|
Maybe because I'm outside the unicorn bubble I can't see the magic, but I find something very warped about a business strategy that combines stratospheric valuation, intentional regulatory non-compliance, perpetual capital injections, service misrepresentation, and unprofessional corporate behavior... and results in massive financial losses year after year. When I try to balance the elements, it frankly looks like an enormous grift. Some key early investors have probably made out really well, but at what cost to others involved? Not that the taxi industry didn't need disruption - it desperately needed a modern ride calling and fare estimating feature. But being well regulated and having to compete with a maverick service that simply ignored rules meant that the taxi industry lost while Uber gained. Drivers for Uber have come out losers as well, earning much less than expected. Passengers did well at first, but surge pricing and eventual regulatory costs eroded that gain as well. Late investors? The jury is still out on them, but likely they will be losers too. Who won? |
I think you're way too pessimistic here:
(1) A whole industry of rent seekers (medallion owners) was mostly run off
(2) The taxi experience in cities other than NYC, Chicago, and SF got a million times better. Before Uber in a city like Nashville you call for a taxi and maybe one shows up at some point. Since Uber you can reliably get a ride whenever you want. And that's not even talking about discrimination.
(3) Uber caused a dramatic decline in drunk driving. Likely because of (2)
(4) It allowed people to make some money with a flexibility that traditional jobs don't offer
For me, Uber/Lyft has definitely had the biggest positive impact on my life out of any tech company in the last decade. The only close competitor would be Android/iPhone. I don't know if Uber is worth the ~60 billion that they were last valued at, but they definitely fill a legitimate role.