The problem I have with the Economist these days - they've changed a lot recently as has the Financial Times - is that they are one of the big cheerleaders for creating bubbles out of tech they clearly don't understand. This starves the startups that have compelling and reachable business models and goals because the funding goes to (quite possibly financially scammy) moonshots with vague goals somewhere over the horizon.
But because the scam worked and they managed to get publicly listed (how did that happen?! Publications like the Economist should have provided more cautions...) the gravy train rolls on.
The sooner we get back to a 'Web 2.0' era like 2008> on the sooner genuine innovation will be funded again.
Searching for "uber" in the Economist archive, I would not classify their coverage as "cheerleading" or even positive. Most articles seem either neutral or negative, including headlines like "Can Uber ever make money?"
I would also be interested to see examples of the problem you're describing.
I don't think Uber qualifies as "tech they clearly don't understand". Uber is certainly a company with issues, but it's a clear problem they are solving, adding automation to an industry that's very old.
Sure. I'm not arguing that it's a good business, but it's a simple business, no matter what tech they have backing them. Today's bubble is marked by a lot of Defi/Web 3.0 silliness.
Yeah problem is pretty clear. And they did provide something.
Real question just like with food delivery is that is there margin there for an big player to exist? Or an expensive player? Paying people to offer singular service is not cheap. And then you have cost of vehicles as well...
Can you explain to me why these two articles represent Economists being the big cheerleaders for creating bubbles? I read both articles and I'm not sure what I am missing.
The Economist was of the few publications to investigate “what if” before Brexit while almost all others dismissed that scenario. They might not be perfect but they try and they investigate.
Uber is a good example of this:
https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/famous-compani....
But because the scam worked and they managed to get publicly listed (how did that happen?! Publications like the Economist should have provided more cautions...) the gravy train rolls on.
The sooner we get back to a 'Web 2.0' era like 2008> on the sooner genuine innovation will be funded again.