> "Uber subsidizes rides" isn't true and hasn't been for years

given that they have full control and zero transparency over price of every trip, how can you be so certain?

They're a public company and have to report financials. You can look at them and see that net margin on a ride is positive.

That doesn't mean they're not subsidizing individual markets to remain competitive though. It just means the average is marginal.

IIRC Uber lost $2B on the Chinese marketing simply because of subsidies.

> IIRC Uber lost $2B on the Chinese marketing simply because of subsidies.

uber pulled out of china in 2016 ...

Because it was a loss leader. It's proof that Uber subsidizes individual markets differently.

it's proof they subsidized, past-test, 7 years ago.

its really weird to point to what uber did more than 7 years ago as non public company with no public reporting requirements, and try to use that to refute publicly reported numbers from today.

They have lost $31.5B since 2014 and turned a profit just now. Where did that money go? That one Beyonce party, or it still might have had something to do with their main thing, the rides?

What exactly would "subsidize" mean in this context? If they're charging way less than they need to break even isn't that technically a subsidized ride?