Because at least it's a really high tech bank based on that, the tech that the bank creates in house is irrelevant to the public, and they could even do business without it or even without computers, albeit much less effectively.
Whereas Uber is all about their client app, GSP tracking, etc. Without that they wouldn't be Uber but a large taxi company.
Without banking technology, a bank can still be a bank and provide its distinctively unique services, just slower. It worked for the Templars, and they didn't even have double-entry bookkeeping.
Without Uber technology, Uber would not exist - it would just be Uber Taxi Inc., a perfectly ordinary taxi company indistinguishable from all others.
Well, not really. Their product is really a two-sided market with prices controlled by themselves - matching drivers, unregulated and not employed by Uber, to passengers. They could do that with nothing more than a call center and a spreadsheet of roughly where drivers are if the tech didn't exist, and it'd still be cheaper and avoid the monopoly of the taxi companies.
Whether it'd largely avoid the ire of law enforcement if they couldn't hide behind their tech is a different matter.
Wouldn't that more or less just make them into a taxi company? That approach just wasn't working well.
The main difference between Uber and taxi companies is that Uber fully utilized modern technology from the ground up to build the platform, and as a result they were able to realize major improvements in terms of speed, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
I think Uber is, in practice, an unregulated taxi company, allowing it to cut costs and pay its drivers less, and it would be just as popular if it had no tech at all.
Well, the main difference I'd expect from Uber vs a bank is that the majority of Uber employees are (software) engineers while the majority of bank employees are economists.
