About that competition. Per http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/number-of-uber-lyft-drivers-dwarfs-san-franciscos-taxi-fleet/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslo

About that competition. Per http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/number-of-uber-lyft-drivers-dwarfs-san-franciscos-taxi-fleet/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/number-of-uber-l... in SF there are 1.8k taxis and 45k Uber/Lyft drivers. That's 4% taxi vs. Uber/Lyft. Barring changes in the law, number of taxis is limited by number of medallions. Number of Uber/Lyft is limited only by demand, which we probably are not even close to meeting (surge pricing during rush hours is still a thing). If anything, the reports are that number of taxi rides went down and some taxi companies literally went bankrupt. So taxis are not a competition. You claim it's easy to compete with Uber/Lyft. Where is this competition in SF? How do you explain what happened in Austin? When Uber/Lyft stopped service in Austin, several local competitors emerged. When Uber/Lyft came back, they all folded within weeks. They just couldn't compete on price or availability. Furthermore, if you claim that Uber, at their scale, has to subsidize to stay in business, how does that not apply to any other competitor. Either this can be profitable business, in which case Uber has significant advantage due to their scale, existing user base and marketing presence, or it's not, in which case no-one can make money.