3 ms·
Searching for "uber" in the Economist archive, I would not classify their coverage as "cheerleading" or even positive. Most articles seem either neutral or nega
by burkaman 4y ago
Searching for "uber" in the Economist archive, I would not classify their coverage as "cheerleading" or even positive. Most articles seem either neutral or negative, including headlines like "Can Uber ever make money?"
I would also be interested to see examples of the problem you're describing.
- bdcravens 4y agoI don't think Uber qualifies as "tech they clearly don't understand". Uber is certainly a company with issues, but it's a clear problem they are solving, adding automation to an industry that's very old.
- photochemsyn 4y agoUber only still exists because the Saudis dumped $5 billion into them.
- bdcravens 4y agoSure. I'm not arguing that it's a good business, but it's a simple business, no matter what tech they have backing them. Today's bubble is marked by a lot of Defi/Web 3.0 silliness.
- Ekaros 4y agoYeah problem is pretty clear. And they did provide something. Real question just like with food delivery is that is there margin there for an big player to exist? Or an expensive player? Paying people to offer singular service is not cheap. And then you have cost of vehicles as well...