[dlitwak]

I think this is a very naive and somewhat wishful thinking writeup. You neglect a major reason why Rockefeller was able to obtain a monopoly: he controlled literally every part of the process of extracting oil, from the wells to the pipeline to the tank cars, in an industry that had high startup costs/barriers to entry.

You basically look at every way in which Uber is doing a great job and then declare they will have a monopoly. It's not like they are the first successful business that is killing it and you don't have any truly remarkable arguments for why no one else can go do EXACTLY what they are doing. They have a head start: big whoop, so has any great company.

For Uber to obtain Standard Oil style monopoly they'd have to do something very different that you don't mention: buy a good portion of the cabs and cars and black car services in the world. In the end those cars are the actual supply, and Uber DOES NOT OWN ONE CAR. Do you know how many of those companies exist? Do you think that 1) Uber is even interested in acquiring them and 2) that'd even be possible if they did? Do you think that every single one of them would come onto one platform and that Uber could convince them to be that one platform? You don't think that in certain regions or countries other companies, the Lyfts and Sidecars and Hailos of the world, won't make a move and lock down certain markets first and become the defacto option in those cities?

You also neglect the fact that in many cities (downtown new york?) getting a cab is super easy. In some cities there aren't enough uber cabs going around at any one time to have an on demand app work necessarily, and for other trips private transportation in the way Uber offers might be exorbitantly expensive (getting to certain airports, etc.). You neglect the fact that they are targeting one behavior, a massive one, but still one behavior: the on demand ride. Lots of people like to plan their rides in advance.

Overall this reads like it was written by a fanboy, little real analysis of why, despite the fact that Uber is an awesome company that is doing extremely well, they have any real chance of having a monopoly.

It is a transportation planning and booking app. Orbitz, Expedia, Kayak, Hipmunk, you name it are all in the transportation planning space (but for flying) and everyone has their preferences etc. There is room for more than just Uber and the idea that they will just take over everyone is ridiculous.

[dmix]

> he controlled literally every part of the process of extracting oil, from the wells to the pipeline to the tank cars, in an industry that had high startup costs/barriers to entry.

If you read his biography, Rockefeller didn't become successful this way. He started doing vertical integration (buying the supply chain, rail roads, etc) only after he was widely successful dominating the oil refinery part. Then his competitors were not able to compete with his prices and went out of business.

Although I agree the oil industry vs taxi one has limited analogies outside of government regulators and highly entrenched industry encombants.

The futuristic domaination of taxi's probably won't involve owning the tradition "black taxi" style businesses. The real opportunity will be whoever dominates automated car taxi services.

[dlitwak]

Perhaps, I'll admit my Rockefeller history isn't super extensive, but still: once he bought up all those competitors he was in an industry that required MASSIVE investment of oil wells, pipes etc. to compete with him. He had massive barriers to entry.

Considering that Uber owns none of the cars and they are a software company, I don't see how they are different from any other software company that just has a really good product. There are plenty of software companies that are awesome, that companies use, but don't have a monopoly.

I'm in the transportation space, specifically airport transfers and ground transportation, and there are tons of backend systems, and yes, it's difficult once people start using one to get them to switch, so Uber does have some barriers to entry. But there are like 20 of these systems that I work with: Zaui, Hudson, Fastrack, Distinctive Systems, they go on. Different companies used different solutions at different times.

It will be the same for taxis/on demand services. Hailo was the app in London when I was there. Most of my friends in SF use Sidecar or Lyft, not Uber, because we are more interested in the budget option, and even if Uber now offers it they didn't when we needed it first, so our habits have been formed already.

I agree on the automated cars, that will be the supply, but even then smaller companies, instead of just acquiring cars for their driver to drive, will get in the business of acquiring cars to lease. And then what about my own car? What if I want to put my car to work while I'm at work, instead of paying for parking? When we all have autonomous cars, then I can go make a choice which framework I want to use, and I'm willing to bet that Uber is not the only one standing. Who says I won't use multiple services, and have my car accept the first request that comes in from any of them?

Also, Uber doesn't have such domination that they can make a Rockefeller like threat right now. They are doing great, but so are other companies. They are in 40 markets, what about the other thousands they aren't in? What are they going to tell those competitors? Sell to us, or, sometime 3-5 years to now we may or may not move into your market and try to compete with you? Hell no, if I was them I'd stay independent and duke it out.

In the end, this is too early the game. If there are 10's of thousands of markets in the world, and Uber is in 40, and you are already declaring them the winner.

They are on the first mile of a Marathon, don't get ahead of yourself.

[WalterBright]

Preceding and throughout Standard Oil's anti-trust trial, he steadily lost market share, and he was unable to stop it.