Why have they needed to worry about profitability?

They have been chasing extreme growth with cheap money. That enabled them to hyper scale at a pace the world has rarely seen before. They have made the correct choice so far.

The absolute dumbest thing they could have done up to this point is slow down to try to turn a profit. They have not needed to. Market capture is the sole thing they should be focused on. Here's a hint: how many users does GPT have now versus three years ago?

There appears to be very widespread confusion about what purpose turning a profit serves and how business operations actually work.

Go back in time and tell Uber in ~2013-2015 that it needs to immediately become profitable and not focus on capturing the market.

▲

leptons a day ago | parent [-]

Market capture didn't work so well for Uber, and it won't work for AI, and even less so for AI because you can't get a driver in China to take you to LAX airport, but you can use cheaper Chinese AI.

Uber has to pay back all the billions of dollars it wasted trying to get people to use their platform, and now I can't afford most Uber or Lyft rides, it's way too expensive. So did market capture really work if they had to raise their prices so much as to make the service unworkable for most people? The only time I take uber is if my company pays for it, and that is getting less often.

AI is also going to have to become way too expensive so they can pay back the billions (trillions?) it is borrowing. And, when everyone is laid-off or fired because AI took their job, then who's going to be paying for AI? I guess the companies that lay off all the humans will, but when the wealthy business owners realize they've replaced everything with AI and nobody is buying what they are selling because there's no more jobs, then what?

Sounds like they should worry about profitability, and a lot of other things too.

▲

fn-mote a day ago | parent | next [-]

> market capture really work if they had to raise their prices so much as to make the service unworkable for most people?

Hate to say it, but in this case you’re not the market so you are irrelevant.

Here’s data from Chicago, USA, showing Uber and Lyft dominate the market now, so yes, it worked.

https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/chicago-taxi-ridehaili...

▲

leptons a day ago | parent [-]

That's great that they dominate a shrinking market, because few people can afford to pay $80 to go 15 miles.

	▲	adventured 17 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Uber isn't dealing with a shrinking market. They're becoming critical transportation infrastructure and their business keeps expanding year after year. $32b -> $37b -> $44b -> $52b -> $57b That's Uber's sales growth year by year. And now they're solidly profitable. The sole threat to Uber is the Waymo / Tesla automation angle. A merger is most likely there.
	▲	lovich 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Why do I need to care about profitability as a business if I can capture a shrinking market? /s It feels like a related statement to someone willing to burn their own country to rule over the ashes.

▲

vanuatu a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Huh? uber is an amazing success story given their market dominance and enterprise value created. of course the next kid on the block (Waymo) is going to do the same thing

The price of a given point on the intelligence frontier is only going to get cheaper, likely 10-20x over the next few years.