> subsidized by VC money

Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?

Well, yes, typically subsidizing goods/services below the cost of production (or below the market-determined "fair value") is considered anticompetitive because it drives the fair competitors out of the market (as without the subsidies they can't compete) and then once achieve monopoly control of the market, the subsidies stop and the quality of service plummets and/or the price skyrockets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

Except the prices didn't skyrocket and the quality of service didn't plummet for the last 10 years. I think if VCs are willing to give me 10 years of cheap quality rides, I'm in.

How long do you think that this will stay like this?

After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.

> How long do you think that this will stay like this?

If I knew how to answer questions like that, you'd see me on TV giving interviews about my trillion-dollar hedge fund.

> After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.

I have yet to see a single scenario where this actually happened without being a product of government-granted monopoly (e.g. patents in pharma). But if Uber is going to charge me 3x for the same ride (just as taxis do now) I'll stop using them (just as I stopped using taxis). In the meantime, I've been saving money for a decade. I think it's a good deal.

It would never be more expensive. And price is not the main factor (it already gets expensive quickly), the service and user experience is why people pick Uber.

Then it should be no problem for Uber to up their fares so they can hire drivers as employees

As stated, the service and user experience would change. That means less riders. That means even less drivers. It doesn’t work the same.