[nonaime]

I get how Amazon can be seen as revolutionary, but not how Uber (or even Lyft) is. I mean, when I think of catching a taxi back in the day, the only difference is that I made a phonecall instead of using an app to get the service. If it's the "gig economy-ness" of it, we had hacks in my hometown. Maybe there was a license requirement to be a hack, but it always felt like hacks were just regular schmoes who would charge a flat fee to take you somewhere.

[malvosenior]

I've had very extensive and very negative taxi experiences around the world. Uber is night and day from a UX perspective. Being able to see where the car is when it's on the way, pre-inputting your destination, paying through the app... The gig economy aspect was definitely revolutionary as well. It's essentially changing the nature of work (love it or hate it).

As much as I love Amazon and always have, in the early days it was "just" ordering books online. Yes, that was great and again the UX was great but it didn't seem as revolutionary as Uber.

[semi-extrinsic]

I don't see how the UX thing is so revolutionary. I live in a city with 120k people, and the app of the local taxi company here does all of those things as well.

[nchie]

But did they do that before Uber?

[imajoo]

Not OP, but if they weren't doing it before, and just copied Uber, doesn't that show how weak their moat is? The same could happen with autonomous vehicles as well then.

[dasil003]

The topic is revolutionary UX not moats.

[imajoo]

Ok, if the UX is revolutionary, then what prevents others from copying it? It still seems like the moat for the UX isn't that great.

[malvosenior]

That's not been my experience and definitely not before Uber existed and forced people to start copying them.

[matt4077]

That's some exemplary public service by Uber, actually. They may actually deserve their status as a non-profit.