green_rover

Amazon and other retailers do this too.

Uber doesn't appear to be doing anything here that isn't already par for the course.

It's every company's goal to be the "last man standing". In this case though, the other "men" on the playing field includes car ownership. Even absent Lyft, taxis and other competitors, the big prize isn't winning the current market for livery services. No, the big prize is winning the market for transportation. To win that market, Uber needs to be faster, cheaper and better than Lyft, taxis, public transportation, car rentals and car ownership. If they succeed, consumers win.

From what I read, I also understood it to be based on the route (start location and end location).

Wouldn't this suggest that they aren't subsidizing rides to compete with Lyft except when Lyft subsidizes rides as well?

I always see people saying that Uber subsidizes rides now and that rates will rise later if they win a market, but the evidence doesn't support those claims. If they just want to gouge people as everyone speculates they would already do so in markets where there is no "competition".

Instead, it looks like even absent a direct competitor, that they still have competition in the form of car ownership. We should be celebrating their ability to keep driving costs down until it's cheaper to use Uber than to own and operate a car.