There are two main points in the article: 1) incredulity that the company is attracting investment, 2) incredulity that anyone thinks it's a good idea. I don't

There are two main points in the article: 1) incredulity that the company is attracting investment, 2) incredulity that anyone thinks it's a good idea. I don't know anything about the former, but I would think the right way to analyze it would be to do napkin math on what revenue yield might be. I do know something about the latter. Bird positions itself as a last mile type opportunity; you take a bird two miles to get the train or bus you were always going to get; you take Bird if you're a college student and you need to get around campus. This dismissal of Bird is a little bit like "I own a car and I'm not a big drinker and I don't travel, why would I ever call an Uber?" No one gives half a shit if you'd call an Uber. The question is whether you have the imagination to suppose there is someone else who might call one. Then it ends with the laughable idea that "Scooters are cheap so if there actually is any use for them, which there isn't, people should just buy some". The whole point with Bird is that you don't need to worry about the scooter being stolen or parked. Most of the controversy around Bird is cities complaining that what's convenient for Bird users is inconvenient for anyone else -- it's hard to observe that while simultaneously complaining that Bird offers no convenience. Disclaimer: I've only ridden a Bird once and I crashed it badly and got cuts up and down my leg and arm and ripped my pants. Apparently I don't have very good balance. Either way, Bird isn't for me. But I'm not an idiot watching dozens of people go by me on Birds and yelling at clouds about how they're making the wrong decision.