Does winning mean beating its competitors? In San Francisco, at least, this doesn't seem clear at all. Most people I meet -- both drivers and passengers -- prefer Lyft to Uber because they claim it has better technology, a better brand image, better treatment of employees (correction: drivers), and fewer instances of creepy and offensive behavior from its top management.
Does winning mean expanding faster than its competitors? This rests on the VC assertion that Uber is playing in a winner-take-all space. The fact that they can't starve out the competition on their home turf challenges this assertion. Unless they can put up artificial barriers once they enter new markets, they might just be clearing the way for their competition.
Or does winning mean transforming from a VC-fueled startup to a self-reliant profitable company? Once again, no facts in the article, but they did recently claim they'll be profitable in the U.S. in Q2 2016 (although losing $1B/year in China) [1]. But unless they can differentiate in terms of price or service (which, my experience, they've failed at), this isn't necessarily a sustained win.