Yes, and which were started after 2013 or even as early as 2013?
The truth is that all the viable competitors are likely already out there and it's going to be very very difficult to replicate what these incumbents have without burning ridiculous amounts of capital.
If the Softbank deal closes, we'll likely see a wave of consolidation with Softbank orchestrating acquisitions by Uber. It's very common for relatively young markets to consolidate over time.
No one in their right mind would start a new company to compete with the existing TNCs in 2017.
Just looking at the ones active in Austin, Fasten, Chariot, and InstaRyde were started in 2014; Fare in 2015; Ride Austin in 2016.
Ride sharing is essentially a local business with very low barriers to entry. You don't need to replicate what the incumbents have right away. You just need a modest number of drivers (who can also be driving for the incumbents) and a modest number of customers.
Some were listed by local news as the leading rideshare companies.
That seems sufficient to me. It's hard to name any company started in the last few years that is a major market player when then have a bunch of competitors. New businesses take time to grow.
The discussion here is about whether Uber has a moat. The point being made is that it's pretty easy to start a rideshare company. Which it is. That one hasn't become major yet isn't proof that one can't become so. As long as there's room for new companies to start and be sustainable at modest scale, then Uber can't extract monopoly rents.
Sorry, I'm not interested in playing "bring me a rock" with you. You can do your own research. If you discover something important, let me know. But until then, I stand by my opinion that the rideshare market has low barriers to entry.
