Rev grew faster than losses consistently all through 2012 and 2013 which is really amazing (2013 is when Uber jumped from a 330M valuation to a 3.5B valuation so investors noticed too)...then losses abruptly charged ahead in 2014 (see data pulled below).
Uber launched China in Q1 of 2014 - they are basically betting huge on China / India, and smartly being very clear to their investors that the $$ is for that very costly cause, so they can earmark the cash they are burning for international expansion as "meant to be burned." Also, if the bet goes the wrong way, they can (sort of) cleanly write it off as a failed (billion dollar) project, and ask investors to focus on their (hopefully by then) cash-cow business in the US.
Burn is all about international expansion, which is SUPER expensive, especially at the rate they are attempting. There is an insane learning curve that costs a lot of money to get on the other side of (hiring, culture, regulations, consumers, marketing are all different in each country - not to mention the fact that local competitors have all those in line already!) - look at pretty much any major US company that has attempted to succeed in China.
So what happens when they've aggressively expanded into all their target markets and are still not profitable and have nowhere else to go? Pure expansion is pretty much the sign of a first-mover bubble company who will collapse with their advantage being copied by calmer second-movers...
>So when growth stops, profit happens almost by default.
That's a pretty bubblicious thing to say. Your model depends on the nature of the costs. Expansion costs aren't 100% and operational costs aren't 0%. I realize it was just a quick example, but profit will depend on how their costs are actually distributed. Certainly not automatic.
Yes, I merely meant to illustrate how a business can become profitable simply by stopping expansion. I didn't mean to imply that this 3 second toy model proves it always will, though I guess my phrasing wasn't clear.
You are right, IF the early markets are still not profitable - the key numbers that we don't have are: how are the first 100 cities they launched doing? how are the first 10 cities they launched doing? If those cities have achieved profitability or are approaching it, then it works. Unfortunately, we don't have those #s.
However, if you look here there's some indication that earlier markets were at least closing the operating loss gap:
QQ4.12: 8.2M / 7.0M Q1.13: 12.9M / 7.3M Q2.13: 19.3M / 8.1M
Losses slowed dramatically here, while revenue grew. Note, Uber was still launching cities at this point, but had already taken most of the major US markets - my guess is that SF + NY + LA were getting closer to paying for themselves while they streamlined their launch process into smaller markets in the US. I feel OK making that guess because it's hard to believe that an investor would not have asked for that, and it's hard to believe that an investor would value Uber at $3.5B (the valuation at that time) if that wasn't happening. (Note - I understand that investors are not always actually this rational, I'm just making an assumption in this case).
I imagine the pitch was: look at our early markets, they are cash-cows, and we know how to make them. Now, give us $XB to go make more of these cash-cows please and don't ask us about losses for a long time, thanks! Which is why they don't really care about these leaked #s.
What happens to the disrupted sector is the people who work there go find new jobs. Then when the giant monopolizer fails the sector can't return to the way it was before, too much knowledge has been lost.
Example: if WalMart closed tomorrow most of the thousands of small and medium sized businesses they put under wouldn't come back.
If Uber's model turns out to be unrealistic long-term the intellectual capital lost from the global taxi cab sector will only be partially recoverable.
When a company grows based on money they've earned it's the normal process of scaling. When they grow based on money they've borrowed it's no longer the market giving them the thumbs up, it's a couple of dozen investors. By the time WalMart was rapidly expanding it was clear their business model worked, might be evil but it works. It's not clear that Uber's business model is even legal.
Wait, so Uber spent $900 million dollars? I thought that considering they offload so much of the costs of running of the business( EDIT: through having drivers buy the cars, for example), they wouldn't have such high operating costs.
Though according to this[1] article, Uber's at 3000 employees worldwide. What are those employees doing?
EDIT: For reference, Greyhound's 2014 operating costs were 600 million pounds (50 million in profit).
Despite popular belief, apps and communities don't run themselves. Uber is scaling at an ungodly speed, and they're hiring a ton of people to do so. Seriously, look at how many jobs they're hiring for right now: https://www.uber.com/jobs/list (then realize they're doing this in hundreds of cities simultaneously, in addition to the hundreds they're already in).
I'm actually blown away that they're losing so little, given the amount of revenue they're bringing in. Those are, despite what it may seem, really good numbers. If they can reach scale and capture the market (not trivial)... wow.
I agree that you need people to expand, but it never hurts to question how many people you actually need. Nobody denies that megacorps probably have many redundant positions, it's not possible for a company with 3000 employees to have them either.
My understanding from talking with people close to the company is that they have a process for opening one city. It's a specific number of people in exact positions (15, if I remember correctly)? They go out and clone the exact process/number of people in each new city.
It starts with one person who is responsible for spearheading the operation; that person is supposed to find, hire, and manage the other 14.
It's like Uber is opening up franchises of itself. The model has been nailed, so it's just a matter of cloning/duplicating that model.
I'm not certain on all of the details, but I find it absolutely fascinating.
Good Eggs just laid of 140 people, more than 50% of it's workforce and shut down 3 out of 4 of their markets - only SF, their HQ, will remain, and even the SF office sustained layoffs. They are Sequoia/Index backed, and raised $21M less than 12 months ago.
Good example of a company that asked the question "how many people do we actually need?", with an unpleasant answer =(
It may actually hurt. Uber is in the growth business. They aren't bootstrapping. It may not be worth the time for them to think whether or not they really need to hire someone for x position in x market when they have hundreds of positions to fill in dozens of markets.
Yeah, they likely have decades of amazing margins ahead of them. Doesn't make sense to be too frugal in just the first few years if it puts that growth at stake.
Until they get in price competition with a few others. Imagine Google launching a self-driving taxi business at 20% lower prices than Uber. It would be a bloodbath price competition that Google would win because of their deep pockets and lower costs.
Uber is swimming in capital right now. Their only goal is growth because that maximises cash out ROI for investors. There'll be time for cutting heads and focusing on profit post IPO.
Another thing to keep in mind is that über would have to pay corporate income tax, to the tune of 30%, on any profits made in the US. It seems like they're doing a good job (or are insanely lucky) at reinvesting their gross income back into their company growth while keeping their burn rate relatively low to the $6.9b in raise capital. (e.g. they've only cut $0.5b into their $7b cash stash).
I haven't seen the data, but I bet a huge percentage of it is subsidized rides. They essentially use free rides as a carrot for users to learn the value of Uber.
The great part for Uber is that once they've trained their userbase, that cost largely disappears.
Also to keep drivers more motivated than they'd otherwise be. I'd say that they're trading VC money with drivers in order to have a dominant position by the time the drivers are no longer required.
Uber is active pretty much everywhere. They're truly aiming to corner the entire global transport market. They're putting in $1B in India alone.
When the dust is settled, you're going to get a company that controls the private transport industry in an area that stretches from San Francisco to Kolkata
For an industry that was once dominated by small local players, this is truly mind blowing.
I don't think there is a single startup that is as obsessed with aggressive growth as Uber
> When the dust is settled, you're going to get a company that controls the private transport industry in an area that stretches from San Francisco to Kolkata
But is their money buying control of anything? They are not buying control over a resource, like "all the tin mines in China" or something. Is it just spend on market creation that a fast follower can piggy back on for free?
They're spending an awful lot for control of a market that is expected to disappear within a few years when self driving cars mature.
Of course, they are aware of it and are investing in being a leader in that market - but they're fighting with global giants over there, not the local Taxi outfits.
If anything, I could see Uber being one of the first adopters of self-driving cars when they're ready. They're already investing in it heavily, hiring away 40 robotics researchers from CMU to focus on it. [1] They want to corner the market, get everyone using Uber, and then eventually make the change to self-driving vehicles when they're ready.
As the article points out, the real question is whether Uber is making money in mature markets, such as San Francisco. If the mature markets aren't highly profitable, Uber is way overvalued.
They make 20% of every ride. What costs do they really have in a mature market? A bit of customer service and maintaining the app. I don't see how it could possibly do anything but print cash in mature markets.
So what's the model? Put the taxis out of business and then jack up the fares to what the taxis were? Who's winning, then, exactly? Not the consumer...
It's actually build a better service, give each user subsidized (or free) rides so they get to experience how much better the new service is, then stop handing out free rides like candy.
You are viewing it as a business that's flush with VC cash and assuming it will continue.
When cable TV was installed in the UK - thanks to US investment - they dug up almost every pavement in towns and cities nationwide, call centres were local to their customers, the technicians were actual skilled employees who worked in teams of several people.
Jump forward a decade or two. They are deeply in debt. Call centres are outsourced and often abroad. Technicians work for contractors and have nothing invested in the business they represent. If you live a few meters away from a cabled street then there's virtually no chance that they will hook you up.
Uber doesn't have to put taxis out of business, it's growing the market - getting a lot more people using taxi-like services. Both people who aren't willing to shell out how much cabs charge in their artificially restricted markets and people who've had shitty experiences with cabs in the past. Not to mention how poor taxi service is in the vast majority of US cities.
I personally use Uber because I hate calling a cab company, finding out it does or doesn't have a cab to send, figuring out the address I need it to come to, getting a very general estimate of when it'll be there (8-15 minutes), etc. With uber I drop the pin in the exact spot I want it, I know the minute my cab is there. If cab companies had an app like that, they'd have my business.
What I mean is that they typically give each user their first few rides for free. It's much closer to being a free trial than it is to being a sudden price hike.
I can see how an ad could pay for a visit to a web site, but how can you get an advertiser to pay enough for ads so that they pay for a few miles worth of power for a car (let's assume that it's an electric vehicle), plus a few miles worth of depreciation and maintenance?
The IRS currently allows a deduction of 57.5 cents per mile for business use of a vehicle. That's a ballpark figure for what the fuel and depreciation costs per mile.
I doubt that an electric car is that much cheaper per mile than a gas vehicle, since the battery is very expensive and needs to be replaced after some number of charge/discharge cycles. For a car that's used as a taxi 24 hours a day, you probably have to recharge daily, leading to frequent battery replacement. (A taxi can easily drive hundreds of miles every day - one round trip from midtown Manhattan to JFK airport is around 30 miles).
Even an electric self-driving vehicle requires periodic replacement of tires, shocks, etc. And a vehicle used by the public would probably require at least a daily cleaning of the interior. Plus, you're legally required to carry liability insurance (for damage you cause to other vehicles, people or property). Adding up all these expenses, it doesn't seem possible to break even by selling ads.
In theory if they can lower the costs substantially through innovation over the current taxi model they can grow the market out of private car usage. This would mean all parties (except car manufacturers) will benefit.
In transportation business major costs are vehicle depreciation/maintenance/consumables (fuel, insurance, tires, etc), wages and you can include domain specific expenses (insurance, driver health chek-ups).
* You can't reduce DS expenses. You can offload them to drivers, but that will still be reflected in prices
* You can reduce wage cost by eliminating administrative load by having tools (apps, backends) do the job. Considering the size of Uber they are just transfering wages from operators to engineers.
* You can't reduce wehicle depreciation. You can reduce maintenance costs by having own workshop. Taxi companies might have that, for Uber that would be next to impossible due to practical reasons. You can reduce operating costs by buying fuel/insurance/etc in bulk. Agin, easy for cabs, difficult for Uber (not impossible though).
The only place I see Uber can compete is having innovative algorithms route the cars by adjusting for projected demand. Unless they have huge army of dedicated drivers, drivers driving for multiple companies kind of defeats that advantage. currently Uber does compete by exploiting legal frameworks and not labeling their drivers as professionals and their service as transportation. This is not a major factor in operating costs though.
You noticed I said in theory - what you have raised is the practice :)
Personally I think a lot of Uber business model is hidden cost shifting onto the driver and society. Drivers are underestimating the true cost of being a Uber driver and society is losing out via inadequate insurance and tax avoidance. The drivers are not taking out the correct insurance and a lot of them are not declaring their income or collecting sales tax. I guess as long as it is all done on an app then it must be cool and OK.
I am not sure how much of an edge one can gain by doing demand prediction through algorithms. In large markets the patterns are fairly trivial (big game ended, everybody goes home; it's 5 pm in financial district, people are leaving work; busy time at the airport, bunch of flights arriving at once) and known to all participants.
My point was not about (officially or not) scheduled spikes in traffic. These are known for all parties in advance. I was talking more about organic traffic - Random Joe hailing a cab just because. And cabs generally just drive around expecting to catch the Random Joe wasting time/vehicle/fuel. Now if you can predict temporal/geographical density of Random Joes hailing a cab - well, you have an edge there simply by increasing utilisation rate. Is this even possible? Have no idea.
The valuation for Uber has got to be based on #2. Specifically that you can drive down wage costs by having a fleet of self driving cars. And that the current app/business model is just to get the app installed onto as many phones as possible.
You mean like how all the horse and buggy companies became highly successful car manufacturers? I can see the Uber logic - we will sell buggies now since we don’t have the technology to make cars and when the technology eventually arrives we will be able sell cars because we have such a great buggy customer network.
Self driving cars aren't coming tomorrow. They are years away. Maybe a decade. How long can uber coast on VC money before that happens? And then how do they guarantee dominance in the self-driving taxi market? Basing their value solely on this shoot-the-moon project is problematic.
What matters is passenger miles driven, not total number of unique car sales.
If you open up a new pocket of driving demand because it's easier to get a lift, then the total passenger miles driven goes up. Even more so if it is a pickup/dropoff model with 'empty miles'.
More miles driven->Cars worn out faster->more sales. More sales of likely generic cars less obsessed with expensive annual styling tweaks. More sales -> fewer models -> longer model runs = more profit.
Car companies would not be happy if fewer people decide to not own a car and just decide to ride share everywhere. More miles in this case mean few cars sold.
Uber is certainly aggressive and maintains their attitude throughout. I would like to see Lyft's financials compared to Uber's considering Uber's global dominance target and Lyft's decision to focus on US domestic [1].
I do wonder what will happen once Uber starts charging market rates. Right now, your ride is subsidized by Uber. Once it comes time to turn on the profits, you'll have to pay more - substantially more in some markets.
Will you still use Uber? Probably. But many who started using Uber instead of, say, taking their own car or using public transport, just might go back.
> I do wonder what will happen once Uber starts charging market rates.
That's an excellent question and the answer is it wont be cheap. That's why, in countries where Uber operates, a clear legal framework is needed so that Uber doesn't end up with a monopoly. If Uber is allowed to operate somewhere then anybody should be able to do that without the need for an army of lawyers and lobbyists or it's just replacing the old boss with a new boss and in the end nothing's going to change for the consumer. That's what I hate with the whole situation.
Private monopolies are largely unproblematic as they will be destroyed by more effective competitors eventually. I'm way more afraid of government monopoly. Point in case: The protectionism and government interference that has kept the taxi business shitty for so long.
Private monopolies are in some theoretical circumstances unproblematic because according to extremist free-market ideologues they are destroyed by more effective competitors. In reality they are broken up by governments, regulated into the ground, or destroy a nation/society, and they manage to make a society/market a whole lot worse before this long-term and extreme regulatory action obliterates them and fixes the problem.
How is "ride-sharing" any kind of natural monopoly? Uber can't lock in either drivers or riders.
They have to consistently provide a good experience for both drier and riders, who can switch literally by opening a different app on their phone.
Uber probably had the market strength to contractually demand that you couldn't be on the Lyft network while on the Uber network. If they had done that, they would have lock-in effects. Maybe they didn't because they were afraid of monopoly accusations.
> they manage to make a society/market a whole lot worse
I can imagine this argument holding true for resource-based businesses, say, oil and gas. I can't imagine a taxi services aggregator having that substantial an impact on a nation
You're right the argument is less strong for a non-natural monopoly, but Microsoft, say, when they had a monopoly, held back computing by years and we're still seeing the aftereffects of their monopoly; it has warped an entire industry in not only the US but the world.
I find it ironic that people are warning about 'oooh, Uber monopoly' when their business model is all about deconstructing actual government monopolies.
Uber already has competitors in major markets. The market has very low switching costs. A new competitor doesn't even have to educate the customer on what to expect, or how it works, or even how to find drivers. All this has now been worked out, so any price gouging can be easily competed with.
I can only conclude those who want to 'regulate' Uber for the 'betterment of society' are severely long Taxi licences, or are hardcore socialists who abhor any economic freedom of agency, or maybe both.
I can only conclude those who want to 'regulate' Uber for the 'betterment of society' are severely long Taxi licences, or are hardcore socialists who abhor any economic freedom of agency, or maybe both.
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Regulation of taxi services does exist for a reason other than corruption or general malfeasance. On the one hand, deregulation might increase competition and reduce fares. On the other, regulation might help to avoid price gouging or ride refusals. There's a coherent discussion to be had there.
Your shallow dismissals of all attempts as regulation as by 'hardcore socialists' or 'Taxi licenses' contributes absolutely nothing.
I'm talking about the ability of Uber to become a private monopoly. My comment about monopolies is meant to highlight the disconnect of people arguing they might form a monopoly when most places already have a monopoly.
Many countries, eg much of Europe, already have largely deregulated taxis, eg the complaints in London are just about the legal requirement to declare the fare upfront for private hire vehicles. In Sweden taxis are completely deregulated. People seem to assume that the situation is like the US taxi monopolies everywhere.
You bring up an interesting point, though - Uber could very much suffer from being the first to break through all of these regulations, only for a second comer to step in, debt-unhindered, and destroy their business.
This is actually something that is pretty straightforward to find out (assuming you actual want to know the answer). You just jack up the prices in a single market and see how much price elasticity there is.
My feeling is that the taxi-like market is a commodity market, but if I was going to invest at a $50 billion valuation I would want Uber to tell me that have looked into this in detail and can provide me with some hard data.
Yes it should be possible to modelled this out from the surge data. Of course you have to be careful doing this sort of modelling since you might find your model won’t support a $50 billion valuation.
No it should not. Because surge pricing requires supply crunch. But the moment they jack day to day prices you will have supply glut. And creating an Uber like app for just one city is not that hard.
Surge pricing allows you to model the price elasticity of the service. You can do all sorts of experiments and regression analysis on this data. If I had access to the data I could tell you exactly how elastic the pricing is.
The problem is not that you can't extract the price elasticity from the surge pricing of an Uber-like service, it is that you might not like the answer. Down rounds are not nice to founders.
Uber is making money off of each ride. "Money they charge the end user" minus "money they pay to the driver" is a value that increases significantly each quarter.
They have a bunch of other expenses, but those are expected to lessen in the future. Training (of both customers and drivers) should fall to near-zero, for example, over time.
There is evidence of this all over the press if you want to search for it. Take for instance The 'non-profit' "People's Uber" in China. They guaranteed wages for drivers and capped rates at auto rickshaw prices. This spring in Guangzhou I was taking 20 minute rides and paying around $1.50. It was ridiculous. While they were trying to maintain a foothold in Germany as more than a legal taxi hailing service (which is what they are now, competing with apps like mytaxi) they were limiting prices to legal Mitfahrgelegenheit (private ride share) prices. What was normally a 70€ cab ride between Düsseldorf and Köln cost 12€ (Less than taking the regional train for 1 person though the driver was paid much more of course. This went on for months.
I'm sure they are making money in markets where the existing taxi service was truly dreadful and where they don't have to compete on price and have been able to raise their rates to on par or higher than taxi rates, but they are definitely paying a price for expansion.
> they are definitely paying a price for expansion.
Of course, that's the whole reason to raise capital (so you can expand rapidly on a model which has attractive unit economics).
The point is that we don't have to speculate about what will happen once Uber raises prices. Just look at their mature markets, where pricing is on par with taxis, and you can see a profitable model.
I think that the profitability in mature markets has a lot to do with how sane existing taxi regulations are. Even with the subsidized prices in Berlin, taxis there are so plentiful and relatively affordable that aside from heavily subsidized rides Uber didn't have a huge edge over the taxi+mytaxi combo. It was never really faster to get a car via Uber than with MyTaxi, or more often than not, just walking to the street and waiting 1-2 minutes. They've never had close to the same participation from Taxi drivers as MyTaxi and others have had. Incidentally, most Berlin Taxis are independent and pay only a small fee to get licensed. They must carry commercial insurance, but almost no one thinks that is unreasonable.
It's ironic because if the cities where Uber is madly profitable actually responded to their criticisms and reformed their protectionist taxi regulations, Uber would lose much of their pricing edge to competition.
I dont think Uber is going anywhere soon. It has such a strong brand. Everyone I know trusts uber a lot more than there local cab companies.
They seem to be following the same pattern as large supermarkets:
- Move into an unserved area
- Offer goods/services at rock-bottom prices
- As competition reduces, increase prices and squeeze suppliers
- Profit, profit, profit!
An interesting example of this is Tesco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesco), who at one point were receiving one pound in seven spent in the UK. According to the wiki, that's now widened to one in every ten pounds.
The other interesting angle is that Tesco have been hugely profitable until this year, when they reported a loss of nearly six billion pounds. We'll have to see what happens next.
That's odd to me. Everyone I know thinks that Uber is shady and uses Lyft. Very people use Flywheel in SF as it just gets you a cab. But at least a cab driver (generally) knows where they're going, rather than relying on GPS because they're from the East Bay and don't know the city at all.
Uber's app history of tracking people is also not great. I use Lyft when I can. Last time I used Uber was in New Orleans, and even then I used the mobile web version.
The competition would likely be smaller competitors chipping away at juicy chunks, like Wingz focusing exclusively on airport rides (and competing with UberX on price) and Blacklane promising higher level of service at cheaper rate than Uber Black.
That post is missing the network effects. Put another way switching costs are high not because it is easy to bootstrap these but the fact that to switch, your entire social circle would need to switch around the same time.
It is no use half switching, if you have an app which has 50% of your friends and another with 100% which will you use? * that for every person and your retention drops and you end up with a feedback loop which is negative(churn) instead of positive (growth).
Now with Uber the switching costs are low (currently), you can just as easily request a lyft and drivers can use both apps.
The long term play of uber though will make it difficult for others to compete since network effects will kick in. If you have more passengers and drivers, it makes it that much easier for you to do real ridesharing I. E 2-3 people per a car driving down costs. Once you add additional revenue streams like last mile delivery + passengers + ondemand x and I can see why they are investing this much in owning the market.
I thought the whole point (of the post) was the network effects can effectively be bootstrapped from the mobile phone book.
if all drivers (who aren't uber employees) and all users can be part of multiple networks (bootstrapped from mobile phonebook and almost zero cost to both) how can uber maintain a dominant position?
Yeah, I just tested myself: can I name any of the prominent taxi companies in Sydney (where I live)? Maybe; is Silver Service the name of one, or is it a type of taxi? I'm not sure, but it's the only one that comes to mind.
That's probably the reason why I don't know the brands. I don't care; they're all about the same.
I think icpmacdo's comment stands, though. Uber have built an amazingly strong brand that people do care about. To the point where I am willing to wait a few minutes for an UberX to reach me rather than hailing one of the taxis passing by.
Even though UberX is a bit inconsistent in quality, it is at least consistently better than taxis.
What is interesting is that those volumes put Uber no where close to a monopoly player in the taxi/"car lifts" market. They are just 1 player and I think people use them because their app is cooler than calling a taxi by phone or razing your hand. I don't know, I wouldn't put money on them. Maybe their app, who knows, could be useful for taxis once uber goes away?
Ultimately Uber wants to corner the market on providing automated cars. Having drivers is just the stepping stone. If you are synonymous with providing rides then when automated transportation is available, everything thinks of you.
Of course, Uber could hunker down in one market and start making a profit. But they are trying to form a global monopoly in all the major urban markets. New capital is going to dry up pretty soon unless they are prepared to go public. Either Uber has to lower its sights to limited regional domination, or it has to go public. Given their MO I would think they are preparing for the latter option.
I think Uber thinks lighting piles of cash on fire is somehow a competitive edge builder, when the more money they burn faster, the bigger the return they need to make on a razor thin margin, zero barrier to entry market with no network effects. As soon as they've knocked down the walls of regulation and stretched out thin and begin to make any profit at all, it will signal other new entrants. The newer entrants are more likely to succeed thanks to the road that has been paved by Uber. Uber's solution: burn more money acquiring unprofitable new market threats if they miraculously make enough cash if they get another boatload of naive investors.
Afterall, Uber does not own the cars or drivers. As soon as somebody else is willing to give them a better cut or or they are able to get more money per customer, they will always go there.
tl;dr: Uber has absolutely no sustainable long-term economic moat built around it and lighting cash on fire may drive current competitors out, it will not work as soon as they attempt to recoup those costs (profit signals market entrants, uber does not own drivers, cars, or customers due to zero cost of switching - it's just a fucking app).
Q1.12: 1.4M / 3.4M Q2.12: 2.1M /2.3M Q3.12: 4.3M / 5.4M Q4.12: 8.2M / 7.0M Q1.13: 12.9M / 7.3M Q2.13: 19.3M / 8.1M 2013 (total): 104M / 56M Q1.14: 45.6M / 52.2M Q2.13: 56.9M / 108.8M
Rev grew faster than losses consistently all through 2012 and 2013 which is really amazing (2013 is when Uber jumped from a 330M valuation to a 3.5B valuation so investors noticed too)...then losses abruptly charged ahead in 2014 (see data pulled below).
Uber launched China in Q1 of 2014 - they are basically betting huge on China / India, and smartly being very clear to their investors that the $$ is for that very costly cause, so they can earmark the cash they are burning for international expansion as "meant to be burned." Also, if the bet goes the wrong way, they can (sort of) cleanly write it off as a failed (billion dollar) project, and ask investors to focus on their (hopefully by then) cash-cow business in the US.
Burn is all about international expansion, which is SUPER expensive, especially at the rate they are attempting. There is an insane learning curve that costs a lot of money to get on the other side of (hiring, culture, regulations, consumers, marketing are all different in each country - not to mention the fact that local competitors have all those in line already!) - look at pretty much any major US company that has attempted to succeed in China.
Good luck!