[jfoster]

How could it be the case that a traditional Uber competitor (eg. Lyft) could be cheaper, though? Only through venture capital. VC aside, Uber have the demand, which gives them the power to squeeze drivers.

Think of it from a driver perspective; if a competitor pays less than Uber and has less demand, why drive with them?

And if you think there will be a competitor capable of out-spending Uber using venture capital, think of it from the perspective of a VC; why pour so much capital into a business so unlikely to succeed against an incumbent when you could put it into the incumbent itself?

I think the primary risk to Uber's business is that of a self-driving competitor being capable of disrupting them; such competitors will have capital already, and will be capable of disruption through all the same ingredients that got Uber to where they are. Those companies would probably work with Uber at least at first, anyway. Uber will be at their mercy every time the contract needs to be renewed.

[greenhatman]

I think it's probably somewhat cheaper for new competitors to get up and running and operate than it is/was for Uber.

Uber had to spend money to test the waters and figure things out. Competitors can just copy.

[ufo]

Sure, no one can compete with Uber now but Uber will eventually run out of VC money to burn and there is no indication that they will be able to maintain their market dominance once they are forced to increase their fares back to a reasonable level.