
Uber says drivers aren’t essential to its business – but if they aren’t, who is? - azemda
https://www.mic.com/p/uber-says-drivers-arent-essential-to-its-business-but-if-they-arent-who-is-18752544
======
simonblack
Uber is basically a scam transferring money from investors to the company's
pockets.

We've seen this scam happen before - the Dot.Com Bubble - when investors were
told that "The Old Economy" fundamentals didn't matter any more and it was now
"The New Economy" where 'potential' was worth more than 'profits'.

Strictly speaking, Uber is correct: drivers aren't essential to its business.
The cash transfer from investors happens anyway. The drivers are merely there,
along with the clients, as an excuse to drain investors.

Once the investors wise up, Uber will disappear like it's never been there at
all, just like 'pets.com' and all those others.

------
salawat
Seems to me Uber is trying to pitch itself as a subcontracting company that
just happens to utilize it's dispatch and subcontracting infrastructure for
ride hailing.

Which still makes their claim indirectionist bullshit. Their subcontracting
involved investment in building up fleets of vehicles, leasing them to their
"contractors", and creates a situation identical in every way that matters to
operating as a taxi company. The potential or intent to try to port their
business methodology elsewhere does not detract from the fact traffic
engineers now have to take them into account when planning out infrastructure.

This is the type of regulation flaunting that has fueled the coming backlash
against SaaS providers that supply the logistical infrastructure to make
something happen, but hide behind a shield from liability because the actual
performer of the task is a "standalone free agent".

