> We can stop calling it car sharing. I was referring to Uber/Lyft pools in that paragraph: "Share a car to work with some of your colleagues, who happen to li

> We can stop calling it car sharing. I was referring to Uber/Lyft pools in that paragraph: "Share a car to work with some of your colleagues, who happen to live near you, sure." Agreed, ride sharing is a much misused term. I can't give an informed opinion on just how profitable driving for Uber/Lyft is right now. Everything I've read on the subject has been (potentially) biased, devoid of real data, or since shown to be incorrect. I'd love to read studies on this if there are some available. I do think the best solution is to make as much data on profitability available to drivers, so the market can correct itself if necessary, like you suggest. However I don't think the ride hailing companies are blind to the economics of their markets. If there is a problem with the economics, that's an existential risk and they're not going to be sitting on their hands. If we're comparing ride-hailing with traditional car services, it's the ride-hailing side which have a whole lot of knobs they can twiddle to make the market work, and they're adding more all the time (e.g.: Uber/Lyft Pool can go a long way toward mitigating driver "opex" - minimizing those empty seats, like any efficient transport operator.) I just don't think the efficiency of centralized maintenance is really that big a deal. Even if we ignore all the other factors at play, if that's the make-or-break feature Uber could easily provide centralized mechanical support for their fleet. They already have driver centers in each city they operate in.