> Customers correctly perceived that Uber offered greater availability and reliability than traditional cab companies used to, but failed to recognize that all

> Customers correctly perceived that Uber offered greater availability and reliability than traditional cab companies used to, but failed to recognize that all of these improvements required billions of dollars in unsustainable subsidies. If a new entrant in any other established industry suddenly offered much more service at much lower prices than incumbents ever had, the normal response would be to demand evidence about the productivity breakthroughs making this possible. This paragraph is baffling to me. Why shouldn’t consumers want lower prices subsidized by billions of dollars of VC money? There are other industries with huge subsidies (American agriculture, for instance) where consumers are also happy to buy the artificially cheap products indefinitely, and the only people complaining are conservative/libertarian think tanks and public health groups. Investors had reason to question Uber’s efficiency, but it’s tough to argue that they weren’t aware the prices were too low to be profitable, as it was their money subsidizing it!