Realistically, Uber is just an idea, and they got the money mostly for the idea. Even today Uber doesn't have advanced algorithms, Google had that immediately.
Uber is just now trying to solve those hard logistics problems and their prices depend on it.
Google had its own problems too, and someone like Jeff Dean and the team solved most of them.
Ideas take time to materialize, Uber would be nothing without the map data of today, Uber would be nothing without OSM open-source implementation of Contraction Hierarchies.
It's only later when the company had luck raising so much money that they bring in the teams capable of solving the real problems that an idea didn't even know about.
Realistically, Uber founders are good businessmen, not engineers, and not idea executors. This fact alone has made their idea worth less, and even years after Uber started you can outperform Uber.
Uber for Food, with a proper implementation of dynamic vehicle routing problem algorithms can kick Uber's ass.
Unfortunately for those who are not idea executors, the science, the research behind those logistics problems is still immature, and to make "Uber for Food" idea work, you have to have a large knowledge of computer architecture, above average problem solving capabilities, and a pretty darn fast implementation of those algorithms.
That's something Uber can do now, after they employ excellent people, but the problem with large companies is that after some time, they lose direction, they slow down, and that's why you can copy them.
Look at Homejoy, "Uber for Cleaning Services".
Their ultimate challenge was exactly the same that Uber has, logistics algorithms. They failed at proper fast implementation, and failed ultimately.
Uber has more money, thus more momentum, but they can still fail, because idea is just an idea.
I disagree on Uber for Cleaning Services being the same.
For a cab company, I want a large fleet of cabs, so that I can get the closest one fast. I dont need huge levels of trust in my cab driver. Get me where I want to go, dont kill me in the process, dont rob me.
For a cleaning company, I'm letting those guys inside my house. I need a lot more trust, and I dont want new guys every time. I want a reliable guy that I can use over and over again.
One of those is well suited to a distributed model with interchangeable parts. Uber provides that distributed network, and that is a moat of kinds. Yes they can be replaced, but you still need a comparable distributed network in place to be competitive. That isn't free.
Their power is in their existing network, and the fact that being a network is a value add to what they provide. For a cleaning service, being in a network isn't a competitive benefit - I'm not looking for the closest cleaner, I want one I really trust.
Of course they aren't the same, and all your statements are true, and "Uber for Food" also isn't the same, but the ultimate challenge will be the logistics problem (they admitted that their ultimate problem was logistics), and this problem is equivalent for all three. If you solve this problem for Food, you can beat Uber, beat anything else, just on this one algorithm, or you can offer your algorithm to Uber and other services.
Problem can be defined as pickup and delivery, on the fly, or offline (knowing all of the orders in advance). If you solve the on the fly, you've solved the offline problem. Picking up people, or food, delivering people, or food, problem in its essence ignores the subject and optimizes the pickup/delivery.
I would argue that a recommendation engine would be a far better thing for cleaning services than a logistics solution is. Facebook are a lot closer to the solution for cleaning services than uber is. I want a cleaner who people say are trustworthy and who is reasonably local. I want a driver and food delivery guy who is very local and somewhat trustworthy. Very different domains.
The guy who responded too mentioned the "network effect".
I'm quite baffled by what is exactly the problem?
What, you are afraid that your babysitters will decide to dump your platform because one single individual is offering them more money?
What is stopping you from making your logistics work in a way that a preferred babysitter comes every time? Of course, that would make your logistics problem a bit harder, but that is exactly the point I'm making.
Network effect exists because of incapability of the system to create a situation where your workers would make more if they left your service. But, if you allowed the clients to have the same babysitter, same chef, and at the same time have an algorithm that is superior to everything else on the market, yes, the "Uber for Babysitting" idea is a stupid one, an obvious one, but execution is far above a "common guy" startup.
Realistically, Uber is just an idea, and they got the money mostly for the idea. Even today Uber doesn't have advanced algorithms, Google had that immediately.
Uber is just now trying to solve those hard logistics problems and their prices depend on it.
Google had its own problems too, and someone like Jeff Dean and the team solved most of them.
Ideas take time to materialize, Uber would be nothing without the map data of today, Uber would be nothing without OSM open-source implementation of Contraction Hierarchies.
It's only later when the company had luck raising so much money that they bring in the teams capable of solving the real problems that an idea didn't even know about.
Realistically, Uber founders are good businessmen, not engineers, and not idea executors. This fact alone has made their idea worth less, and even years after Uber started you can outperform Uber.
Uber for Food, with a proper implementation of dynamic vehicle routing problem algorithms can kick Uber's ass.
Unfortunately for those who are not idea executors, the science, the research behind those logistics problems is still immature, and to make "Uber for Food" idea work, you have to have a large knowledge of computer architecture, above average problem solving capabilities, and a pretty darn fast implementation of those algorithms.
That's something Uber can do now, after they employ excellent people, but the problem with large companies is that after some time, they lose direction, they slow down, and that's why you can copy them.
Look at Homejoy, "Uber for Cleaning Services". Their ultimate challenge was exactly the same that Uber has, logistics algorithms. They failed at proper fast implementation, and failed ultimately. Uber has more money, thus more momentum, but they can still fail, because idea is just an idea.