That old saying: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...." is relevant here. If it costs like a taxi, looks like a taxi, pays its drivers like a taxi,

That old saying: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...." is relevant here. If it costs like a taxi, looks like a taxi, pays its drivers like a taxi, it's a taxi. It's not an 'Uber' - whatever that's supposed to mean. Uber appealed to the riders because it was cheaper - now the costs are approaching taxi prices, what's the 'Uber' advantage? Uber appealed to drivers because they could earn more money than it cost to run their vehicles - with lower driver-payments, what's the 'Uber' advantage? So, if the costs are higher and the returns aren't there why drive for 'Uber' at all? Without the drivers, there's nobody to take the riders anywhere. Best to order a Taxi. At least you know that there is a taxi in the town, and it will get to you eventually. On the other hand, if no Uber driver happens to feel like driving at the moment, you could be waiting for days until your trip happens. I've always said that Uber is scam. Soaking the investors and drivers alike, while the 'management boys' skim the top and laugh all the way to the bank.