I understand why you think that way. Nobody likes an asshole! Nobody wants to work with an asshole! Just play nice, and people with work with you!

Night School believed as you do. They figured they would be most successful by playing ball, cooperating with regulators, and not pissing people off. For their pains, they were shut down by the very people they bent over backwards to play nice with. They caught no flies with honey. Uber, on the other hand...

This is a long-winded way of saying that it's possible that one might consider adapting to the scenario.

This is hardly an apt comparison. Uber is one of the most bloated of the fat VC babies, it's received at this point what must be billions of dollars in burn startup cash, where Night School had none (wasn't around long enough to really get anything.) Night School was also entirely beholden to the regulators because it was planning to use school busses, which if you've ever even tried to book one you already know the issues there.

I mean if we're really committed to the Night School idea that would probably be best done as a Government program, since it's so intertwined with assets that are used heavily by the Government. But I'm also willing to bet if we gave them a couple Billion to burn, they could also make it happen. The question of whether that's worth it or not is quite different, though.

You're absolutely right! It's not reasonable to compare Uber as it is today to Night School. Instead, I suggest comparing Uber of multiple years ago to Night School. Uber wasn't always huge with lots of money behind it, after all.

Uber got to the position of being the most bloated of fat VC babies by not playing nice. Night School never got that far because they insisted on playing nice. They also ran afoul of the taxi industry, who felt threatened by their business model.

We might want to give serious consideration to the possibility that one behavior pattern is not privileged above all others in all possible scenarios.