Always interesting to see the venture cleansing that happens. One of the most obvious, and overlooked, points for me in the article is the fallacy of applying a mass model with high margins to "low-frequency and low-value areas."
When investing gets hot, details fade, and words like Uberfication almost become bullet point validation - fascinating how this repeats, though one original idea might create a good business, it also creates 1000 cliches who try to copy parts of the model - an inherent part of networked economies, and a great way to get money in focused investing periods.
I'm the Uber of this or that sounds silly now...I'm old enough to remember a company who said they were going to be bigger than the Alta Vista of search engines...wait, that was Google. So it's always possible that one of these ideas explodes, what's intriguing is how the Uber concept became the starting idea for so many businesses, regardless of margins or frequency which are core elements..
Perhaps we have to overhype a model often to create a few breakthroughs, though it's interesting how the lack of learning in markets like food delivery, and service delivery, are repeated. Reminders of Webvan's promise and demise, because food delivery only works in a few cities, become lost in the Uberfication of business focused on the many ways to deliver food, or get you from place to place.
In the end, it's attempting to discount your way into a business with investment funds, and when that ends ironically prices rise and quality falls.
Amazing how one idea can be used as validation for so many others
(this graphic from those early days includes so many derivations)
It's not my intent to bash any of these companies, it's easy to look back and say
it doesn't work. You can't pivot out of a bad business model, that's how we learn.
And we'll all try to remember that when we're using another company's
name as a verb for what another business does, that we really understand
how that other business did it, by margins and frequency.