I get your point but don't fully agree. For one -- I did not get cheap, subsidized taxis. I got a service that moved me from one place to another, yes. But it'

I get your point but don't fully agree. For one -- I did not get cheap, subsidized taxis. I got a service that moved me from one place to another, yes. But it's incorrect to call that service "taxis", considering what the taxi industry actually offered. That's not fair to the entire taxi industry. I've lived in places that had incredible taxis. London and Tokyo, for instance. Uber didn't actually improve those places much. But in San Francisco? Manila? Any given tier 2 or tier 3 city? It's a different service. One that actually works. Now the taxi industry, at least in some places, is finally improving; adding some tech, making itself a serviceable option. And that's fine! If you want that to replace Uber -- great. I'm on board. But that would not be happening without Uber having acted as the hoard of rats chewing the blockage out of a sewer tunnel. Similarly, the article argues that Uber has done some massive harm to public transit. It gives no evidence, so I'm disinclined to believe it. Public transportation was either good or very, very bad in each of the places I've lived, with not much in between. That was before Uber, and the "very bad" category was not on track to improve. Cities can turn around now and decry Uber and blame it for their terrible buses, but those same cities were doing an awful job before. So largely my point is backward-looking. Whatever changes Uber has wrought are already in the past; and looking into the past, I say they were good. I can imagine an argument with more nuance than mine, but this article is pure outrage and vitriol. Nor do I think it's even reasonable to say that, if Uber goes into bankruptcy in the future based on its inability to turn creative accounting into profits, the entire transportation industry will somehow collapse. It will be fine, and still greatly improved over 2005.