It's funny watching the public perception of uber changing over time. At first it seemed like it was just techies that didn't like them, then this whole PR mess started happening and now I am seeing non techie friends getting on the anti uber band wagon. Out in public the default expression for a ride is let's grab a lyft now, and even the drivers that talk about driving say they drive for lyft now rather than uber (in reality they almost all drive for both). As if saying they drive for uber will cause them to be judged. It's amazing how fast it happened.
I'm probably being dense but I don't understand the claim that "Uber is imploding".<p>From the article: "the company doubled its gross bookings to $20 billion in 2016, and its net revenue (excluding China) was $6.8 billion"<p>The company had $2.8 billion in losses in 2016 and it puts the company's long term prospects for financial viability into question which might mean a down round on the next funding but the company is hardly about to go under.<p>The article title should be "Uber got a bunch of bad press and a few execs left" but I guess that doesn't drive impressions.
I am conflicted about Uber.<p>On one hand, toxic company, we all know about it, they don't even pay as much taxes as they should. On the other hand, in Rome taxi drivers have been up in arms because they feel threatened by them, with violent protests in which people were beaten up and fascist salutes filmed. In my book, anyone who will put Roman taxi drivers out of business is a hero.<p>Toxic company or violent fascist taxi drivers. What a choice.
I don't think anyone has to care, except for those who have made major investments. The concept has proven itself. Moreover, it has shown a path to scaling taxi service and confirmed that a taxi service - or whatever title one might use to avoid calling uber a taxi service - isn't a bunch of cars and drivers, but a way of connecting riders to rides. Taxis are in the information business! (May Xenu forgive my trite statement.)