That is an interesting piece. But I think it somewhat contradicts itself. On the one hand it claims, "The company’s cultural dysfunction [...] stems from the

That is an interesting piece. But I think it somewhat contradicts itself. On the one hand it claims, "The company’s cultural dysfunction [...] stems from the very nature of the company’s competitive advantage: Uber’s business model is predicated on lawbreaking." On the other, it points out that Lyft was actually the groundbreaker in using unlicensed drivers; in fact it links to a 2013 Uber policy statement [0] detailing Uber's plan to start using unlicensed drivers only after competitors had been doing so unimpeded in a given metro area. The point is, Lyft was even more aggressive in ignoring the relevant legal strictures than Uber was; yet I have not seen any stories about a dysfunctional culture at Lyft, which, by the author's argument, should be even more inevitable. Indeed I know hardly anything about Lyft as a company, except that their service has worked for me when I've tried it, and the drivers seem to prefer it over Uber. If I had to say what seems to distinguish the two businesses, based on what (little) I know, I would say that Lyft seems more interested in providing a good service, while Uber seems more interested in making lots of money. I am tempted to conclude that Uber's problems are rooted more in a general lack of concern for customers, drivers, and employees than in the fact that their business model is somewhat outside the law. [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20150910144736/http:/newsroom.uber.com/2013/04/uber-policy-white-paper-1-0/ http://web.archive.org/web/20150910144736/http:/newsroom.ube...