Are the providing value or reallocating it from VCs temporarily in order to obtain enough market share to then extort consumers for higher prices (less value per dollar) later on?
> obtain enough market share to then extort consumers for higher prices (less value per dollar) later on?
Are there many examples of this extortion?
Casper and Blue Apron plummeted after adjusting pricing because they weren’t providing sufficient value. Uber became profitable. It probably lost some customers. But nobody I know felt extorted by it—those who didn’t like the new prices stopped using it.
Uber is definitely such an example - a lot of taxi companies disappeared because they couldn't compete with the scale of Uber with its subsidised prices.
Now Uber have significantly increased their prices there are a lot fewer alternatives to turn to.
> Now Uber have significantly increased their prices there are a lot fewer alternatives to turn to
Can you give an example of a city where Uber has a meaningful monopoly? Hell, I’ll even give you Uber and Lyft. Where the alternative modes of transport—be it private cars, public transport or taxis—are non-existent to someone who would have otherwise made use of them?
It's not that the alternatives are non-existent, it's that their cost (in dollars or some other parameter) have gone up a lot. For example, if you don't use Uber or Lyft in San Francisco, it takes a LOT longer to hail a taxi on the road than it used to.
