>but only by massively subsidizing its rides through investment capital
This is not true for many cities. Most of the subsidizing only happens in new markets to get people interested. Uber/Lyft are still better than cabs when unsubsidized.
This is not true for many cities. Most of the subsidizing only happens in new markets to get people interested. Uber/Lyft are still better than cabs when unsubsidized.
No matter how optimistic you are about the product, Uber isn't worth a fraction of its valuation without the constant expansion, and the constant expansion is impossible without very inexpensive money that is VC.
Love it or hate it, that's really the big difference now that most existing cab companies now have Uber-like dispatch technology.
From hearing many interviews with Uber drivers, I've gathered that most are happy about the opportunity and possibilities in the beginning but then realize within a year that it's a meager living (less than minimum wage). They also notice that their profit margins can easily be eaten away by Uber's rev share changes or when Uber tests the price elasticity of a market. Anecdotally, Uber drivers don't last more than about 2 years.
My father is a sole proprietor limo driver who has occasionally tried driving for Uber.