The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc
Ridiculous, anti-competitive laws were in place in these systems, I applaud their death.
I can disprove that all by myself, since that's exactly how I reacted when I first heard of Uber.
That's because it was falsely framed as "ride sharing" to begin with, when it was obviously a taxi service.
It should also go without saying that millions in VC cash can prettify anything and buy enough positive PR and lobbying to give the service an air of legitimacy.
... Rebrand existing services with unregulated, zero-hours contractors, using their own unregulated assets, with a layer of brokering software.
It's marketing wank, for both consumers and workers.
Sidecar/UberX/Lyft etc have always just been wildcat taxis, except at least a real wildcat taxicab probably has some experience. In my experience, most uberx/lyft drivers have been doing it less than a year, the good ones all leave as soon as they see how bad the pay is, and nobody knows what the fuck they're doing.
It's amazing they haven't killed more people, tbh.
And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.
(And, to be clear, "the ones making money" includes local businesses benefiting from increased tourism, and their employees.)
But restaurants dislike tourists because most tourists tip less than Americans, so a high concentration of these "mini-hotels" is detrimental to restaurants and their staff.
Isn't the collective end goal of the competitive marketplace supposed to be razor thin margins due to competition? I live in NYC and prior to Uber, 1) taxi medallions were valued at high six figures, 2) service was terrible, 3) prices were too high, and 4) actual drivers still made shit money.
I think Uber and Lyft and others have improved all of that, to be honest. Competition is a beautiful thing.