[stale2002]

Uber is profitable in the USA.

So I see no reason why its won't stay competitive.

[DasIch]

Apple is profitable but it certainly not competitive on pricing. Monopolies also tend to be profitable, competitiveness isn't even a concern there.

[stale2002]

????

So are Uber's prices too low, because it is being subsidized by VC money, or are the prices too high, because it is a monopoly?

You can't have it both ways.

My argument is that their prices are just fine where they are now, and that there is no upcoming price hike, because the prices, in the USA, are profitable NOW.

[darpa_escapee]

In my market, Uber undercuts the established taxi businesses.

People clearly have a higher valuation for a taxi ride than what Uber is charging because they've been paying the higher price and are still paying it when they choose another business other than Uber to ride with. Once Uber has driven out the other options, thus the need for competitive pricing, why wouldn't they capture that lost value?

[stale2002]

What I am saying is, Is that if Uber is profitable right now in the US, then this isn't "undercutting".

This is the fair, free market price. That's how normal competition works.

If they were significantly not profitable, then you can use the price dumping argument.

But since they ARE profitable, then this is the price that the free market will go towards.

[DasIch]

I can have both because there is no relationship between profitability and competitive prices. Profitability doesn't imply competitive prices and competitive prices don't imply profitability.

That Uber happens to be profitable and offer competitive prices doesn't imply anything for their prices in the future.