[frankfrankfrank]

It’s also a denial strategy. The bleeding edge that also forces your competitors out of the market because they cannot get past the network effect and name recognition hurdle is worth its weight in gold.

Most people will say they’re going to get an Uber, even if they end up having to use Lyft, no? Ubers, as well as others’, expressed strategy has long been not only first mover, but also monopolization of all aspects of their space, expressly anti-competitive. Part of that is not only being the leader, first to mind, but also draining the enemy/competitor’s resources and undermining their efforts to even challenge you. It’s a total market domination strategy that shouldn’t even be allowed, but they’ve also paid off politicians and captured government in other ways too, so don’t expect anything from there either. There used to be other ride sharing services, I don’t even know if they exist anymore, but even before the Great Monopolization, aka COVID, they were barely scraping by on crumbs in a few local markets while the likes of Uber worked in basically every market, especially in the high spending business travel and entertainment segments.

[DeathArrow]

Maybe that was their thinking? Have massive loses while killing all competition including taxi drivers and capture the market and after that just cut features and jack up the prices while paying less money to drivers?

Fortunately it haven't worked. But could it work assuming the VC investors would be able and willing to pour much more money into it?