[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/10... (see the map)
[1] https://www.recode.net/2018/3/26/17164388/ubers-southeast-as... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44612837
That's not what your source claims. It says, that these are the only big markets in which Uber still has a chance to succeed after retreating from China, Russia, and South East Asia.
> The article you've linked is almost a year old and out of date.
I linked to the map of the continent, not to a case of a single city. But your own source states, how many problems Uber faces even in London:
> Uber has now been awarded a licence but it has been put on probation for 15 months.
> So Uber is now free to continue operating in a very important market - but on probation with Transport for London watching its every move.
>Indeed, India is a vast market that accounts for 10 percent of Uber’s trips with 10 million rides a week, so ceding ground there will be undoubtedly damaging to the company.
>“India is a key component of our growth plan,” Khosrowshahi told the Economic Times during a recent trip to India. “If you look at the market, it’s one of our healthiest markets in terms of growth rates.”
>In Latin America, the company has seen incredible success as the region quickly became its fastest growing.
> This rivalry has been less welcome to Japanese technology giant SoftBank, which holds large stakes in both Uber and Ola. Encouraged by their common shareholder, the pair have held talks on a potential merger, according to people with direct knowledge of the discussions. That move would create a business controlling almost the entire Indian ride-hailing market, which last year had revenue of at least $2.1bn, according to RedSeer Consulting.
The same will probably happen in Latin America, where Didi bought 99 taxis, a Brazilian-based ride hailing company that it is specifically focused on dominating the region[2].
In the long run, I expect Uber as a brand to exist only in English-speaking markets.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/af3aab5c-52d6-11e8-b3ee-41e020920...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/didi-buys...
- Pink: restricted
- Red: banned
- Dark blue: Iceland
Uber could easily justify a $120 billion valuation by dominating American urban car transport. The big question is whether they'll be able to (a) dominate while (b) staying profitable.
Local network effects. Kalanick's strategic mistake was assuming network effects in New York create network effects in Hanoi. They don't, apart from cash.
But in New York, there are more drivers on Uber than other services. Which brings more riders. Which brings more drivers. Et cetera.
With their current business model, I don't think they have it in the bag. They don't have much that other ride shares don't.
But I think that if they had the infrastructure built out to support their current model for the whole country, they would be the only company capable of being the software side of autonomous vehicles. Or, at least, the best positioned company to win that contract.
I think that transportation itself is big enough to warrant such a big valuation. So I think their competitive advantage will be built over time and, right now, it's not anything sustainable by replacing taxis.
Of course, once someone wins the race, maybe we won't need anymore clones since the cost/transaction will reach a good equilibrium for everyone. Then they can build a different type of sustainable competitive advantage.
At least a few years ago: A willingness to break the law and then throw money at lobbyists and lawyers to change the policy.
But when they changed the local taxi laws/policies, they opened the doors to all ride sharing competitors as well, didn't they? If so that wouldn't necessarily count as a competitive advantage, more of a cost of entry to the market.