[wpietri]

Just looking at the ones active in Austin, Fasten, Chariot, and InstaRyde were started in 2014; Fare in 2015; Ride Austin in 2016.

Ride sharing is essentially a local business with very low barriers to entry. You don't need to replicate what the incumbents have right away. You just need a modest number of drivers (who can also be driving for the incumbents) and a modest number of customers.

[malandrew]

Do you have any data to support the position that any of those three are not irrelevant from a market share by rides given or by industry profits?

[wpietri]

Some were listed by local news as the leading rideshare companies.

That seems sufficient to me. It's hard to name any company started in the last few years that is a major market player when then have a bunch of competitors. New businesses take time to grow.

The discussion here is about whether Uber has a moat. The point being made is that it's pretty easy to start a rideshare company. Which it is. That one hasn't become major yet isn't proof that one can't become so. As long as there's room for new companies to start and be sustainable at modest scale, then Uber can't extract monopoly rents.

[malandrew]

> Some were listed by local news as the leading rideshare companies.

Did the journalist who wrote that story cite any figures to support that assertion?

[wpietri]

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing "bring me a rock" with you. You can do your own research. If you discover something important, let me know. But until then, I stand by my opinion that the rideshare market has low barriers to entry.

[malandrew]

At least you've admitted that your opinion is handwavvy and unsubstantiated. That's all I wanted.