I’m curious if anything in the article struck you as inaccurate or implausible. I don’t live in metro areas that have it and so I don’t have much experience. I mostly thought the exclusive sponsorship dealmaking by Uber seemed contrary to their stated philosophy and legal arguments against the entrenched taxi companies.
Uber has no problem with “entrenched tax companies,” as long as Uber is part of the deal. In New York City, for example, Uber has joined the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission in a legal battle to get Lyft outlawed.
Nope, seems entirely plausible.
Uber wants to run all of the cab companies out of business, as well as its direct competition like Lyft. It engages in monopolistic practices wherever it can get away with it. I am sure that when the competition folds or diminishes a lot, that they jack up their rates. Good for it and its drivers, not so much for other cabbies or the public.
“stated philosophy and legal arguments”
No offense, but that passage literally left food on my monitor.
ROFLMAO