I'm not sure I can agree. There's clearly a market there, because taxis suck almost everywhere they exist, but nothing, including its having identified that market, requires that Uber continue to be the primary company in it. I can see an argument that "Uber is evil ZOMG never use them", should it actually result in Uber doing less business - itself a questionable surmise, but whatever - opens up more space in the market for Uber's presumably less exploitive competitors.

It's also a little much to suggest that Uber is merely "not perfect". Its business model has always been predicated upon the near-term advent of self-driving car technology, which has clearly not occurred quickly enough to make the company sustainable. That being so, Uber's instead been forced to fall back on tactics toward its drivers and customers which are widely regarded with what we might charitably call considerable distaste. As such, Uber itself has become ripe for disruption, and I think that's the intent toward which "Uber is evil ZOMG never use them" is ultimately directed - the underlying reasoning being that Uber, having been designed around an unsustainable model, is pretty much screwed no matter what happens, and the question now is how to limit the extent of damage it can do before its inevitable collapse and replacement in the market by more sustainable competitors and successors.