I agree that the author props up Uber a big too much, but aren't the two of you in agreement about all of the other companies? That each and every one of them can't sustain themselves without VC subsidies? If anything, Uber stands out from the rest in that it hasn't had to raise baseline prices (yet). And also, (imo, more importantly), it keeps the number of middle-men the same, rather than increasing it. But I'm still waiting patiently for the world of software startups to implode, so maybe that's just me projecting over the author's missing gaps. Edit: Went back and scanned the article, barely any mention of VC's, I guess I'm mixing up and in comments I read elsewhere...
Uber is sitting on a giant pile of cash but you're right - they haven't raised prices. They cut rates instead. That's because Travis Kalahnik is a dick. The Uber model doesn't just not translate, the Uber model doesn't work. The startups are exploding; Pando rails about it every day. Party's over, everybody go back to work. All that's left is the tawdry confessionals and discount Aeron chairs.
I would argue that Uber stands out from the rest, because they're not trying to do something new; they're exploiting externalities in a market that is already huge, and doing so in a way that is more convenient than the conventional model. Who really uses Uber because it's cheaper? I don't. I use it when I need a lift somewhere where it's hard to get a cab, especially when traveling without a car and when drunk.
I sure do. I'm just old enough that back in my military days we still had to take cabs everywhere while we were in training (weren't allowed to bring our cars with us). Getting a cab wasn't a huge hassle (at least in San Antonio). I use Uber over cabs on the rare occasion that I need a ride these days exclusively because every time I've ever done the math Uber comes out around half the price of a cab for a given trip.Who really uses Uber because it's cheaper?