Uber could have remained a premium cab company with a fancy app, but everything start-up is rated on growth numbers, not profit, and definitely not on profit of drivers.
If not for abusing growth, it would have not raised funding and would have likely failed.
What business incentive would they have to be a black car app, if they can make more money by expanding into UberX? Not to mention, if they had remained a black car app, they might have gone out of business.
Uber is a business, not a charity. They exist to maximize profits. If you understand that point, then you see why your point is irrelevant.
Also, what the heck does it mean to "abuse growth"?
If I had to guess, abusing growth means taking advantage of the fact that a lot of investors use growth as a core metric in their decision-making process. Thus, Uber optimising for growth over any other "more reasonable" option, just to obtain funding.
Even if that's true, the CEO is the right person to make a complaint to. Or do you think the cab driver should get an economics degree and acquire a fine understanding of market forces?
