[dylanjermiah]

Transportation being cheaper and more efficient means people save time and save money. Uber has also allowed hundreds of thousands of people with an income source. _That_ is a convincing argument to me.

"Actually compete with existing taxis"

They are competing, Uber is doing 3-5x more rides in SF than the taxis as a whole were doing before Uber. That's without including Lyft. So they're expanding the market, meaning more people can afford to pay for transportation.

[viola11]

Indeed they are competing with existing taxi services, but not as a taxi company, but rather as a "ride share", despite providing a taxis service, and branding themselves as such.

Given that they had the choice between acting and probably-illegally, I can find no reason to act questionably except profit expectations. This in turn means that Uber can reasonable be expected to have come to the conclusion that their technological innovations alone do not provide sustainable growth in the taxi market.

[dylanjermiah]

My last post already addressed this but...The taxi system is not a free market, the supply was artificially restrained and prices monopolised. Hence for the Uber system to work as it does now it would be impossible to be a 'taxi company' because the laws, in effect, have outlawed a cheap and efficient means of transportation.

The SF market is proof that they are not only obliterating the former taxi market, their service is so superior that it's expanding the market 5 times.