[emrekzd]

I disagree with your main argument. Uber is buying growth, and it is buying growth that yields network effects. I live in the Bay Area and yes uber prices have been ridiculously low and they stayed the same for long. However one thing changed; now I see other riders sitting next to me while I pay the same price I always paid for UberX. Demand enables pooling. Network effect in pooling is obvious.

You are also dismissing the fact that traditional cab companies are going out of business. My main counter argument against"there isn't innovation on uber anymore" would be simply pointing out what is happening to traditional players. I don't think they are coming back with the new rules of the market, any they were forced to leave this early because uber "bought" growth.

[mywittyname]

Uber is unsustainable, both the core business and for the drivers. They've survived this long because they were able to dance around regulations and take advantage of drivers. But things are changing: insurance companies are onto drivers and governments are onto the businesses. All of this is going to drive up costs. They are gambling on surviving longer than traditional taxi companies can.

Economics are not in their favor. There's a reason taxi service is expensive. It's hard enough to provide cost-effective public transportation, much less private transport.

Once driverless cars hit the streets, then the calculus changes a bit. But that's when the competition will really begin. What's more likely is Google/Amazon will create (or acquire) a driving service broker that will automatically hail for you from whatever service will offer the ride cheapest (and probably won't even take a commission).

[hx87]

> There's a reason taxi service is expensive.

For less regulated cities, sure. For the more famous ones such as NYC and Boston, it's because there are a fixed number of permanent licenses owned by rent-seekers who lobby the city government to keep it that way.

[Terr_]

While there is definitely rent-seeking to combat, it's also true that the restricted-supply exists because we already tried the unregulated version and ran into problems. At one point it was creating painful costs (e.g. congestion) which were externalized onto everybody else.

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2014...

[refurb]

Hmmm... Uber is basically unregulated. Whoever wants to drive for Uber can. Why hasn't the system imploded yet? Why isn't it solid gridlock in NYC due to too many Uber cars?

[almostApatriot1]

Taxis are a burden on NYC and should be charged extra to make up for it.

[dragonwriter]

Google already has the beginnings of that brokering service in Maps' ridesharing feature

[user5994461]

> All of this is going to drive up costs.

They're cheap enough. They can increase prices by 10-20% and still be the best AND the cheapest taxi service in the universe.

[vadym909]

It is buying growth for the rideshare business model. Google, Tesla or anyone can piggyback on their work once the model matures and kinks get sorted out- at least until Uber builds a moat from driverless cars.