[ProfChronos]

The article is quite superficial on many aspects: i) first, Uber is not in the sharing economy but in the on-demand: you don't share and monetize an asset (vs AirBnb), you offer a service activated by demand; ii) in my opinion, Uber keeps raising funds for multiple reasons and some of them are simply overlooked in the article: - from a global market point of view: money (especially in the form of debt) is historically cheap - from an investor point of view: investors are looking for proven business models as VC funding is slowing down - from an employee point of view: the multiple funding rounds maintain/increase the valuation, which preserves the stock-based incentive for employees (and we know that's a key reason why so many great programmers joined Uber) - from a competitor point of view: Uber opens the market and evangelizes (pays the legal cost, advertises in new markets, etc.) iii) it never really analyses the on-demand transport economics = is it a "winner takes all" market structure? The article keeps suggesting it is while it is clearly not

[jsemrau]

So they raise money and subsidize drivers to use their service.

Makes you wonder if Taxi companies would have increased services / hired more drivers/ lowered prices if the money went directly to them?

Now most of the artificially created suppliers will likely drop out the moment the driving becomes unprofitable or switch provider as the barriers to entry in this market are not that high.