I have a feeling this isn't as easy as you think. There are some great talks on Uber's microservice architecture and it's pretty insane. They could create new services, but I have a feeling their existing infrastructure is very custom. They've got over 1,000 microservices and it's actually difficult to get an exact number.
Symptomatic of too many engineers and too little leadership
The talk is invariably about some really impressive bit of software that appears to have required equally heaping measures of smarts and money to build, and also appears to be a $10 solution to a 10¢ problem.
But yeah, extraordinarily few internal projects can be turned into an external project without enormous rework. It's only the myth of middle managers who perceive software as a growing asset who think otherwise.
It's quite tricky to package an internally used system into something that can be sold and used by others. It most likely takes years to get to any significant amount of sales.
* Thinks they have a logistics problem in the first place.
* Thinks that software can solve that problem.
* Are in the market for software to solve that problem.
* Think that Uber's software is the software that would solve that problem the best.
That's a hell of a lot of assumptions, each of which is fairly easy to pick apart.
And this is just the taxi industry, there are plenty of industries that would love to use a logistics software to help their business. The only real magic Uber has is this software, the rest is easily replaceable or overhead.
[1] https://daymondjohnssuccessformula.com/launch-pad/cab-compan...
[2]https://www.watchdog.org/california/the-uber-effect-why-cab-...
[3] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-taxi-drivers-hate-Uber-if-its-c...
[4] https://therideshareguy.com/what-taxis-need-to-do-to-survive...
The subsidizing is what made them a household name, along with the ease of use.
And the taxi firms usually won't and often legally can't use Uber's pricing algorithms which is pretty much the only secret sauce to the app, they don't want to ignore bylaws that Uber has cheerfully skirted around and they don't want their expensively-licensed drivers competing for leads on an equal footing with new Uber drivers.
I worked for a very big "Old Media" company in Australia when we rebuilt one of their key properties. Their "definition of success" was to _not accelerate the rate of decline_ of page views. Since then I've realised that these types of businesses are ran by people who are motivated differently than 'us'.
Plus any other startup or company can build such app to compete.
Any start up could build this, but most companies don't want to deal with an MVP and the bugs that come with it, or a startup that may or may not exist in 6 months, etc... Companies will over pay for enterprise grade software if it has a history of just working. This is why Uber has an advantage, software that has a track record of doing what it says it does.
I think that companies like taxis are cheap and while they are willing to pay, they are not willing to pay much.
Every taxi company on Earth (well, at least in the UK) has an app of their own now, even if it's just a white-label with their branding applied. They all let you book a journey and tell you the name of the driver and the reg plate of the car, and have a nice animated map of how far away the car is. No-one will buy it.
But as I mentioned above the taxi industry is only the first immediate one I'd tackle, there are plenty others.
But that aside, yes a pivot would require them to do things differently, just as in your example learn selling to businesses However every taxi company in the world would jump at this opportunity immediately. The same industry that refused change for decades and had their parade rained on when Uber came around would greet this change with open arms. Especially if Uber were to 'go away' as a result.
There are going to be down rounds for Uber in the future no matter what, valuation means nothing if your business won't survive.
Not sure if the unit economics can ever work out.