1. Early VC funds are used to subsidize Uber rides at a loss to Uber.
2. The deep discounts made Uber attractive to drivers and customers.
3. Uber's soaring popularity attracts more investment in Uber stock.
4. Uber's early investors cash out. Society is harmed as later investors lose their money, Uber drivers who invested in vehicles can no longer get work, public transit ridership is hollowed out, etc.
This is quite exactly what they did.
Selling products or services at a loss in order to drive out competitors is a classic anticompetitive tactic that has killed countless otherwise-successful small businesses.
Once you have driven your competitors out of business, there's no one left to compete with. That's why it's "anticompetitive".
And yes; there are still other companies in the same space as Walmart; that's not the point. The point is they drive out competitors in the local area where many of their stores set up, so that if the people who live there want to shop, they have no choice except Walmart.
Then they raise prices.
literally has never happened, it's just a dumb myth that makes no sense, for people who think that e.g. buses don't compete with passenger trains
With the recent price hikes Uber is no longer always a dramatic saving compared to black cabs, especially during "surge" periods. After ten years of operating at a loss, plus laws being passed about tax enforcement and driver payments, and a sexual abuse scandal, it seems like they've been forced into a bit of a reality check.
This is literally what happened.