No you’re missing the point.
They acquired market power by killing them through predatory pricing, leaving incumbents unprofitable and forcing them to exit - while creating a steep barrier to entry for any new comers and strategically manipulating existing riders by offering high take rates initially and subsidising rides to create artificial demand and inflate market share - then once they kicked out the incumbents, they exercised their market power to raise prices and their % of the take rate of each transaction; leaving consumers and riders worse off.
We can talk all day about the nice UX blah blah. But the reality is, financially, they could not have succeeded without a very dubious and unethical approach.
I get why we look on Uber with disdain today. They're the big rich behemoths who treat drivers poorly, previously had a CEO who was a raging asshole, and have now raised their prices (gasp!) to a level that they need to be for a sustainable business.
But I remember when I started using Uber back in 2012. It was amazing compared to every single other option out there. Yes, they entered the market in questionably-legal or often probably outright illegal ways. But illegal is not the same thing as immoral. And I don't think it's unethical to force out competition when that competition is a lazy, shitty, legally-enforced monopoly that treats its customers poorly.
Yes ... THAT was when governments should have stepped in and prevented uber from undercutting taxi drivers with investor money.
As pointed out here, many governments have laws stating that they will step in ... and they didn't.
Do you feel like the taxi medallion system was a better regulatory mechanism than what is currently in place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion
> But illegal is not the same thing as immoral.
Creating the gig economy doesn't get any moral points from me.
Okay but is that illegal?