There's a very good read in HBR today on the fact that Uber's business model is predicated on illegality. Thought provoking read. https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regu...
Uber is fundamentally different from regulated taxis. Also, there's no moral framework for the taxi-related regulations (medallion, commercial insurance, etc.). They're both a relic of an age that has passed and a prime example of regulatory capture.
It is worth noting that the byline for the article states this:
> Benjamin Edelman is an associate professor at Harvard Business School and an adviser to various companies that compete against major platforms
I wonder what 'major platforms'.
The point is, Lyft was even more aggressive in ignoring the relevant legal strictures than Uber was; yet I have not seen any stories about a dysfunctional culture at Lyft, which, by the author's argument, should be even more inevitable. Indeed I know hardly anything about Lyft as a company, except that their service has worked for me when I've tried it, and the drivers seem to prefer it over Uber. If I had to say what seems to distinguish the two businesses, based on what (little) I know, I would say that Lyft seems more interested in providing a good service, while Uber seems more interested in making lots of money. I am tempted to conclude that Uber's problems are rooted more in a general lack of concern for customers, drivers, and employees than in the fact that their business model is somewhat outside the law.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20150910144736/http:/newsroom.ube...