[kortilla]

> The only way Uber could compete was unprofitably undercutting the local market with a worse service

If it was worse, why were people using it? Maybe people didn’t like, or more likely couldn’t afford, the taxi service you refer to.

> they won’t let you book ahead and if you want to hail at the time they will cancel on you 4 times.

This is exactly what getting a cab was like before Uber in nearly every city in the US. That’s why Uber had no problem disrupting taxis.

[mulmen]

> If it was worse, why were people using it?

Because it was impossibly cheap.

[Nursie]

In the UK and Australia, the taxi experience was generally better than that. Uber came along and undercut them, and at first they had a great experience.

Now uber is usually more expensive, and usually less reliable. It's very fortunate that they didn't quite manage to completely kill off the competition with their subsidies.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

I think Uber coming along was absolutely a net win for consumers. They managed to

1. Upend the existing monopolies with cab drivers and create competitions in many different markets

2. Funnel VC money directly into the hands of consumers in the form of subsidized rides, especially in the years from ~2012 to 2018.

And they did this in a commodity market, so it's super easy for entrants to just copy the idea. Bad for Uber, great for everyone else. The fact that a good hunk of the money that got lit on fire during this process was Saudi oil blood money is just icing on the cake, IMO.

[Nursie]

I think that your point 2 is a positive when taken in isolation, but with negative consequences for wider society - it did drive other firms out of business.

I also don't know how many markets uber entered were actually monopolies. London certainly wasn't, though the minicab firms there were dodgy as hell. It will have increased standards of service in that market longer term, even as it unfairly competed.

Are cab monopolies a US thing?