The reasoning in the article seemed strong to me: Street level transport is a commodity and the market is mature. There is a maximum amount of value to extract

The reasoning in the article seemed strong to me: Street level transport is a commodity and the market is mature. There is a maximum amount of value to extract from this business and the current companies almost do that. Uber spent way more money than the industry is likely to generate to try and steal their business. Combine that seemingly solid market reasoning with them being opposed often and them fucking up almost as often and it seems surprising they are still functioning now. Their are missing leadership, their investors are unlikely to assemble a stellar team, there are existing internal and external problems. This seems overwhelming for all but the most profitable companies, and that is just what was in this short article. Even if it is wrong the reasoning seems solid. News facts or or astounding leadership at Uber are required to pull out of such a deep hole. Their master stroke was supposed to be a self driving taxi, but they are no closer than anyone else and their bill is due. They appear to have an existential need to have that desperation move work for them for at least a few years before anyone else gets in on it. If they succeed then likely Google and Telsa will succeed within a few months of them. There appears to be no situations where they can recoup losses at a reasonable rate. I could be totally wrong, but it looks suspicious as hell. If I had money to invest at a scale that mattered to Uber, I sure wouldn't go with them.