I think you're oversimplifying it. Of course it provides something of value to some people - it pays drivers, riders get rides home from the airport, etc. I don't think he's saying that Uber has never provided anything of value at any point, but he's making the case that it's still a scam or a bubble, because the company isn't actually making money, it knows it, and has no plan to become profitable. Therefore, it's a net loss, and essentially scamming investors out of money, plus the other negatives he mentions. I'm sure some people made tons of money when the stock market crashed in 1929, that doesn't mean it wasn't catastrophic - just because some people benefited.

So not only is the author wrong about the point that he obviously did not make, but he is wrong about the point that everyone else understands him to have made too, even though you are still unable to understand it.

I don't know man, how hard is it to just admit that you were wrong.

> Why does surplus only matter if you capture it after the bubble pops?

Doctorow's saying the opposite about Uber.

* Uber offers cheap ride through a cnvenient app and lets drivers keep a lot (?) of the rewards

* Drives taxies out of business

* Uber raises prices and lowers drivers' rewards

* Now more expensive and less reliable than ever

He built a whole economic theory around it, even coined a name for it: Enshitification.