Perhaps, and there are plenty of those around. You're a fellow New Yorker, so you can readily conjure up the image: crummy Lincoln Town Car, leather seats that reek of stale tobacco, driver who talks on the phone while operating the vehicle, payment in cash (plus the tolls!), ordering process that involves speaking on the telephone... You know, the typical Brooklyn-based car service that dispatches cars via the radio from a storefront office.

Uber's greatest contribution to the industry is the discovery that customers want a nice and smooth experience. Order using a smart phone, ride in a nice car (or perhaps a luxury one, or a larger one, or one with a child seat - you have options), and don't worry about payment and how much you owe in tolls.

So, my pitch is that this convenience can probably be made to work as a business that doesn't abuse its employees and doesn't flood the roads with idle drivers. And also doesn't burn investor cash in order to conduct a price war. That's just bananas.

It isn't 1982 anymore, taxi businesses and regions have apps now. Uber's value add is their pool of drivers' reach.

I called out “Brooklyn car services” specifically because I still see such operations around town. I’m assuming they survive because there’s a group of users who are beyond the reach of new technology.

I’m sure there are taxi services that offer conveniences similar to Uber, but none have enough name recognition for me to name even a single one off the top of my head. It’s possible that they need marketing help. It’s also possible that they aren’t looking to grow beyond whatever niche they serve now.

> I’m assuming they survive because there’s a group of users who are beyond the reach of new technology.

This thought experiment is fun, but based on a lot of assumptions like these.