general kalanick. sean: he is very good under those circumstances.hink a lot of companies would have been way too boring for travis. emily: how impressed are you with what uber has accomplished? do you think it is worth $62.5 billion? sean: do i think any of these companies are worth their private market valuations? it's hard to say. there is a disconnect between evaluations. companies wait too long to go public. they don't do so well in the public markets. and you are seeing the fidelity rate down. there have been a lot of high-profile write-downs. emily: snapchat, dropbox. sean: it's not clear what any of these things are worth until the market, the public market values them. in these close-knit private markets, you can do various things to engineer the situation. emily: should they be going public sooner? sean: the traditional path would have been to go public sooner. something happened y haveacebook and i mad occuring.art in this which was the development of this robust secondary market where suddenly hedge funds and private wealth managers and v

congratulations on the school. ,s this very bad news for uber or is this part of travis kalanick's planng up against dd in china, so this is helping them. given that they have had to negotiate, it was not totally insane, but at the same time, losing $100 million in the united states in one quarter after trying to be profitable is pretty aggressive spending in the market. matt: $1.2 billion worldwide. is the minimum. they may have lost more. i know they lost at least 520 million in q1. they lost about that and at least 750 million in q2. matt: so they cannot just keep burning cash. at some point, they will have to stop if they want to go public and convince investors it is a good bet. we have seen a lot of growth companies like amazon spend a lot to tell a growth story, but uber is a special case, burning through may be more than we have ever seen in a private company. but they have a lot of money. $8 billion in cash alone. owes them a credit line, $1.2 billion in loans. they have money to tap if they want to spend more. scarlet: not in need of more cash, certainly. you mentioned they ma

in december 2014, travis kalanick went to pittsburgh and hired some of the best machine learning expertsegie mellon, sending shockwaves through the city and university, and have been adding to it. now this is the result. vonnie: will google, tesla, apple now respond more quickly? is: tesla, for one, following their own path, which is starting with this souped-up cruise control, their autopilot, where you can have the car drive you on the highway, assuming your hands are on it. a luxury car-type feature. google has a really good business, so i don't know if they would want to move as quickly as uber. it, tesla hadbout this accident a couple of years back in florida where a person died. that was bad for tesla. a highway investigation, dealing with a lot of negative pr. imagine if you were at googles internet advertising business and you had this accident causing all of this pr and liability problems. anhink google has a bit of innovator problem because the core business is so good. max chafkin, check out the story. pretty amazing. he is our technology reporter. in the latesthis edition on

now, kalanick after three-year campaign uber and co-founder conceded saying china is only possible with. main catalyst being the rule changes that were implemented last week in china that legalized ride hailing but then also stipulated that companies could not subsidize each and every ride, which really gives the advantage to the bigger player. and in china's case that is didi, so in this deal uber now sells uber china to didi for close to 20% stake in the company now making uber the biggest shareholder in didi. meantime didi invested $1 billion into uber. and uber joins a powerhouse list of investors in didi. apple, alibaba, baidu, the interesting part is didi owns a stake in lyft, so people are thinking now that uber owns a stake in didi, they essentially own a stake in lyft, what happens to that. but the main takeaway u.s. based internet companies can't seem to compete and crack into the chinese market. e-bay, remember them going up against a small company back then in the early 2000s called alibaba. google going up against baidu, we know how that played out. it's a reminder guys of