about the only positive thing that can be said for Uber is that people love it, it fills a need, the alternative is to own a car or pay cartels inflated taxi ra

about the only positive thing that can be said for Uber is that people love it, it fills a need, the alternative is to own a car or pay cartels inflated taxi rates, and people must absolutely must get from point A to point B - they have no choice but to fill that need somehow, and also I suppose it could be said that Uber has shown an incredible ability to execute to the extent of lobbying to rewrite antiquated laws and regulations as well as educating consumers and building infrastructure and operations, essentially creating a new service category through innovation, it has uber-high mindshare and strong, honest sales and revenue. But take away all of that, and what is left? Nothing but a a service people hate and that nobody needs, where their needs are met elsewhere for free, and by a company that has no ability to execute or deliver it or history of doing so or any revenue from doing so. In essence under this scenario the only thing Uber would still have is the ability to convince investors to value it at $60B. Incidentally, this is the only thing that is necessary for it to have a real, honest-to-goodness value of $60B. All of the first part is not what gives a company its value (though it can't hurt) - the second part is. Why there would be any sudden shift in sentiment or valuation by investors is not something that anyone has advanced. . . why would they suddenly turn on uber?