A co-op isn't supposed to be a neutral party, it's supposed to represent the workers (and possibly, the customers, depending what type of co-op).
The reason I would support a co-op version of Uber over the actual Uber is exactly because that would be an organisation run democratically by it's drivers.
I'd prefer one where customers got a vote too over that as it goes.
But this is why it makes a difference whether it's a corporation, a non-profit, a worker's co-op or a workers-and-customers co-op: Who gets control? Who gets the profit?
Non profit's are marginally better than corporations because at least the few in control can't obviously easily use their power to directly claim it's resources for themselves.
Worker's Co-ops are marginally better than non-profits, because they give democratic powers over the decisions of the organisation to all of the workers, not just the bosses.
Customer Co-ops are marginally better than Worker's Co-ops because the customers also get a vote in that democratic enterprise.
And of course, often, visionary leadership from a single benign dictator that can ignore his customers, his workers, his shareholders and just DO THE RIGHT THING is powerful like dynamite.
Dynamite can be used for good or evil, obviously.
As you said, some things need managing in different ways.
Also: I've never actually used Uber or any of these other apps. I tend to get the bus frankly. The bus timetable apps are great ;)