This article is completely depressing. The comments attached are equally sad. Both the author and most of the commentators seem to love one thing about UBER above all else: IT'S REALLY CHEAP.
...and convenient too. And fun technology that users can master and manipulate in order to gain control over something they previously had little control of (eg. rate drivers with immunity, pay with credit, skip out on gratuity, hide their destination from drivers and thereby get what they want without bearing the real costs.)
Whatever the future looks like, whoever or whatever (robots) is driving people around, you can be certain that those service providers are going to charge enough to make it worthwhile.
This honeymoon of cheap prices will be short lived.
The article is also at odds with the reality being reported on the streets of NYC...
which is that of the 13,000 Uber Drivers in NYC, only 2,000 are available to riders during rush hours...
while all 11,000+ Yellow Taxis are on the road.
If we get to a future where personal ownership of cars largely disappears, then UBER (or something similar) could work. Because in that scenario, you would see constant insatiable demand. Drivers would have no significant deadheading or downtime. Then, very low rates would be possible. Customers and drivers would like that. I'm all for that, but we are a long way from that world. Maybe closer than it appears though.
The only thing that this article proves is that if blogs and online articles are the new newspapers, only the format and method of delivery to the consumer has changed. Thus, the only need for change in Mark Twain's pronouncement would be to update the language:
If I do not read the blogs and online articles, I am uninformed; if I do read them, I am misinformed.