What the deck did well:

A good idea with a clear understanding of the market. For Uber’s original deck, they had a clear idea of what they wanted the product to be and had a clear idea of the market. They spent a lot of time on this in the deck. Their ideas were good, and they conveyed them relatively clearly and concisely.
A clear problem and solution. One of the major strengths of this deck is that they had a good understanding of the problem and the solution, which is always really important. They drove these points home, and since there wasn’t much competition at the time, investors were able to see the clear need for this solution.

What the deck would need to improve to secure funding in 2020:

Better organization with a clear line of thought. Looking through this deck, you get the sense that there are simply a lot of ideas. Luckily, the strengths above served Uber well, because the deck really didn’t have much of a narrative. And these days, if you have 25 slides in your deck, you’d better have a good sense of your story. Investors see so many pitches with viable ideas nowadays that they want more from a deck than Uber got away with.
More slide categories. The deck is missing a lot of the sections that are considered fundamental in 2020. There was no mention of “Why Now,” the team, nor a fundraising ask (although the ask is always something that should be thought through strategically).
More thought into how to work certain slides into the deck. The slides themselves are sparse on information and seem to be someone’s stream of consciousness. For example, the slide titled “Marketing Ideas” has good ideas, but it would’ve been better to weave these ideas into the Solution and Business Model slides.

Source: Docsend