Is Uber in a winner take all market? If so, they have no choice but to operate the way they do: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/4/7336433/uber-worth-
We see it in regular job markets more generally (where we call it job polarization): http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554
We see it in "art, sports and culture" markets (where we call it the Superstar effect): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/business/winners-take-all-...
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/win...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html
We see it in newspapers:
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/09/10/198480/technolo...
We see it in attention more generally (which has second order effects, like everyone use just one or a handful of large platforms(!) and where we call it variations of "winning in the Attention Economy"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
So the choice is sometimes (perhaps even often today) not between "get big" or "stay small/medium", but get big (where big may represent firm size, level of knowledge/skill, fame, or a number of other attributes depending on the area) or "get (almost) nothing." When the distribution of customers/eyeballs/rewards are as lopsided as they are in many areas, the only choice IS "get big or go home."
More:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/12/how_...
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/win...
http://prospect.org/article/talent-and-winner-take-all-socie...
I don't knock dhh, and this is one of those posts I actually want to agree with, but it doesn't neatly comport with extant realities. I think even this advice, just like the advice to "get big" needs to be taken very carefully. All of these roads entail risk (obviously), but the choice of big versus small isn't as simple as implied.