Yes, I think it would work better that way. Just think of Uber; they raised $8 billion.

With that kind of money, we could have funded 100K small startups for 1 year ($80K each). That's a lot of startups!

I think funding fewer companies with more money is a good short-term strategy (in terms of buying competitive advantage) but not good in the long-run.

I don't think Uber will be able to maintain a monopoly once the hype dies down. Once the hype has faded, competitors will come up and eat into Uber's business - For example, Google, Tesla and Apple might all have their own dedicated networks of self-driving cars to drive people around and Uber may become redundant.

Uber's valuation would deflate and most of those $8 billion would have been wasted.

I wonder everyday why they don't have more competition. I won't be back, and don't need a long lecture, but it just seems like a service begging for competition?

I think they are missing a large demographic. There are people like myself, who don't care about style, or the newness of a vechicle. I just want to get there, at a reasonable price. Yes, safety is important, but older cars are safe if maintained. Hell, drive me anywhere in a old collector's car--with tons of metal?

Rent a Wreck was a popular business in the stone ages. People just needed cheap transportation. I honestly don't care about what a car looks like. I'm not marrying it.

I suspect with UberX you've already reached the point where you're not going to cut costs much by going any further downscale. There are things to criticize about Uber but "their prices are high because the cars are too nice" probably isn't one of them.

Rent a Wreck is still around and I know people who use them on a regular basis.