To riders, the cheap fairs, up-from-pricing, cashless payment, app experience, and on-demand pickups are substantial upgrades over taxis and their antiquated dial-in dispatch systems.
To others, Uber is a public nuisance that has caused greater traffic congestion, disruption, and pollution in cities. For some drivers, Uber is a useful gig where they can make money working flexible hours.
For others, Uber is an exploitative middleman who has continuously raised prices, lowered payouts, and provided inadequate benefits, support, and protections to drivers as independent contractors.
The controversy extends internally as Uber has been rocked with scandals, dodging regulation, intimidating journalists, and covering up employee harassment.
Uber公司因涉嫌丑闻、规避监管、恐吓记者和掩盖员工骚扰而备受争议。
The purpose of this episode is not to rehash Uber's checkered past, but instead to assess Uber's profitability. In a sea of other unprofitable cash-burning tech startups, whether or not Uber specifically is profitable seems like something that shouldn't matter to most of us.
But Uber is more than just an app to get a ride or food delivered. As the most prominent and well-funded startup in the past decade, Uber is the largest living embodiment of Silicon Valley.
Uber is one of the few if not the only tech startup in history to raise over $25 billion and still not turn a profit after 13 years of operations. The only other company to share this privilege is WeWork, the infamous co-working space provider.
The exposure of WeWork has reduced the company to nothing more than a penny stock, and its failures have been conveniently blamed on Adam Newman, but not on the venture capitalist that propped up the Ego Maniac founder.
When it became clear that manufacturing was never coming back to the West, Silicon Valley venture capitalists turned to software, talking up its ability to disrupt industries and create new businesses.
当制造业不可能再回到西方时,硅谷风投家们转向了软件,强调软件颠覆行业和创造新的商业机会的能力。
Inspired by Amazon and eBay, venture capitalists streamed of applying their successful platform business model to realms beyond just books and secondhand goods.
The story goes like this, you build a software platform that connects supply and demand for an offline service. You take a cut of every transaction that occurs on your platform. With enough transactions at scale, your cut as a middleman will go from millions to billions.
As an online platform without physical assets, you would enjoy high profit margins and radically like cost structures as there's no marginal cost and software to serve the next customer at scale. The only real cost is developing the software.
The biggest B2C startups of the past decade, Airbnb, Instacart, DoorDash and Uber, are all services built on the same, fundamental, on-demand, online to offline platform business model.
But Uber and these companies take it a step further with a sharing economy and gig work, where everyday people use personal assets like their cars, homes, or bicycles to render services on-demand and make money flexibly. Everyone has heard this story before.
Airbnb disrupts hotels because it doesn't own buildings. DoorDash disrupts food delivery because it doesn't own restaurants or hire the couriers. Uber disrupts transportation because it doesn't own any cars.
Uber was considered to be the most revolutionary out of the bunch as its adoption was most visible. The company was even written into business textbooks as a formidable example of tech disruption.
From 2013 to 2018, startups around the world emulated Uber, burning millions in an attempt to apply the same on-demand, online to offline gig worker platform business to as many markets as possible. Flowers, valet parking, laundry, medication, massages, alcohol, and even cookies were all on-demand services available at a tap and brought to you through gig workers.
Many of these Uber for X startups have collapsed or quietly disappeared. And despite the hype and their IPOs, Airbnb, DoorDash, and Uber have never once achieved profitability at any point in their history.
许多Uber for X初创公司已经倒闭或悄悄地消失了。尽管有炒作和IPO(首次公开募股)的影响,但Airbnb、DoorDash和Uber在它们历史上从未一次实现过盈利。
If Uber becomes profitable, it will be crucial validation for venture capitalists that on-demand B2C platforms can indeed become sustainable businesses with time. Uber's profitability would also validate Silicon Valley's controversial winner-take-all approach of destroying fair competition through subsidies.
When a playbook goes like this, you raise a multi-million or multi-billion dollar war chest. You buy adoption by offering your product or services at subsidized prices.
当策略是这样时,你需要筹集数百万或数十亿美元的资金,通过提供低价产品或服务来促进市场接受。
You lose money but gain market share on every transaction. Your competition has no chance because they can't offer the same low prices as you do without going out of business. They end up going out of business anyways as you steal their customers.
Once you've amassed enough market share to become the monopoly, you raise prices, and by then there's no one left for customers to go to. Uber popularized this playbook, burning billions to create an artificial price advantage over taxis. It was a sole fact that Uber had billions to burn that drove its early adoption, where drivers earned thousands of dollars every week, and passengers paid $20 for 30-minute rides.
These artificially achieved fairs and inflated driver payouts pulled in supply and demand. Uber, in short, would not have achieved the popularity, growth, and dominant market share that it enjoys today without these billion dollar subsidies. As fairs have increased and driver payouts have decreased, the subsidies are less lavish but still exist to this day.
While this episode is centered on Uber, the greater story is about what the company represents. If the most well-funded start-up in history during the greatest bull market can't turn a profit, then no one can. And since Airbnb, DoorDash, and many other B2C tech companies are all based on the same on-demand, online to offline, sharing economy gig-worker platform business model, if Uber can't hack it, then neither can they.
If Uber becomes a penny stock, it would expose Silicon Valley's pump and dump schemes, and the tale of software eating the world has nothing more than a fallacy, which would be a scandal greater than Sandbankman-Freed and FTX. In this episode we'll cover Uber, the strategies it's using to keep up appearances, and how far away the company really is in its desperate march to profitability.
Uber has made questionable decisions over the years, but the company was not prepared for the onslaught in the public markets in 2022 that very few people saw coming. JP Morgan reports that retail investors are down on average 44%, but the biggest firms in the world are saying that this doesn't have to be the new normal. Goldman Sachs recently published a report stating that the idea allocation for stocks has shrunk from 60% to around 45%.
This is where Masterworks, a leading investment platform and the sponsor of this episode comes in. So what does Goldman Sachs recommend you do with that difference in order to salvage your stolen returns? It's surprising to hear that Goldman Sachs states that FineArt can protect your purchasing power even in the face of rising prices. It's so resilient that even in 2022, the average FineArt piece is selling for 26% more at auction. FineArt has even outpaced the S&P 500 for the past 26 years by 131%.
Now if you're looking to diversify your portfolio with FineArt, business insiders said that one platform should be the go-to. Masterworks. We've talked about Masterworks in the past a few times because of how their securitizing art into legal, tangible investments is a form and innovation in itself. Masterworks qualifies paintings with the SEC, turning legendary art into an actual investment for a fraction of the full price.
You can view all offering circulars on their website or at the Edgar database linked in the description. Today, Masterworks has had a total of 8 exits with 5 of them in this year alone. Masterworks last three exits delivered 17, 21, and 33% net returns. One of those was as recent as a few weeks ago for a 17.8% net return. With nearly 600,000 members, Masterworks has been offering a new painting every week as shares have sold out in minutes in the past.
But you can get priority access to their new offerings just by going to masterworks.art slash modern MBA or by clicking the link in the description. Thank you to Masterworks for supporting modern MBA and making this episode possible. Assessing a company's profitability is usually as easy as looking at annual operating margin and net income.
If we map out Uber's revenue, operating income and net income, we see a continuous growth in overall earnings, enormous operating losses, and fluctuating net losses. Based on these conventional metrics, Uber appears to have been profitable at least once in its history, going from a loss of $4 billion in 2017 to a positive net income of $997 million in 2018. The company appears to be closing the gap once again, coming up just half a billion dollars shy of profitability in 2021.
But the numbers don't add up, especially in 2016, 2018, and 2021, where Uber's multi-billion dollar operating losses magically improved to significantly smaller net losses. When we look closer, there are two items buried between operating income and net income. There's income from discontinued operations and gain from business divestitures. Both of these items inflate Uber's bottom line by buildings.
In 2016, Uber exited China after a failed war of attrition with D.D. to see who could offer the biggest subsidies and win over the most drivers and riders. To get Uber to leave China even faster, D.D. gave 52 million shares of its stock to Uber. In return, Uber gave D.D. its Chinese operations and promised to stay out of China for the next seven years.
In 2016, venture capitalists were pumping up private valuations of ride hailing companies around the world to astronomical levels and D.D. was no different. D.D. had just raised a $7 billion series B that valued the fast growing Chinese startup at $28 billion with a share price of $115. With 52 million shares valued at $115 each, Uber was given $6 billion worth of D.D. stock to leave China.
In reality, this value of D.D.'s equity was nothing more than funny money. D.D.'s shares were worthless, non-tradable securities that could only be liquidated upon IPO. There's no guarantee that a company can maintain its private valuation and equity value when it goes public. The $150 share price had been reached in private by venture capitalists who were eager to pump up D.D.'s valuations in hopes of a future blockbuster IPO.
Yet after paying off its outstanding liabilities in China, Uber immediately recognized the remainder of D.D.'s shares that year's income, even though these shares were only worth that much in the private market and could not actually be liquidated. This accounting trick allowed Uber to inflate its bottom line. By recognizing $2.8 billion of D.D. stock as quote additional income, Uber reduced its $3.2 billion operating loss in 2016 to a much smaller net loss of $300 million.
Uber repeated the same trick in 2018. The company found itself at another race to zero in Russia and Southeast Asia. Billions of dollars were wasted fighting local competition in another long war of attrition to see which startup would last the longest operating at negative margins and offering the biggest subsidies to win over as many customers and drivers as possible.
Once again, it was Uber who blinked first. Uber pulled out of Russia, but not before pocketing 38% of stock worth $954 million at the time in a merger with the Moscow-based Yandex taxi. In Southeast Asia, Uber exited with a 23% stake worth $2.2 billion at the time in the Singapore-based Grab. The combined value of these private shares allowed Uber to magically convert a $3 billion operating lost in 2018 to a positive net income of $997 million.
When Uber ex-pulled out of India in 2021, Uber pocketed $154 million worth of equity from Zomato and recognized those shares as income. Uber then sold off its European freight business to a German startup in exchange for their shares that were worth $77 million at the time. When Uber sold off itself driving division that same year, the company took a 26% equity stake in the buyer Aurora worth $1.6 billion at the time. Uber once again recognized the net combined value of all these private shares as additional income to inflate the bottom line, turning a $3.8 billion operating loss in 2021 into a $496 million net loss.
Every single one of these companies, D.D., Aurora, Zomato, and Grab have since debuted on the public markets and have seen their once lofty private valuations and equity wiped out. Aurora IPO'd in 2021 with an opening price of $10 a share. The company today is in danger of being delisted with a current share price of $1. D.D., IPO'd in 2021, but when placed under investigation by regulators chose to de-list. The Chinese company lasted less than a year on the New York Stock Exchange and is currently an over-the-counter penny stock. Grab debuted on NASDAQ in 2021 and these days is worth just $3 a share. Zomato went public in 2021 and today is valued at a little over $0.50 a share.
With travel restrictions lifted, Uber is now spinning a narrative that based on recent all-time highs in adjusted EBITDA, the company is well on its way to being profitable. The disclaimer that Uber conveniently hides is that adjusted EBITDA is a non-conventional, non-gap metric that doesn't follow established accounting standards. It's a metric that Uber has created for itself.
Uber defines adjusted EBITDA as net income with special exclusions of 13 expenses. These special exclusions reduce Uber's losses by billions to make the business appear healthier to outsiders. To demonstrate, Uber posted a $5.2 billion quarterly net loss in 2019, but when adjusted EBITDA is applied, the numbers magically get better. That $5.2 billion net loss in 2019 turns into an adjusted EBITDA loss of $650 million. In 2020, a $1.8 billion quarterly loss turned into an adjusted EBITDA loss of just $837 million.
Now in 2022, Uber is presenting a net loss of $9.7 billion as a positive adjusted EBITDA of $1.05 billion. Between conventional net income and the custom non-regulated adjusted EBITDA, it should be no surprise that it's adjusted EBITDA that Uber promotes heavily to investors and media. It's only in Uber's accounting fantasies and non-gap measures that the company is profitable. By all conventional principles and regulated financial reporting standards, Uber is still unprofitable.
The apples don't fall far from the tree. The only other businesses that have devised their own metrics and promote adjusted EBITDA as a measure profitability are Airbnb and DoorDash, tech companies with the same platform business model as Uber. These accounting tricks of recognizing inflated non-public illiquid stock as income and adjusted earnings are not illegal but are still highly misleading.
Uber today has two big businesses. It has its classic rides, where a gig driver takes you from 0.8 to 0.0 and Uber eats for food delivery. Today, Uber blends both deliveries and passenger rides into a single aggregate number of trips. Even the number of drivers on Uber are a mystery. It's difficult to understand why the number of deliveries, rides, and drivers on the platform should be kept as company's secrets, especially when the same company is arguing that it needs to scale to reach profitability. As a result, we have to dig into the strategy and calculate the unit economics ourselves to understand Uber's real endgame and hidden margins.
Putting aside these accounting tricks, the software platform is a simple business to understand. You take a percentage of the gross value of every transaction as the middleman. As the platform, you're responsible for generating demand and providing supply to match that demand. Platforms like Uber, DoorDash, and Airbnb make money in two ways. The first is to scale demand so that you can have as many transactions occurring on your platform as possible. The second is to increase your commission so you take a bigger percentage of every transaction. The more transactions that take place, the higher your commission, and the more money you'll make as a platform.
In Uber's case, their situation is a little more complex as they're the ones who determine the fair price of every ride from 0.8 to 0.0. In comparison, food prices on DoorDash are set by the restaurants and Airbnb hosts set the nightly rates themselves. If Uber raises the prices of rides to the point where Uber is more expensive than a taxi, then demand will decline. If Uber takes such a high commission that drivers feel like they're no longer fairly compensated, then those drivers will find jobs elsewhere and Uber will lose supply.
The playbook for the company since its founding has always been to scale first and worry about profitability later. In 2010-2016, under Travis Kalanick, Uber's only goal was to grow as fast as possible. The company seized every opportunity to evade regulation and to operate in as many cities and countries as possible, even if local authorities had deemed the service illegal. Backed by a multi-billion dollar war chest, Travis was a believer that the ends justify the means. His vision was to build Uber into an unregulated monopoly to amass as many drivers and riders around the world as possible in the shortest time, even if that meant operating at negative margins, and then trust that profits would come with scale.
Dara Krozwasehi was appointed the new CEO in 2017 to repair the company's image after a series of high-profile scandals. In his six plus years at Uber, Dara has made many sweeping changes like embracing regulation, establishing passenger safety tools, and restoring trust with drivers, initiatives that have been completely shunned by his predecessor. But the one thing that Dara did in touch was Uber's path to profitability. At IPO, Dara more or less restated the same vision that Travis had pounded since the founding of Uber.
In 2019, Uber was already the largest and most recognized ride-hailing platform in the world, facilitating 14 million trips a day in 700 cities across six continents and customers only waited five minutes on average to be picked up. But this wasn't enough. Quote, our strategy is to create the largest network in each market, so we have the greatest liquidity network effect which we believe leads to a margin advantage. If we remove the buzzwords, Dara's point is that Uber needs to keep scaling to reach profitability.
The company needs to keep subsidizing rides and deliveries on its platform to keep growth. In the future, once Uber reaches enough scale, then the platform, in theory, will no longer require subsidies. All discounts, promotions, and incentives will then be turned off for riders and drivers alike. And at that point, the spread between the historically subsidized below-cost price and the true above-cost price will become Uber's profit margin.
There's some weird logic here. This vision assumes that people are not price sensitive to Uber and that Uber as a service is inelastic. This is a bizarre assumption to make as one doesn't have to travel frequently to see crowds of people huddled over at airport terminals in the rain, at live events or bars, waiting for surge pricing to go down before calling an Uber. These same people are often flicking between Uber and Lyft and booking whichever app gives them the cheapest price first. On the supply side, veteran drivers do the same thing. They strategically wait for hot spots to appear before going online and they optimize their shifts for the most profitable times and areas.
The second aspect that's weird is the underlying assumption that once the platform grows to a certain scale, it won't need to rely on subsidies. But since subsidies are explicitly deemed as essential to help Uber grow and scale, then how could the same platform be viable in the future without subsidies if low prices and negative margins were needed to grow in the first place?
Annual gross bookings for Uber rides grew significantly from $18 billion in 2016 to $49 billion in 2019, but even this was not enough to achieve profitability. Gross bookings represent the total dollar value of all rides booked on Uber. The majority of every ride is paid to the driver and the remainder is retained by Uber for its commission. Gross bookings for Uber rides don't include tips, which are optional and pass through info from the customer to the driver.
In 2019, Uber kept $10 billion as revenue and paid out the remaining $39 billion to drivers with a take rate of 21.5%. Take rate is the official term for the cut that Uber takes off each ride as the middleman. In 2016, Travis's last year as CEO, take rate was below 20%. It was under Dara that Uber began increasing its take rate, paying less to drivers and keeping more of the fare for itself. In 2019, Uber's total expenses came to $21 billion.
If Uber's goal was to break even, the company would have needed a take rate of 43.5% just to offset costs. Uber drivers that year were publicly protesting for better pay and demanding lawmakers cap Uber's commission at 10%. Given that Uber's actual take rate that year was at 21%, increasing take rate to 43% would have been catastrophic in literally driving away supply.
The other lever that Uber could pull would be to raise prices. If riders pay higher prices, then Uber could keep the same take rate to break even provided sufficient gross bookings. But with the take rate of 21%, Uber would need to double its gross bookings from $49 billion to $100 billion. Such a feat would require Uber to either double its current customer based or double prices. For such a high profile company with billions to burn, doubling users is not necessarily impossible but would still be extremely expensive and take years.
To Dara the answer was simple. Rides are Uber's core product but the subsidies were not enough to drive the volume needed to break even. The platform desperately needed more volume and higher gross bookings. To make money, Uber needed to keep scaling.
Their strategy in 2019 was to expand into delivery and move beyond rides to bring more transactions to the platform. To appease drivers, Dara launched a driver's reward program for supply side retention. Uber Pro offered drivers discounts on gas and free access to online courses for higher education. The company partnered with her and rental agencies to provide vehicles to gate workers who wanted to earn money driving for Uber but didn't have a car of their own. On the demand side, Uber rewards was launched in order to boost order frequency and encourage brand loyalty amongst customers.
他们的 2019 年战略是扩展到外卖领域,并超越出行,将更多的交易引入平台。为了安抚司机,达拉推出了一项供应端留存的司机奖励计划。Uber Pro 为司机提供加油折扣和免费的在线高等教育课程。公司与合作伙伴和租赁机构合作,为想要在 Uber 上赚钱但没有车的门口工人提供车辆。在需求端,Uber 奖励计划推出,旨在提高订单频率,鼓励客户品牌忠诚度。
Users could now earn points through rides and Uber eats orders to unlock price protection, priority pickups, and free delivery. Uber rewards was a success in its first year, with 27% penetration into the customer base. The 25 million users across the United States, Latin America and Australia who enrolled in Uber rewards were twice as likely to use both Uber rides and Uber eats the non-enrolled customers. This data would give Dara the confidence in the cross-sell super-at-vision that would later become the backbone of Uber strategy.
Dara continued to invest in rides despite signals that the product had reached maturity in the United States. Greater subsidies would not drive further engagement. Uber comfort was launched as a way to increase gross bookings as a higher priced option to the standard Uber X. Uber also invested in an enterprise sales team to push Uber for business and to capture corporate travelers who had the budget for high priced, high margin, Uber comfort, and Uber Black services. Meanwhile Germany, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, Spain and Italy were designated as the six must-win countries for Uber rides international business.
尽管信号表明该产品已在美国市场成熟,但达拉仍然继续投资于乘车行业。更高的补贴并不能带来更多的用户。为增加毛收益,Uber推出了更高价位的Uber Comfort服务,作为标准Uber X的替代品。Uber还投资建立了一个企业销售团队,旨在推广Uber for Business,并获取有预算的企业旅客,让他们选择高价高利的Uber Comfort和Uber Black服务。与此同时,德国、阿根廷、日本、韩国、西班牙和意大利被指定为Uber rides国际化业务的六个必胜国家。
The product that Dara was most bullish on in 2019 was Uber Eats. Food delivery in his mind would bring in the volume and transactions that the platform needed to reach profitability. He envisioned rides and Uber Eats as separate entry points to pull customers into the platform.
Once customers were engaged, the company could regularly cross-sell rides, eats, and any other service on its platform for free. Japan proved Dara's point as a population that had embraced Uber Eats but was resistant towards ride sharing as the largest taxi market in the world. Uber Eats popularity in Japan Dara believed would organically drive business for rides over time.
Uber Eats was young but growing quickly thanks to its aggressive subsidies. Gross bookings for Uber Eats grew nearly five times from $3 billion in 2017 to $14 billion in 2019. To maintain growth, the company lowered its take rate for Uber Eats in 2019, taking less commission than it had in years prior to pulling restaurants and couriers.
Quote, our strategy for Eats is simple. To invest aggressively in markets where we're confident we can establish or defend a number one or number two position over the 18 months. We think ultimately the mature business model for Uber Eats will have take rates significantly higher than the take rates that you see now. In India and South Korea, markets where food delivery competition was at its fiercest, Uber Eats take rate was negative. Dara was content not just losing money on every delivery but literally paying for orders just to claim market share. Months later, Dara would wave the white flag and pull Uber Eats out of India and South Korea.
But while food deliveries are high-frequency transactions, their order sizes are small. Dara kept its foot on the gas by acquiring corner shop, an online grocery delivery service based in Latin America. He saw not just synergy between restaurants and supermarkets but also an opportunity to drive gross bookings with the naturally high basket sizes of groceries.
If ride users could be turned into Eats users, Eats users could be turned into ride users and both ride and Eats users could then eventually turn into grocery users there might just be enough volume to reach profitability. There were other bets like Uber Freight which matched truck drivers to pick up cargo and jumps dockless electric scooters that could be rented out by the minute. Neither of these businesses lived up to expectations.
Uber Freight's European business was sold off in 2021 to a German startup. Gross bookings for a jump reached $75 million in 2019 but the business cost $160 million a year to operate. When electric scooters died out a year later, Uber quickly dumped jump to Lyme at a loss.
Yet there was no bet bigger than autonomous driving. Like its peers, crews and Waymo, Uber's self-driving division was a money burning pit with few results. Uber regularly sought outside investors to soften ATG's burn rate and treated the self-driving division like a startup with its own private valuation.
In 2019, Toyota and Softbank swooped in with a billion dollars to extend ATG's runway by a few more quarters. Uber would sell off ATG a year later in 2020 admitting that level 5 autonomous driving was many years and many more billions away from reality.
In 2020, the pandemic crushed rides but intensified demand for food delivery. Uber rides gross bookings dropped to $26 billion but as rides collapsed, the eats business took off growing to $30 billion in gross bookings in a single year. Dara saw an opportunity to claim market share from DoorDash and other food delivery only competitors who could not afford to cut their commissions.
Uber intentionally cut its take rate on Uber eats orders to a record low 13% to win over even more restaurants and customers. Dara used the downtime to push a new vision to investors. Uber would never achieve enough volume to reach profitability through rides alone.
The company needed to transform from a mobility app into a super app where people log on and see not just rides with 5 minute pickups but also restaurants, groceries, pharmacies, convenience stores, supermarkets, retailers and everyday essentials delivered on demand within 30 minutes.
Delivery Dara pitched was no longer a luxury but a utility. If Uber could get to a point where it was fulfilling daily needs, that would give them a chance at the frequency, scale and gross bookings needed to reach profitability. Uber required postmates to boost retailers on its platform and a year later picked up Drizly to add alcohol delivery to its suite of services.
Breath was the missing ingredient to scale. To capture every possible transportation transaction, users around the world could now request rides on Uber in not just standard four doors, stands and SUVs and minivans but also rickshaws, motorcycles, limousines and even local taxi cabs. Even though Uber had sold off its electric bicycle and scooter division, those products are still available on the app today. Any and all transactions were needed.
Inspired by Amazon Prime, Uber launched Uber Pass, its first ever membership program where for a monthly fee of 2499, members could unlock savings and perks across rides and eats. Dara saw memberships as critical for driving subscription revenue and encouraging greater frequency and higher order sizes. The Super App story continued in 2021, quote, not only do we see our rides business driving delivery and eats, but we expect to see retail, delivery and eats then driving grocery, then driving Drizly and alcohol delivery, etc. Kind of a chain reaction between businesses.
The rides app is acting like a free marketing engine for our delivery business. In many markets, especially suburbs and smaller towns, Uber eats is sometimes the first way these customers engage with Uber. This cross pollination applied not just to demand but also supply. Dara's endgame is for Uber to become the Super App for gate workers to earn as much as they want however they want. While other apps will only give them one type of job, Uber would be a unique platform in his mind where the high continuous volume and diversity of work, delivering takeout, picking up essentials, delivering groceries, driving passengers, would net gate workers more consistent earnings with significantly less idle time. At this point, 25% of drivers on Uber were giving both rides to passengers and delivering food to doorsteps.
But despite how promising Dara's Super App vision might seem and how encouraging the results have been so far, a viable strategy doesn't change reality. Even if Uber covers the entire world, unit economics don't change. In 2021, Uber ride gross bookings recovered from $26 billion to $36 billion. But in order to attract drivers back to the platform, the company has had to cut its take rate down below 20%, the first time it has done so since 2016. Gross bookings for Uber eats grew from $30 billion to $52 billion a year over a year, but the company only marginally increased its take rate to 16%. Despite eclipsing rides, Uber did not up its take rate on food delivery to the expected and standard 20% plus.
For a company that believes that its services are inelastic and that scale leads to margin, it seems weird that Uber would be so sensitive to restoring its take rate back to pre-pandemic levels on a surging business, especially when the company is under pressure to prove profitability. The Super App story is Dara's tale for Wall Street and a long-term volume plate that will take years to materialize. When we take total gross bookings, total trips on platform and revenue over the past seven years, we can see how the company is brute forcing its way to short-term profitability.
Between 2016 and 2017, the price per trip magically dropped over 10% from $10.58 to $9.18. It's unlikely that customers around the world that year collectively decided to start taking shorter rides. The more likely explanation is subsidies. In order to ensure a successful IPO in 2019, Uber needed to show strong growth in the years leading up to its public debut. The best way to do that would be to artificially lower the price.
Unsurprisingly, this additional subsidy was effective. Uber was now cheaper than ever before and customers flocked to the service as gross bookings grew 78%, total trips on platform grew over 100%, and monthly active customers grew over 50% year over year. In the two years leading up to its IPO, Uber maintained the subsidy in the hopes of stimulating consistent growth. Price per trip in 2017, 2018 and 2019 hovered at around $9.50. But the platform, gross bookings, user base and trips did not grow in subsequent years at the same massive rates when the additional subsidy was first added between 2016 and 2017. Discounts as we theorized earlier have diminishing returns on growth.
Rather than drop the price another 10%, Uber had enough common sense to recognize that more subsidies would not be the answer. With COVID, Uber had no choice but to restore prices back to less discounted levels with the reduced supply and demand. The price per trip went up 22% from $9.41 in 2019 to $11.52 in 2020. Since the pandemic, the discounts have decreased with price per trip steadily increasing, going from $11.52 to $14.20 in 2021 and now $15.28 in 2022.
In the face of inflation, record gas prices and living costs, Uber would only be digging itself into a deeper grave if the app was still offering the same generous subsidies and artificially low pre-pandemic prices. Between 2016 and 2021, even as Uber prices went up, 79-80% of every trip was still being paid to the driver.
If we connect the dots, we now know that when Uber drivers were out publicly protesting about inadequate pay and predatory commissions between 2017 and 2019, they actually got their facts mixed up. Uber back then wasn't taking a bigger cut, its take rate never actually changed. Instead, Uber was charging customers less for the same trip to stimulate platform growth and to make the numbers look good before IPO.
Drivers suddenly found themselves earning less than before, only because the fares had been reduced by 10%, and the company had not informed anyone of its price manipulation. The 2022 numbers so far show that Uber is now diverting billions of dollars that normally went to drivers into its own pocket in a desperate race to prove its profitability.
Drivers are now earning 8% less than before, despite ride fares being at all time highs, and Uber's cut has increased by 53% from $2.74 per trip in 2021 to now $4.20 per trip in 2022. The company's take rate has jumped from 19% in 2021 to now nearly 30% in 2022.
Having just finished two work trips around the country, these numbers have added some much needed context to my recent Uber experiences. In LA, drivers would politely ask how much I paid for the ride and then reveal their earnings after ending the ride to show just how little they were making. As a long time Uber rider, I didn't believe them, but when a driver showed me on his phone that he earned less than $40 from a two stop hour long ride in traffic from downtown to LAX where I was charged $80, I was speechless.
Gale tripping is unpleasant, and more drivers these days seem to be pushing riders to make up for their lost earnings out of pocket. It's difficult to picture how drivers will stick around long enough for Dara's super app vision when Uber is now taking 30% of every trip for themselves. Take rates will only get higher in a recession and not lower.
On the demand side, it's just as hard to imagine users paying $60 to $80 for standard rides or ordering delivery, alcohol, groceries, and other essentials when the service fees for delivery cost just as much as the items themselves. Like in the case of DoorDash, if a company needs to rely on customer tips, to pay drivers a livable wage, if it needs billion dollar subsidies to grow, and it needs to reach some magical scale where everyone in the world needs to use the service every day, just for the company to be profitable, then perhaps that business shouldn't exist.
The on-demand online to offline platform business is a modern fairy tale spun by Silicon Valley. Value creation as a product of unsustainable subsidies and artificial discounting is not disruption, it's fraud.