
Leaked Uber Numbers Point to Over $1B Gross, $213M Revenue - samspenc
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/04/leaked-uber-numbers-which-weve-confirmed-point-to-over-1b-gross-revenue-213m-revenue/
======
zavulon
> “The surprising part is that Valleywag knowingly outed their own source.
> Valleywag actually knew the screenshot had identifying information of the
> individual leaker prior to them publishing this story,” Kalanick told
> TechCrunch in a statement. “We told Nitasha Tiku from Valleywag that we
> would protect her source from legal ramifications if they did not publish
> the document. Nitasha and Valleywag decided to publish anyways.

I've said it here before, and I'll say it again: ValleyWag/Gawker Media are
scum. This is just another entry in a long list of terrible things they do to
get pageviews.

~~~
untog
You cut it off a little early:

 _Editor John Cook told us that the screenshots did not, in fact, have any
identifying information._

 _“We didn 't publish any identifying information about the source of the
screengrab,” Cook says. “We don't know who sent us that shot, and neither does
Uber._

Now, I can't say which one of the two is telling the truth, but at least give
both sides of the story. Looking at the shots, I'm not sure what is personally
identifiable, though the bookmarks bar could give some clues.

And Travis's threat of legal action might just be hot air from him (which
isn't exactly unprecedented). After all, these numbers look very good for
Uber. I wouldn't want to be one of their competitors trying to raise a round
of funding right now.

~~~
zavulon
Look at the comment to the article:

> It's a shame when tech journalists don't understand tech. Of course, they
> outed their source. With the time stamp Uber can check which employees
> looked at that page at a particular time. They can then ask these employees
> [likely just one] whose computer they were using at that time to figure out
> who grabbed the screenshot and sold it to ValleyWag.

So it's either VW didn't realize this, or fully realized it and still outed
their source because they don't give a shit. Given their history of outing
their sources, even after specifically being asked not to, I think the latter
is much more likely.

~~~
untog
_With the time stamp Uber can check which employees looked at that page at a
particular time._

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that the Uber admin system logs every
user pageview. It may well do, but many home-grown systems (and it certainly
looks homegrown) don't bother with that level of detail. Certainly, if they
were that security conscious you'd think they'd also avoid allowing any
employee to see overall revenue figures.

~~~
boomzilla
Default web server set up would log all HTTP requests. It's trivial to see
which (internal) IP addresses connecting around that timestamp.

~~~
untog
It wouldn't be an internal address. As the article states, an Uber employee
logged on using their friend's laptop. I'd be surprised if they did that at an
Uber office.

~~~
potatolicious
I don't know any company - even small ones - that keep internal stuff like
that in the open. I'm willing to bet the Uber employee was on a VPN at the
time, which narrows the search considerably.

I doubt Uber was secure/paranoid enough that the timestamp will immediately
yield the leaker - but between webserver logs, VPN logs, etc etc, there's
probably enough information there to deduce the culprit, especially if this
occurred outside business hours.

~~~
untog
Given that the Valleywag article (flagged off HN of course) said that they
were able to load up the admin interface themselves (just not log in) I'm
going to say that yes, its open.

~~~
steveklabnik
I don't think it was flagged off, I think Valleywag is in the banned site
list.

------
meterplech
This leak is frustrating and sad. Many of us here applaud companies that work
to be transparent with their employees and would appreciate working for a
company that helped us understand metrics like this. It makes everyone feel
like they are a larger part of the company's success and learn more about how
to become founders themselves.

So, having an employee leak this out doesn't just hurt the culture at Uber
(which it undoubtably will at least shake), but lessens the likelihood that
any company that hopes to IPO or get bought will want to share their
performance metrics with employees.

------
jgalt212
Using GAAP (Groupon Accepted Accounting Principles), Uber's Gross is $10B.

------
chatmasta
I don't think they did this, but one smart way for Uber to protect screenshots
like this would be to include unique hex value colors depending which employee
is logged into the dashboard. i.e. a different shade of blue in one of the
cells for each employee who logs in. Then when the screenshot is published,
you just eyedrop the color and you know who leaked it.

~~~
zackbloom
Is it really worth the trouble? An employee could just copy-paste the data
into excel next time.

~~~
ericlewis
i actually think its a really simple solution for the problem at hand... its
also hard to detect. the leaker didn't bother this time, but why not have such
a simple mechanism in place?

~~~
bpicolo
Because it's trivial to change colors in the browser if one wanted to?

------
steven2012
Are Uber drivers employees of Uber? Or are they contracted out, or
independent, etc? If they aren't considered employees, then the $1B gross
would not really be gross revenues under GAAP.

~~~
tlrobinson
What else would you call that number? It's basically sales. Revenue is how
much they actually took in.

~~~
steven2012
If they are a marketplace where the drivers are independent entities from
Uber, then the money going to the drivers is not considered revenue under
GAAP. Which is why I ask whether or not the drivers are Uber employees or not.
I have no idea if they are or not. If they are Uber employees, then it is
legitimate revenue, but if there is some agreement where they remain
independent from Uber, then it would not, under GAAP.

Think about a site like Expedia, or Orbitz. They do not claim the entire price
of the ticket as their revenue, since that money is going directly to the
airlines. Their only revenue is the $10 they make from a ticket purchase.

This is the same issue that Groupon ran into pre-IPO where they were claiming
the entire deal as their revenue.

~~~
mschaecher
You're correct. Which is why most reports of revenue for Uber, or even Airbnb,
almost always use numbers in the hundreds of millions. However, both companies
have gross sales in the billions.

------
donjigweed
Sheesh, if I were Uber, I'd actually _want_ those numbers to be distributed,
far and wide.

A $3.5b valuation represents a downright paltry multiple by Silicon Valley
standards.

~~~
jacques_chester
Something is actually being bought and sold. This makes it easy to give a
"real" valuation, rather than plucking figures out of the air based on buzz.

That is why unprofitable companies can raise so much money. You can sell the
_hope_ that it will someday make some sort of money, somehow. How much? _Set
your imagination_ (and your chequebook) _free!_

------
doki_pen
Hate to make a meta post. But I submitted the link to the ValleyWag article
and it got killed.. Not sure why.

~~~
seiji
Valleywag is a banned domain like youtube and a hundred others.

~~~
kmfrk
BuzzFeed, too.

I believe the entire Gawker network is blocked.

------
swalkergibson
I am confused. Is $213M Uber's top line, or bottom line?

~~~
nlh
Uber collects the full amount of the fare, but keeps only 20% of it for itself
-- 80% goes right back out the door to the driver. Typically this is called
"Gross Revenue" vs. "Net Revenue"

So the $1B in gross revenue is the same as how a small car dealership books
gross revenue for the total $ value of the cars it sells, even though most of
that $ goes right back to the manufacturer ("cost of goods sold")

So $1B is their Gross Revenue (top top line), and $213M would be their Net
Revenue (bottom top line) -- then all expenses, etc. come out from there...

~~~
swalkergibson
Gotcha. I was not sure if they were going to book it as COGS or what exactly
they were doing there. Makes sense now! Thanks!

------
jpeg_hero
Wow. Giant numbers.

------
arasmussen
What the hell happened two weeks ago when revenue was 33% of the other
weeks...

~~~
puglr
It looks like that period is not reflecting a full week (hence the final "last
7 days" column).

~~~
elwell
Yeah, it's only covering two days according the "last updated" timestamp.

------
colinbartlett
Why is this news? How does the volume of business affect Joe Uber User or even
Sally Hacker in general? This doesn't seem even remotely interesting.

~~~
jmduke
It's raw financial information about a well-known and much-discussed new
business, a business about which we aren't often privy to any numbers.

It's okay that you don't find it interesting, but I -- and many others, thus
the upvotes -- do.

(If your definition of newsworthiness stems solely from whether or not it
effects you in general, then I'd imagine you'd have to eliminate 80% of Hacker
News, as well as ~98% of all world news.)

~~~
colinbartlett
No snark necessary, Justin. It was a genuine question. I just didn't
understand why it was so highly upvoted and why this was so interesting to
people.

~~~
jmduke
I apologize if I came off as snarky with the middle bit, I didn't mean it as
such. (For instance, I don't find the VC stuff on here, such as the Kima15
thing, interesting at all. But I recognize that a huge portion of readers here
do.)

