> contribution to society

I think it’s too early to judge Uber’s “contribution to society” when the investors are basically footing the bill for all of Uber’s customers. Let’s see Uber make a profit and it still be less costly/better service to what consumers get now and then we can talk about their contribution to society.

Making a profit isn’t a fair standard in this case. I left LA recently, but uber made social interactions in that city I’d otherwise pass on totally possible. It honestly opened up moving around LA County in a way that public transit never could. So, no, it’s not too early to judge. We’re already seeing the benefits.

I personally tend to think that I'd value ride sharing services even if prices increase to parity with traditional taxis. After all, just getting a cab in many cities is a real pain point. I also think that ride sharing services are here to stay, and that both individual consumers and society as a whole are better off for it.

However, the parents point is more general and I think you're talking past it. You can't evaluate Uber's societal contributions based on short term and possibly ephemeral benefits. For example, if ride sharing services suddenly disintegrate once VC funding dries up then they can't be said to have made a meaningful impact. Sustainability is actually crucial.

> If the question, though, is about judging a company’s contribution to society based on how morally upstanding the founder is ...

Far more than Kalanick's behavior, it is the company's practices that are the problem. They willfully broke the law and they also mistreated many people from employees to drivers to rape victims.

I’m agreeing with you, if you can’t tell.