I think it's pretty unfair to lump Uber (which really has transformed the world in a real way) with Theranos (outright fraud) and WeWork (possibly a viable but semi boring business that got way over hyped).
What changed taxi transportation was ubiquitous personal computers with detailed screens, network connectivity, and GPS in literally everyone’s pocket.
As soon as it was technically possible to press a button on a portable device you already have and see a little car coming towards you on a map, hundreds of startup founders were going to try to do it, and did.
Before that something like Uber was impossible, after that it was inevitable. Just like something like YouTube and something like Netflix were inevitable.
That’s not to discount the very impressive work it takes to be the winner in such a fast moving market. But it’s not reasonable to credit them with the world transforming innovation, it was just the next logical step in an ongoing progression.
Like...I get what you are saying and I agree that something like Uber was inevitable. But someone still has to go out and do it.
Your argument means no business success deserves any credit, they all just inevitable .
Ford comes to mind, or Google. They had very strong competitive advantages due to a technically superior process or product. Cars and search engines were probably inevitable, but Ford and Google moved the technology forward a whole generation.
Uber made a pretty rudimentary mobile application, their real competitive advantage had more to do with success in financial sophistication and compliance/regulatory avoidance.
I do not know the context of Ford.
But it was also innovative in business terms. Search at the time was monetized like media properties: running a lot of ads that were at best tangential to what users were doing. They instead recognized that a lot of search wasn't great for monetization, but some of it -- where users were looking for something that could be purchased -- was very valuable. So instead of banner ads and all that nonsense, the ended up with AdWords. And instead of selling it via media sales execs, they made a self-serve bidding platform.
If Google had just had a slightly better algorithm, any of the better funded players could have taken them down. But Microsoft has been trying for years to break in and Google still has 90% of the market.
Now I can get an Uber almost anywhere.
In 2012 there where 233,900 cabs in the US which seems limited, but they would work very long hours. Uber’s actual change was mostly around increasing peak availability, but not nessisarily total availability as 1/2 of their drivers average 1 to 15 hours each week.
If that's getting done for SC (a relatively un-dense state) I think they're covering pretty much everywhere in the US.
TBH I think the page you linked to is more about SEO than about Uber's actual coverage.
Can you tell me a specific place that has good coverage from cabs where Uber doesn't operate?
Think smaller, Charles town WV official population 5,957 has taxi service. Edit: that was under the Baltimore map even though DC was closer. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/baltimore/
I also think they'll get the the Charles Town WVs of the world at some point.
Nowadays, almost every taxi company has an app, which emulates all the same functionality as Uber. Uber’s way of changing the world was one of user experience and logistics. Not the actual transportation, which as you call out, existed long before.
I'd say no. The cab industry was already tracking vehicle GPS circa 2005: http://www.taxi-library.org/mccurdy.htm
Google Maps Android launched in 2008. It doesn't take a genius to say, "What if..." And people did. Like this 2010 paper about experiments with Java apps to do taxi dispatch in Singapore: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dddc/21e65523932240164d2bb4...
So people are giving Uber credit for something that would have happened anyhow. And they're doing that because Kalanick was the one most willing to burn money and break laws, not because he was such a creative genius.
But Uber was the first to successfully deliver taxi via app, which did actually transform the world.
Uber can meet demand since they don't own the cars nor the staff. The system automatically scales, something taxis can't do.
That is the innovation, not apps. Plenty of taxi companies all over the world had apps before Uber even existed.
I also think you're giving Uber way too much credit. They are the dominant player because Kalanick was unusually terrible and because his investors gave a terrible person a lot of money. He didn't invent remote taxi dispatch (which was a telephone-era innovation) and he wasn't first in the anybody-with-a-car-can-be-a-taxi game (which was Lyft). He was just more willing to break laws and be a dick to competitors.
I believe that if Uber hadn't appeared on the scene, things would be about the same (by which I mean we'd have people ordering rides via smartphone) but in a healthier way (by which I mean not burning billions per year, less worker exploitation, fewer negative externalities, and healthier municipal regulation).
So I'll give plenty of credit to the smartphone pioneers, especially Palm and Apple. But not much to Kalanick.
But again, it's not the same thing as Holmes (fraudster) or Neumann (purveyor of fantastical bullshit).
I agree that WeWork's vision is now more obviously likely to fail than Uber's. But WeWork's transition from hero to goat happened quite recently. Uber got a cash infusion from their IPO that gives them something like 18 months runway, but with their stock down 30% from IPO, they can't do that forever. We'll see what happens when they have to break even. Especially if they have to start paying their workers fairly. And if the margins in that business turn sufficiently positive, I expect people will be eager to compete.
And even if they do manage to pull it together, I'm still comfortable putting Uber in that category, as Kalanick wasn't just an asshole, but a willful criminal who got his money through the same performative asshole/genius shtick. He may ultimately get away with it. But I think he's decreased the likelihood people will fall for it again.