I know it's not a popular opinion but some of the laws setup around service industries like hotels, taxis, etc, are for the protection of the user from potentially dangerous providers.
"Ripe for disruption" is just "lots of laws we can ignore"
On the whole, I think society probably benefits from this kind of edge testing. I certainly don't encourage it. And taking on federal or state laws is a different game (legal and moral liability-wise) from challenging municipal codes, particularly when people get hurt.
But Uber challenging the taxi industry forced everyone to take out the rulebook and reconsider what is and isn't truly necessary. Something similar is happening with hotels. One could argue, with Bitcoin et al, too.
These companies can try to claim it's about making things better all they want. It's clearly just about money to them. I learnt that the hard way trying to deal with AirBnB.
Tip: companies "doing the right thing" don't charge your credit card then require you to login with Facebook (which I don't have) or upload a video explaining why I want to rent a house.
But yeah, it is ultimately about the money.
The differences between Uber's and e.g. Taxi's is laughable, when you read accounts from actual Uber drivers like http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...