Realistically, Uber is just an idea, and they got the money mostly for the idea. Even today Uber doesn't have advanced algorithms, Google had that immediately.
Uber is just now trying to solve those hard logistics problems and their prices depend on it.
Google had its own problems too, and someone like Jeff Dean and the team solved most of them.
Ideas take time to materialize, Uber would be nothing without the map data of today, Uber would be nothing without OSM open-source implementation of Contraction Hierarchies.
It's only later when the company had luck raising so much money that they bring in the teams capable of solving the real problems that an idea didn't even know about.
Realistically, Uber founders are good businessmen, not engineers, and not idea executors. This fact alone has made their idea worth less, and even years after Uber started you can outperform Uber.
Uber for Food, with a proper implementation of dynamic vehicle routing problem algorithms can kick Uber's ass.
Unfortunately for those who are not idea executors, the science, the research behind those logistics problems is still immature, and to make "Uber for Food" idea work, you have to have a large knowledge of computer architecture, above average problem solving capabilities, and a pretty darn fast implementation of those algorithms.
That's something Uber can do now, after they employ excellent people, but the problem with large companies is that after some time, they lose direction, they slow down, and that's why you can copy them.
Look at Homejoy, "Uber for Cleaning Services". Their ultimate challenge was exactly the same that Uber has, logistics algorithms. They failed at proper fast implementation, and failed ultimately. Uber has more money, thus more momentum, but they can still fail, because idea is just an idea.