Customers love Uber because it's prices are currently subsidized by VC money. Once that goes away, we'll see how competitive they are.
They lost $1.2 billion this year and spent $1 billion on trying to capture the India market alone. In several other markets they were taking a similar strategy.
My suspicion is that as a rider in a primary market, you are paying a "sustainable" (for the rider) rate. Maybe not so much for the driver. But that's a different topic.
So I see no reason why its won't stay competitive.
So are Uber's prices too low, because it is being subsidized by VC money, or are the prices too high, because it is a monopoly?
You can't have it both ways.
My argument is that their prices are just fine where they are now, and that there is no upcoming price hike, because the prices, in the USA, are profitable NOW.
People clearly have a higher valuation for a taxi ride than what Uber is charging because they've been paying the higher price and are still paying it when they choose another business other than Uber to ride with. Once Uber has driven out the other options, thus the need for competitive pricing, why wouldn't they capture that lost value?
This is the fair, free market price. That's how normal competition works.
If they were significantly not profitable, then you can use the price dumping argument.
But since they ARE profitable, then this is the price that the free market will go towards.
That Uber happens to be profitable and offer competitive prices doesn't imply anything for their prices in the future.