>You realize that comments from analysts have been hugely wrong before? Yes they're often wrong but I wasn't talking about predictions. I was talking about ho

>You realize that comments from analysts have been hugely wrong before? Yes they're often wrong but I wasn't talking about predictions. I was talking about how they described the past. Uber was already beating taxis in limited markets without any subsidies. If I'm interpreting your position correctly, you believe that the only possible way for Uber to be cheaper than taxis is through subsidies. This isn't true. Financial arbitrage of transportation by using crowd-sourced cars instead of taxis has been discovered by a dozen companies besides Uber. In fact, the opposite tactic of no subsidies and aggressive surge pricing can still be cheaper than taxis.[1] Put another way, Uber (crowd-sourced cars and not the luxury Black Service) without subsidies is by design, cheaper than taxis. What the subsidies attempt do is make Uber cheaper than Lyft/Didi. The subsidies were part of a competitive strategy to try and bleed Lyft and Didi to death. (It didn't work with Didi and Uber called a truce with them. How Lyft plays out remains to be seen.) However, the subsidies are not necessary for Uber fares to be cheaper than taxis. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/redeye/redeye-ride-share-cabs-surge-cost-breakdown-20160408-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/redeye/redeye-ride-share-cabs-...