Not true. First, the taxi companies never made apps, so the lock-in factor just wasn't there. Second, the absence of an app makes it hard for any single compa

Not true. First, the taxi companies never made apps, so the lock-in factor just wasn't there. Second, the absence of an app makes it hard for any single company to succeed with every option that customers want. Willing to pay more for a nicer car and a professional driver? Or want to save money by sharing a ride with someone else? Sorry, you get whatever cab is closest, unless you're willing to look through the phone book, and the cab companies can't stop you from seeing their competitors in the phone book. With an app, I can get all of my options taken care of without ever seeing another company. Third, taxis are heavily regulated and even have to buy medallions from the limited share the city makes available. Uber and Lyft completely skirted regulations, removing an artificial barrier to monopolization. Fourth, all of the above greatly diminish the effects of the economies of scale that Uber and Lyft enjoy. Why spend a bunch of money on, say, advertising, if it isn't going to help because people simply jump in the nearest cab regardless? How can you block the competition by copying their features if nobody has apps with features to copy? How can you buy out the competition if you don't have enough cash because needing to invest in medallions and drivers slows your growth? It's not an accident that Uber and Lyft have put companies like SF's Yellow Cab out of business. With self-driving technology, the economies of scale become even more influential. Who's going to get first dibs on exclusive partnerships with car manufacturers and tech companies? Who's going to have the funds and the clout and the experience to negotiate with regulators and governments? Who's going to have the software engineers to develop their own self-driving technology? Not small taxi companies, that's for sure.