I think you are misreading him, but it's mostly his fault. He's not talking about if consumers got value out of things during a bubble, but what is left over after it "pops". His argument is basically that uber did not represent a viable business plan initially/currently (true) and will never find a viable plan (arguable), therefore at some point it will collapse when people get tired of subsidizing the rides in various ways. His claim then is when this happens, what is left afterwards is strictly worse than what existed before uber.
Now I'm not going to opine on the argument or the timeline, but nowhere in there does he claim that people getting subsidized rides didn't benefit from them at the time, just that it nets out negative over time.