> I’d develop the base system for free,

That's not a valid point. You're subsidizing a good. That's like me saying that since I'm willing to buy my friend a beer, then beer is free.

Development time is most definitely not free, and neither is software update, ops, or support. Things that Uber gives for free.

Some companies have built systems like Uber, cheaper, and more reliable.

Just a lot smaller in scope. See Mercedes' ridesharing offering in the EU, it's exactly that.

Only a few dozen devs, yet cheaper than Uber, with similar features.

The choice isn't between paying Uber to build an app or building a simpler app on your own.

Uber has already built an app. The city is subsidizing people for transportation. There is no more software development that needs to be done.

You comparing cheaper services to Uber is like comparing a large industrial farm to a local farm. Sure, the industrial farm costs more, but you're not paying for it. You're just paying for food stamps.

Why would you duplicate effort that already exists?

Why are you continuing arguing that point? You're still not understanding the point I'm making at all, and not even trying.

I don't see any way this discussion can continue in a useful way like that.

That said, you're not the only one - although it might also be due to the SV mindset.

> Why would you duplicate effort that already exists?

Because it's cheaper.

I have single-time costs to pay for developing such a system, and afterwards minor maintenance costs.

Or I can pay every year for Uber, and create high profits for their investors for them to build golden castles. If an investor makes profit from taxes, something's already gone wrong.

You're still suggesting an economy based on leasing, but that's not affordable in the long term.