Even a hypothetical taxi monopoly faces close substitutes: owning a car for locals, renting a car for travelers. I still don't see that much room for price discrimination.

The "Standard oil strategy" of losing money to drive your competitors out of business doesn't really seem to work. If Uber declares victory and jacks up prices, presumably they will have a dozen new competitors the next week. How long did it take substitutes to pop up when Uber and Lyft left Austin?

What an actually evil Uber does at this stage is climb into bed with the regulators, suggesting all kinds of new regulations to kick the ladder down behind them. Uber doesn't seem to be going down that route so far.

It's every company's goal to be the "last man standing". In this case though, the other "men" on the playing field includes car ownership. Even absent Lyft, taxis and other competitors, the big prize isn't winning the current market for livery services. No, the big prize is winning the market for transportation. To win that market, Uber needs to be faster, cheaper and better than Lyft, taxis, public transportation, car rentals and car ownership. If they succeed, consumers win.