Uber likes to keep the illusion that they aren't employing drivers, part of this means they don't record the full fare as revenue. Uber's revenue is just their take of the ride. The full amount of money is "gross bookings" which probably won't change a ton at first, but money actually going to Uber (revenue) will definitely surge.
> However, gross bookings is not the same as net revenue, which came in at $663.2 million in the first half of 2015, compared to $495.3 million in all of 2014. That's the amount Uber actually receives before costs but after it pays drivers their cut and accounts for promotions, driver incentives, and more. For example, Uber paid out $2.72 billion to driver contractors in the first half of 2015, just under 75% of bookings.
So in the first half of 2015 they had $3.63b in gross bookings, but just $663.2m in revenue. If you magically switched out all the drivers to robots revenue would match bookings which is a 5.5x boost.
If those numbers are true, I wonder how Uber list $4B in 2016? I guess I wrongly assumed they were basing revenue on actual gross bookings (which makes the losses more understandable).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/01/12/leaked-u...
> However, gross bookings is not the same as net revenue, which came in at $663.2 million in the first half of 2015, compared to $495.3 million in all of 2014. That's the amount Uber actually receives before costs but after it pays drivers their cut and accounts for promotions, driver incentives, and more. For example, Uber paid out $2.72 billion to driver contractors in the first half of 2015, just under 75% of bookings.
So in the first half of 2015 they had $3.63b in gross bookings, but just $663.2m in revenue. If you magically switched out all the drivers to robots revenue would match bookings which is a 5.5x boost.