with "... in my opinion".
> I'll bet you $5 it does.


Do you really think they are going to get 3 billion dollars a year for that data ?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Do you really think they are going to get 3 billion dollars a year for that data ?


I don't know. It depends on whether they continue to corner the market on that specific type of data, how they leverage it, and who is willing to pay for it. What I do know or at least believe is that this is what the investors believe in that will drive and support the IPO.

It seems to me that Ross Perot was ahead of his time when he took advantage of the collection and fast distribution and use of data.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

ISP's are going to drop the cost of data in the market to almost nothing, if that's Uber's plan, I wish them good luck.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ell-your-web-browsing-history-to-advertisers/

And 3 billion for data is a laughable appraisal.


----------



## AliciaLyftdriver (Feb 26, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> No way in hell people invest in a company that loses billions(thats billions with a B) every year unless theres a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and that pot of gold is the thought of getting paid out from an ipo that resulted from a sdc roll out(that we know will never happen).


Investors are so unhappy with Uber management. Investors wanted their exit plan, like all investors do, and it got screwed up badly. There will be no IPO for a long time, or if ever. Uber should have went IPO two or three years ago. The CEO was its demise. How a company is run and its character, runs from the top down.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't know.


Are you being serious ? Do you really not know how much money that is ?

A google search of "how much is personal data worth turns up a first listing of..

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/much-personal-data-worth/

That link shows nine brokers "sharing" a total value of "only" $426 million dollars of data.

Hopefully that helps you to understand how much money $3 billion is.


----------



## Wardell Curry (Jul 9, 2016)

What is the hell is happening? Subsidizing rides for low income residents to get to work in exchange for what is likely to be a smaller payout from the government. I mean I know drivers will still get paid the base rate with per mile and minute but that is sure to lose Fuber even more money. They will probably try to make up for it by increasing the regulars fares they charge with upfront pricing which is still a massive joke.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> So I'm high value because my God view could sell to the gov?
> 
> Glad to see that unlike Google and Apple who tries to protect their clients, Uber is eager to sell.


It wouldn't be any data identifiable to you personally. It would be aggregated traffic data, and Uber would be foolish not to consider that data as a sellable commodity.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Jagent said:


> Credit card companies know much more than Uber. I think the article is just Uber marketing. Travis probably paid CNBC to publish this.


Credit card companies are regulated financial institutions that are required to allow consumers to opt out of marketing contacts and must adhere to strict privacy laws. TNCs, are not.
Credit card companies do not have millions of users using their mobile apps - in which ads can be displayed - on a regular basis to move them to, from and by places where the consumer can be influenced to make a purchase decision based on their real-time location or activity.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you being serious ? Do you really not know how much money that is ?
> A google search of "how much is personal data worth turns up a first listing of..
> http://www.visualcapitalist.com/much-personal-data-worth/
> That link shows nine brokers "sharing" a total value of "only" $426 million dollars of data.
> Hopefully that helps you to understand how much money $3 billion is.


That's fine - but it does not relate what $ that data generates. Don't you get it? If Uber can use access to its data to help other companies generate sales and Uber gets even a tiny slice of that, it is potentially worth billions. I believe that is what investors are betting on. (and I could be 100% wrong!)



PrestonT said:


> It wouldn't be any data identifiable to you personally.


Micro-Targeted advertising uses personally identifiable data...
See: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/12/10752304/uber-trip-experiences-API-deep-link-brand-ads-content
And: the Uber App Development site for all of the companies integrating Uber into their own apps.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Micro-Targeted advertising uses personally identifiable data...
> See: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/12/10752304/uber-trip-experiences-API-deep-link-brand-ads-content
> And: the Uber App Development site for all of the companies integrating Uber into their own apps.


I abhor history based advertising. I also abhor in-ride advertising--one of the benefits in my mind of rideshare over cab is that the pax are not bombarded with ads the whole way.

That said, this is apple and orange. Uber using your ride history to target advertising on behalf of clients is not the same as selling personally identifiable ride histories to government entities or any other outside concern. This would do great harm to the trust riders hold in Uber (I giggled a little while writing that) and in my mind cross privacy boundaries.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

PrestonT said:


> I abhor history based advertising. I also abhor in-ride advertising--one of the benefits in my mind of rideshare over cab is that the pax are not bombarded with ads the whole way.
> 
> That said, this is apple and orange. Uber using your ride history to target advertising on behalf of clients is not the same as selling personally identifiable ride histories to government entities or any other outside concern. This would do great harm to the trust riders hold in Uber (I giggled a little while writing that) and in my mind cross privacy boundaries.


hehe - yeah, I hear you - but this is using personally identifiable info:
it allows all of those companies an individual has given permission to interact with us the ability to target us personally based on where we are at a give time. The Uber app permissions (and many, many others) require that we give that permission. That's how the apps become 'personalized'. The coffee shop example (Cuppa) is an example of that. And this stuff is just in its infancy.



Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Glad to see that unlike Google and Apple who tries to protect their clients, Uber is eager to sell.


How do you think Google makes money? (Google's market cap/valuation is over $574 Bil)
How do you think Amazon makes money? (Amazon's market cap/valuation is over $423 Bil)


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Credit card companies are regulated financial institutions that are required to allow consumers to opt out of marketing contacts and must adhere to strict privacy laws. TNCs, are not.
> Credit card companies do not have millions of users using their mobile apps - in which ads can be displayed - on a regular basis to move them to, from and by places where the consumer can be influenced to make a purchase decision based on their real-time location or activity.
> 
> That's fine - but it does not relate what $ that data generates. Don't you get it? If Uber can use access to its data to help other companies generate sales and Uber gets even a tiny slice of that, it is potentially worth billions. I believe that is what investors are betting on. (and I could be 100% wrong!)
> ...


Google gets its revenue from people clicking on search results.

I don't really see how you expect Uber to generate income off of simple ride history. Also, that history is only tied to a name, a name that has no identifiable information tied to it.

Not really sure how you expect Uber to make money off of that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Google gets its revenue from people clicking on search results.


uh, no, Google does not get its revenue from people clicking on search results. 
It gets its revenue from selling advertising which can be micro-targeted.

People do not pay for access to the core search product or YouTube basic service. 
Or Facebook, or Snapchat, or Instagram, or Twitter.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> uh, no, Google does not get its revenue from people clicking on search results. It gets its revenue from selling advertising which can be micro-targeted.
> 
> People do not pay for access to the core search product or YouTube basic service. Or Facebook, or Snapchat, or Instagram, or Twitter.


sure, it gets some of its revenue from ads as well, but its core business is the click side

you seem to have neglected the rest of my post that is about Uber


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> sure, it gets some of its revenue from ads as well, but its core business is the click side
> you seem to have neglected the rest of my post that is about Uber


This isn't the place to go into how Google's revenues are generated by advertising. You don't need me to explain it - there have been volumes written about it - entire curriculae devoted to it. Without having an understanding of how data collected from a consumer 'footprint' is used to generate sales and advertising revenue, there's not much to discuss about the rest of your comment. I'm not being flip... You don't seem to understand how facebook can have a valuation of over $400 bil without ever having charged a user to create a page... or how google can have a valuation of $574 bil - without ever having charged a user for a 'search'. I don't see how you could possibly see where I'm coming from (or understand what the article at the top of this thread is talking about). And that's fine... as I said, I could be wrong anyway!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This isn't the place to go into how Google's revenues are generated by advertising. You don't need me to explain it - there have been volumes written about it - entire curriculae devoted to it. Without having an understanding of how data collected from a consumer 'footprint' is used to generate sales and advertising revenue, there's not much to discuss about the rest of your comment. I'm not being flip... You don't seem to understand how facebook can have a valuation of over $400 bil without ever having charged a user to create a page... or how google can have a valuation of $574 bil - without ever having charged a user for a 'search'. I don't see how you could possibly see where I'm coming from (or understand what the article at the top of this thread is talking about). And that's fine... as I said, I could be wrong anyway!


Yet again you still haven't addressed how Uber is going to make $3 billion a year solely from the trip histories of people.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yet again you still haven't addressed how Uber is going to make $3 billion a year solely from the trip histories of people.


Who said anything about "solely from the trip histories"?
And I never said they have to make $3bil year - you did - and they don't.

They don't have to make a dime as long as the valuation of the company (or the 'market capitalization after an IPO) continues to grow.
It's not about profit - it's about market cap and growth.
Look up how long it took the other companies I mentioned to turn a profit (hint: some still haven't).

Let me put it this way:
You and I and most normal people look at a company and think:
"If I invest $1 in this company, at some point they will grow enough and start making a profit and I'll get a great return on my investment from the profits."​But that's not how investors look at the company.
An investor looks at the same company and thinks:
"If I invest $1 in this growth company, at some point I'll be able to sell my $1 stake for $10 and see a 1,000% return on my investment."​


----------



## JSM0713 (Apr 25, 2015)

AliciaLyftdriver said:


> Investors are so unhappy with Uber management. Investors wanted their exit plan, like all investors do, and it got screwed up badly. There will be no IPO for a long time, or if ever. Uber should have went IPO two or three years ago. The CEO was its demise. How a company is run and its character, runs from the top down.


Ya hit the nail on the head..... I believe that Kalanick is the single largest impediment to Uber's future value in an IPO. The core of this company is basically rotten, so what does that tell us?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

there is no way data from an app rideshare is worth 68B they are grasping at straws, some auto makers aren't even worth that much.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> there is no way data from an app rideshare is worth 68B they are grasping at straws, some auto makers aren't even worth that much.


That's what they said about facebook when a few days after its IPO (just 5 years ago) and the share price dropped to $18.
fb now trades at $140, up 650%
(... the DJIA is up only up ~60% for the same period and the price of gold has dropped by 30% over the same period)

And it's what many said about Google after its $50 IPO in 2004.
goog now trades at <gulp> $825, up 1,600%
(... the DJIA is up only ~100% for the same period)

Both of those companies provide a service that they lose money on and don't generate profits.
And both of those companies get their revenues through the use of their collected data to generate their earnings.

For just a minute, stop thinking about Uber from a driver's perspective and start looking at it from an investor's point of view and you'll see why the company has the valuation it does, and why so few people other than drivers and Uber employees care about kalanick's dick-head personality.

Over the last few decades Industrials have been an ok investment and Gold has been ok (a loser over the last five years).
Investing in DATA has made millionaires of mortals.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's what they said about facebook when a few days after its IPO (just 5 years ago) the share price dropped to $18.
> fb now trades at $140, up 650%
> (... the DJIA is up only ~60% for the same period and the price of gold has dropped by 30% over the same period)
> 
> ...


I read the estimated value was $66B a year ago, now it's about $6B, and this is just a new spin to get the IPO to make Trav1s Kaepernick a billionaire many times over, and yes I know that's no his name.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> I read the estimated value was $66B a year ago, now it's about $6B


You read wrong. The current valuation is 62 point something billion. Uber is currently trying to raise an additional 2.1 billion.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You read wrong. The current valuation is 62 point something billion. Uber is currently trying to raise an additional 2.1 billion.


I didn't read wrong, i read a different source that was saying that no way is Uber worth more than the auto makers who are making money while Uber is losing it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> I didn't read wrong, i read a different source that was saying that no way is Uber worth more than the auto makers who are making money while Uber is losing it.


It would be appreciated if you could share that source. I'd like to read what whoever they are had to say and who it was that is saying it . The valuation of a company is not related to its profitability. GM, Ford, Chrysler have all had years in which they were not profitable, right there along with Amazon, Google and Facebook..

Forbes: Uber will be bigger than GM, Ford and Honda.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...mar/02/robot-tax-job-elimination-livable-wage

Robots will just make rich richier. Nothing really good for us


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How do you think Google makes money? (Google's market cap/valuation is over $574 Bil)


Google has a revenue of 89.6 billion which comes out of many different tentacles.

The revenue you are looking for is 19 billion in ads, has uber been able to sell that much? Don't say "what if", they need to show money and once they do, they can claim whatever they want as the value for their unicorn.

As mentioned before, ISP's now have total power over data, they might even tango with google's piece of the pie if not take most of it, this means data prices will sink.

Travis should have expanded while keeping prices balanced and drivers steady at a sane number, instead he dropped prices and overflowed the market bcuz omg monopoly time!

That is his failure which will haunt him for the rest of his life, neither self driving cars nor ads are going to help uber, they are all "what if's".

What I think this asshole will do is sell to intelligence for mass tracking, the gov is eager to shower sell outs with money, that is until they make headlines and their corporation falls.

But forget about ads they aren't selling and self driving cars that aren't working (much more forget they will even develop them after Google is done with them).


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

Ca$h4 said:


> When Uber stock holders in the orphanage get sad, there is always another Fairy Tale article about profitability Tomorrow.
> 
> *
> 
> ...


This made me sad. Poor Richard Simmons. And what a horrible way to die too.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

d0n said:


> Google has a revenue of 89.6 billion which comes out of many different tentacles.


You'll see it any way you want - and that's fine.
If you want to ignore that Google is a 20 year old company (this Sept) and didn't go public until being in operation for six years, that's your choice. (But no company has ever grown in valuation as fast and as much as Uber).



> The revenue you are looking for is 19 billion in ads, has uber been able to sell that much? Don't say "what if", they need to show money and once they do, they can claim whatever they want as the value for their unicorn.


Uber, unlike google, is actually generating revenue as it grows in its early years - to the tune of $5.5 bil net [2016]. Google, on the other hand, didn't make a profit until its 3rd year and it wasn't until their 5th year that they generated around a 10% profit - and that was on only $962 mil in revenue (compared to Uber's $5.5 Bil in year 5). Unlike Google, Uber has the 'luxury' of being able to look at the history of all the early dot-coms (Kalanick sold Red Swoosh to Akami for $19 mil and was set financially). From not being able to grow Red Swoosh as fast as he wanted - and from watching FB grow as fast as it did, he came to embrace the idea (along with Wall Street) that growth was far more important than profit... and when he and Camp saw how Uber was being accepted, they committed the company to a path of wild growth at any cost - damn the torpedoes (and the law).

A year ago (July 2016) it was estimated that Uber had already delivered 2 Billion rides. It was estimated in 2014 - nearly 3 years ago - that they were delivering ~8 million rides every day. If you consider *only the 'Safety Fee' and commission on just a minimum fare ride*, uber is generating revenues of over $4.1 Mil/day. And since we all know that not all rides are min fare, the number is likely double that, closer to $22 Mil a day (and still growing at a high rate) which is ~$8.3 Bil/yr. of current revenue (*from only the Safe Rider Fee and 'Uber Fee' on min fare*) - which means those revenues are close to 'gross profit' before operating expenses. If you want to consider actual top line gross revenues, before paying drivers, then it's more like 3x that (~$25 Bil/yr) - in 2016 - .... and still growing.



> As mentioned before, ISP's now have total power over data, they might even tango with google's piece of the pie if not take most of it, this means data prices will sink.


With the dismantling of the Net Neutrality rules of the FCC, ISPs *may* have in-roads - but they are still limited in what data they can collect and hoe they can use it - unlike Uber, which receives permission from every single user to collect person-specific data in order to provide the service they provide. More importantly (I think), the reason given by congressional lawmakers for reversing the FCC's Net Neutrality provisions is that the GOP house wants to move regulation of the ISPs from the FCC to the FTC, which is much tougher with privacy regulation than the FCC ever was. We'll see how that plays out.



> Travis should have expanded while keeping prices balanced and drivers steady at a sane number, instead he dropped prices and overflowed the market bcuz omg monopoly time!


I have no idea what TK *should* have done... (although you and I everyone else here seem to think we could have done it better!), but what he did do was make history by creating the fastest growth company in history.



> That is his failure


 Other than drivers, I don't know of anyone who would call what TK has done a 'failure'.


> which will haunt him for the rest of his life


from your lips to God's ear - but I doubt it. First, to be 'haunted', you have to have a conscience, and second, that's your opinion stated as some kind of fact.


> neither self driving cars nor ads are going to help uber, they are all "what if's".


Maybe, maybe not - again - your opinion of what the future holds - not a fact. Not saying I disagree or agree: just saying none of us know the future.



> What I think this asshole will do is sell to intelligence for mass tracking, the gov is eager to shower sell outs with money, that is until they make headlines and their corporation falls.
> 
> But forget about ads they aren't selling and self driving cars that aren't working (much more forget they will even develop them after Google is done with them).


Well, that's your view, and you could be right - but I don't think so... mainly because you are equating data with just '_ads'_, and it's much, much more than that, and completely ignoring the cash flow already generated by the ridesahare services.

Good thoughts, though - thanks.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You need to look at what retailers are already doing with Uber's data - not the least of which is in-app advertising that is laser targeted (or as the industry calls it 'micro-targeting').
> 
> I don't think so. Everybody in the world is working on SDCs. But nobody has the kind of data that Uber has collected over the last 6 years. And as importantly or more - Uber will be a consumer of SDCs, and maybe license out some of their technology - they are not a car manufacturer.


Exactly, for example, we all know there are glitches in the navigation, where sometimes it takes you to the dumpster, or perhaps it is a little off. Now they got lets say, at a particular location, there has been 200,000 pick ups, but 67% of them seems to be concentrated in a specific area, it could help a SDC fine tune itself in addition to the radars, and cameras on the car. This kind of information could be bought for all companies making SDC, kind of how Samsung provides a lot of components for other electronics companies they even compete against with.


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You'll see it any way you want - and that's fine.
> If you want to ignore that Google is a 20 year old company (this Sept) and didn't go public until being in operation for six years, that's your choice. (But no company has ever grown in valuation as fast and as much as Uber).


Google begun making money after they sold unique services, the whole data sale and ad placement market was first exploited by them, before it was just banner spam everywhere, unless Travis can invent something, I do not see it going far.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber, unlike google, is actually generating revenue as it grows in its early years - to the tune of $5.5 bil net [2016]. Google, on the other hand, didn't make a profit until its 3rd year and it wasn't until their 5th year that they generated around a 10% profit - and that was on only $962 mil in revenue (compared to Uber's $5.5 Bil in year 5). Unlike Google, Uber has the 'luxury' of being able to look at the history of all the early dot-coms (Kalanick sold Red Swoosh to Akami for $19 mil and was set financially). From not being able to grow Red Swoosh as fast as he wanted - and from watching FB grow as fast as it did, he came to embrace the idea (along with Wall Street) that growth was far more important than profit... and when he and Camp saw how Uber was being accepted, they committed the company to a path of wild growth at any cost - damn the torpedoes (and the law).
> 
> A year ago (July 2016) it was estimated that Uber had already delivered 2 Billion rides. It was estimated in 2014 - nearly 3 years ago - that they were delivering ~8 million rides every day. If you consider *only the 'Safety Fee' and commission on just a minimum fare ride*, uber is generating revenues of over $4.1 Mil/day. And since we all know that not all rides are min fare, the number is likely double that, closer to $22 Mil a day (and still growing at a high rate) which is ~$8.3 Bil/yr. of current revenue (*from only the Safe Rider Fee and 'Uber Fee' on min fare*) - which means those revenues are close to 'gross profit' before operating expenses. If you want to consider actual top line gross revenues, before paying drivers, then it's more like 3x that (~$25 Bil/yr) - in 2016 - .... and still growing.


Google begun as a company with the motto: "don't be evil", as it went public, it started becoming more and more evil (for profit), what do you think will happen with a company that is already evil?

They obviously couldn't monetize the search engine until they started going for ads, Google wasn't a company created to "make money", it was a company with a mission, they later realized " geekin' " could get them paid without being MS, IBM, Oracle or Apple (although they sucked back then).

You cannot make such comparison because Google has created countless stuff besides their search engine, Uber otoh only has rideshare and that's it, they are trying to butt into a market that is controlled by companies like Google, think about it, how many people buy stuff online today and how many go to shops? That alone tells you how much their data is worth, if you think they have a unique sales approach, think about Google already owning both top navigational systems out there for the public, Waze and Google maps, they mine what Uber is trying to sell and it's not going too well for Google in that aspect.

Uber lost billions last year, it's not a company that will keep growing without proper rideshare management and expansion, if they are trying to get a higher value by tapping into other stuff, you can already tell they won't grow by rides anymore, remember regulations are being created and they keep losing control, if states start allowing unions, Uber will be forced to undo many of their tricks that provide them with revenue.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> With the dismantling of the Net Neutrality rules of the FCC, ISPs *may* have in-roads - but they are still limited in what data they can collect and hoe they can use it - unlike Uber, which receives permission from every single user to collect person-specific data in order to provide the service they provide. More importantly (I think), the reason given by congressional lawmakers for reversing the FCC's Net Neutrality provisions is that the GOP house wants to move regulation of the ISPs from the FCC to the FTC, which is much tougher with privacy regulation than the FCC ever was. We'll see how that plays out.


Haha, no.

They already said no opting out, all your data is theirs to sell because of what Google did with their search engine and services, in fact, it's the sole reason they are allowed to sell browsing data today... to compete with Google.

Uber only collects what places you went, not what you bought, browsed or the apps you have in your phone, if they did, they would get their pants sued off them.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> I have no idea what TK *should* have done... (although you and I everyone else here seem to think we could have done it better!), but what he did do was make history by creating the fastest growth company in history.


Haha, not even close.

You mean the fastest growing scam-up like they rest of the unicorns up for sale in silicon valley.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Maybe, maybe not - again - your opinion of what the future holds - not a fact. Not saying I disagree or agree: just saying none of us know the future.


I see the future, it's a curse.

I was the first guy to say self driving cars would fail in these forums, it came to me in a dream that made more sense than today's reality.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

d0n said:


> Google begun making money after they sold unique services, the whole data sale and ad placement market was first exploited by them, before it was just banner spam everywhere, unless Travis can invent something, I do not see it going far.


You may be right - but there are Billions of invested dollars betting that you're wrong. I tend to give more weight to the opinion of those with skin in the game than those, like me (and you) in the peanut gallery.


> Google begun as a company with the motto: "don't be evil", as it went public, it started becoming more and more evil (for profit), what do you think will happen with a company that is already evil?


 hehe... that's easy - it means Uber has a head start on profitability... which was my point. 


> You cannot make such comparison because Google has created countless stuff besides their search engine, Uber otoh only has rideshare and that's it,


Not even close. You can't say you can't compare Google to Uber and then make a comparison between Google and Uber! Still in its early years, Uber is building a logistics marketplace. Rideshare, Delivery, Eats, Trucking-Share (or whatever its called).


> Uber lost billions last year, it's not a company that will keep growing without proper rideshare management and expansion,


LOL... for all the grief over Uber's billion dollar loss last year, the fact is that they lost the majority of that in China, were operationally profitable in the US and ended up recouping that loss by selling their China operations to Didi in exchange for a $1 Bil investment from Didi - AND getting a 20% stake in Didi.


> if they are trying to get a higher value by tapping into other stuff, you can already tell they won't grow by rides anymore, remember regulations are being created and they keep losing control, if states start allowing unions, Uber will be forced to undo many of their tricks that provide them with revenue.


I don't agree. First, Uber has already managed to get 17 states to wrest local control from municipalities by implementing statewide legislation (written by Uber's & Lyft's lobbyists). Second, there is no evidence to support your assertion that growth does not continue in the rideshare business, of which Uber has an 84%-87% marketshare.


> Uber only collects what places you went, not what you bought, browsed or the apps you have in your phone, if they did, they would get their pants sued off them.


Your'e missing the forest for the trees. That's not the kind of data/info/access Uber is leveraging. Look at their developers website and you'll see that companies are using Uber in their own apps so they can micro-target consumers with a specific product, in a specific, place, at a specific time.


> You mean the fastest growing scam-up like they rest of the unicorns up for sale in silicon valley.


Well, now your emotional reaction to Uber is showing. It's fun to bash Uber (and I do believe it's evil), but the reality is, like it or not, that as I said- it is the fastest growing company in history.


> I see the future, it's a curse. I was the first guy to say self driving cars would fail in these forums, it came to me in a dream that made more sense than today's reality.


You should let the rest of us borrow your crystal ball and tea leaves!


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You may be right - but there are Billions of invested dollars betting that you're wrong. I tend to give more weight to the opinion of those with skin in the game than those, like me (and you) in the peanut gallery.


Oh Travis loves to play with money that is not his, I wouldn't put my money on bets from a guy who can't even manage his primary business.

TK in a nutshell: coder with an idea who got lucky, end of story. There is no managing skills or knack for inventing more stuff, that's all he is.

Put it like this, he has to resort to theft to make a profit.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> hehe... that's easy - it means Uber has a head start on profitability... which was my point.


Google lost a ton of support in the years after they started becoming profitable, if uber is already hated and will become worse, what are their chances? Activision-Blizzard and EA do not grow more not because they can't but because gamers have them blacklisted for their practices, only time erases bad records.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not even close. You can't say you can't compare Google to Uber and then make a comparison between Google and Uber! Still in its early years, Uber is building a logistics marketplace. Rideshare, Delivery, Eats, Trucking-Share (or whatever its called).


Google added stuff that made profit for the most part.

Eats=failure
Rush=failure
Moto=failure
Trucking(Otto)=failure [This one is the one caught in the self driving debacle with Google].

To make a list short, they have failed at making any decent profit out of anything that isn't rideshare.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> LOL... for all the grief over Uber's billion dollar loss last year, the fact is that they lost the majority of that in China, were operationally profitable in the US and ended up recouping that loss by selling their China operations to Didi in exchange for a $1 Bil investment from Didi - AND getting a 20% stake in Didi.


They pulled out of China half way through 2016 and they only lost 1 billion to them, last year uber lost how many billions?

Sure they got a stake in Didi because unlike Kalanick, they seem to know what they are doing.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't agree. First, Uber has already managed to get 17 states to wrest local control from municipalities by implementing statewide legislation (written by Uber's & Lyft's lobbyists). Second, there is no evidence to support your assertion that growth does not continue in the rideshare business, of which Uber has an 84%-87% marketshare.


You mean like Washington and soon to be California?

Last year's losses point at tanking, we shall see if they are growing with this year's revenues.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Your'e missing the forest for the trees. That's not the kind of data/info/access Uber is leveraging. Look at their developers website and you'll see that companies are using Uber in their own apps so they can micro-target consumers with a specific product, in a specific, place, at a specific time.


Google has that done with Waze, an app used more than Uber. Are they getting good revenues from their ad placement?



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Well, now your emotional reaction to Uber is showing. It's fun to bash Uber (and I do believe it's evil), but the reality is, like it or not, that as I said- it is the fastest growing company in history.


Start ups are a scam in value, everyone knows this and that is the biggest problem right now in Silicon Valley, check the latest news.

And lolno, they aren't the fastest growing company in history, that is nonsense.

Fastest start up? Yes, they are good scammers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

d0n said:


> lol no, they aren't the fastest growing company in history, that is nonsense.
> Fastest start up? Yes, they are good scammers.


Your thoughts are interesting even if I disagree with your opinions. But your facts are just wrong. _que sera sera_


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Your thoughts are interesting even if I disagree with your opinions. But your facts are just wrong. _que sera sera_


http://fortune.com/2016/09/12/fastest-growing-companies-list-history/

You are confusing start ups.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

d0n said:


> http://fortune.com/2016/09/12/fastest-growing-companies-list-history/
> You are confusing start ups.


That list is of PUBLIC companies and ranks them on:

average annual revenue growth over three years,
average increase in *earnings per share* over that period,
and three-year total *stock return*
No company that I can find has ever grown by $56 billion in valuation in 2 years.
That's not from start-up - that's what Uber did from 2014 - 2016.


----------



## Confused (Apr 11, 2017)

This data nonsense is just another ploy to justify this ridiculous valuation. The majority of cities have most of this info.


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That list is of PUBLIC companies and ranks them on:
> 
> average annual revenue growth over three years,
> average increase in *earnings per share* over that period,
> ...


Lol but they haven't grown 56 billion, that's what Kalanick claims.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/the-tech-bubble-didn-t-burst-this-year-just-wait

He's just leading the bubble, wait until they go public to laugh at the stock price.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

d0n said:


> ...grown 56 billion, that's what Kalanick claims.
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/the-tech-bubble-didn-t-burst-this-year-just-wait


It's also exactly what the article *you cite* claims. (Bloomberg values Uber at $69 Bil in that article)
As importantly, the article notes that because of the size of these companies, it's nearly impossible for newcomers to compete with them:

_It's getting tough for upstarts in any field to gain traction as these companies use their giant cash pools to bid up the price of office space, talent, and other resources. When they face deep-pocketed competitors, they tend to cut prices and run massive losses to get market share. Uber lost well over $1 billion in the first half of 2016, largely because two of its well-funded rivals, Lyft and China's Didi Chuxing, forced it to increase payments to drivers even as it deeply discounted rides. (Uber made peace with Didi over the summer, agreeing to exit the Chinese market in what sure looks like a prelude to an IPO.) "There's a stratification happening," says Botha. "The spoils are increasingly accruing to the haves, and that's making it harder for little startups."_​


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's also exactly what the article you cite claims. (Bloomber values Uber at $69 Bil in that article)
> As importantly, the article notes that because of the size of these companies, it's nearly impossible for newcomers to compete with them:
> 
> _It's getting tough for upstarts in any field to gain traction as these companies use their giant cash pools to bid up the price of office space, talent, and other resources. When they face deep-pocketed competitors, they tend to cut prices and run massive losses to get market share. Uber lost well over $1 billion in the first half of 2016, largely because two of its well-funded rivals, Lyft and China's Didi Chuxing, forced it to increase payments to drivers even as it deeply discounted rides. (Uber made peace with Didi over the summer, agreeing to exit the Chinese market in what sure looks like a prelude to an IPO.) "There's a stratification happening," says Botha. "The spoils are increasingly accruing to the haves, and that's making it harder for little startups."_​


No.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-valuation-says-uber-may-have-already-peaked

No one but a high top at Google considers Uber the fastest growing company.

We are only circling this so I am going to stop, when they release revenues and exit the closet, we will see if they truly are what they claim.

And by the way, Uber isn't the first or the last to manipulate data to serve their own agenda, this is done all the time at Silicon Valley by hand picking what info they release or how they come up with such statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics


----------



## Whothought (Jan 18, 2017)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> So I'm high value because my God view could sell to the gov?
> 
> .


If we combined our information as ants there be no comparison we would hold the Golden Goose. You can quote me on that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Whothought said:


> If we combined our information as ants there be no comparison we would hold the Golden Goose.


...assuming you could get any three drivers to agree on anything.


----------



## Hogg (Feb 7, 2016)

Ford Motor Company is worth $45 billion. There's no way some traffic data is worth 150% of that.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Confused said:


> This data nonsense is just another ploy to justify this ridiculous valuation. The majority of cities have most of this info.


So if you go to a doctor, you are good since you got information, so there is no need for different opinions especially when you make multimillion dollar decisions?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Confused said:


> This data nonsense is just another ploy to justify this ridiculous valuation. The majority of cities have most of this info.


Exactly. There's really nothing of value in any of the ride information Uber has.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Hogg said:


> Ford Motor Company is worth $45 billion. There's no way some traffic data is worth 150% of that.


yeah Ford makes Mustangs, Fusion, and they also have a long tradition and a reputation and is rich in history and a globally recognized name. No way a data company can be worth more than that, like I don't know Facebook.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)




----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Hogg said:


> Ford Motor Company is worth $45 billion. There's no way some traffic data is worth 150% of that.


Traffic Data? uh... no.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> uh, no, Google does not get its revenue from people clicking on search results.
> It gets its revenue from selling advertising which can be micro-targeted.
> 
> People do not pay for access to the core search product or YouTube basic service.
> Or Facebook, or Snapchat, or Instagram, or Twitter.


Google gets 88% of it's revenues from the sale of ADVERTISING.
Only 11% comes from 'Pixel' and the 'Play Store'
Only 1% comes from their investments in other's ventures.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

just a follow-up on the state of DATA (something I began discussing with y'all three years ago!)

On QUORA, the question was asked: *HOW IS UBER PRICED?*
This is how I addressed the question:

The short answer to the question is: *However Uber wants to price it*.
But the question warrants further explanation.

When Uber hit the streets with UberX, pricing was a simple matter of a rate for the mileage and a rate for the time + any fees, all at a multiplier (if any) determined by the overall demand vs supply of available drivers.

Uber rides now, we believe, are priced by a complex set of algorithms which take into not only the demand and availability of drivers, but also your account history as a rider, the neighborhood/location where you are requesting a pick-up, the historical pricing for that location and time, the phase of the moon and any other data Uber engineers ca use to determine what you might be willing to pay for a ride.

Every ride request Uber has received and ride Uber has arranged (millions each day) in the past 6 years has generated data. That data is the most valuable asset the company owns. It can be used for everything from selling advertising for in-app ADs to determining how much a rider will pay (and how little a driver will work for).

In the early days, The fare 'rate' - set by Uber - was easily calculated and Uber was paid a fixed percentage of the fare and any rider fees, by the driver - who charged the rider.

In or around 2018, Uber (and Lyft) eliminated the relationship between the FARE and/or Fare-Rate they set for a ride and the EARNINGS a driver would make. This is part of the reason CA has now insisted that Uber & Lyft classify their drivers as EMPLOYEES rather than independent contractors&#8230; a law that as of this writing is being challenged in court.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Gooberlifturwallet said:


> UberLyfting and it's true purpose. Surveillance.
> View attachment 110354














Michael - Cleveland said:


> Google gets 88% of it's revenues from the sale of ADVERTISING.
> Only 11% comes from 'Pixel' and the 'Play Store'
> Only 1% comes from their investments in other's ventures.


----------

