It is backed up by evidence, though[0]. I think it was meant to validate that the model of ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt merely because it is owned by venture capitalists.
Probably. It is a very interesting case study in corporate culture and corporate viability. Unless the culture changes, it seems difficult to believe that they can stay operational. it is also interesting to watch something with that much inertia slowing down by inches.
I don't think it matters that the justification is after the fact. I think you could actually predict a decrease in drunk driving with better access to transportation that Uber provides before the fact.
> capture even more of the economic pie
I think Uber expands the economic pie more than it takes a share of it. And once there are self-driving cars, services like Uber will become a commodity because there are no network effects on the driver side. Any company with a billion dollars will be able to create a sufficient scale of self-driving cars in a city to compete with the rest of the self-driving car services. The rich people capturing the value will be the ones who own the technology to navigate the car.
Why shouldn't people who develop a new product that solves a real problem and is in high demand not capture more of the economic pie? Seems to me they should be rewarded.
