1) The other article was posted by me.

I did realize that you posted both. I was trying to reference the posted article without naming you because I was trying to focus on the article, not who posted it.

2) Uber, Lyft and Didi are dependent on network effects - ten Uber cars in a metropolis are much less than 10% as valuable as a hundred Uber cars in a metropolis, and a thousand Uber cars in a metropolis are more than ten times as valuable as a hundred. As such, when two thirds are Uber and one third is Lyft, Lyft is sucking down more than 33% of Uber's business and Uber is doing a lot more damage to Lyft's business such that eventually, Lyft will die.

From your linked wiki:

However, network effects need not lead to market dominance by one firm, when there are standards which allow multiple firms to interoperate, thus allowing the network externalities to benefit the entire market.

Why are you concluding that Uber's market share is pushing Lyft out faster? Lyft would also benefit from network effects, some of them from Uber. People will use rideshares when there are available rideshares. That requires the network effect. By itself, Lyft might be too small, but with Uber, if someone can't get a rideshare in their area from Lyft, they can get one from Uber. That makes the whole enterprise more viable.

Most people that I've read that have used Uber have also used Lyft when Uber was unavailable or too expensive.

There is also more than one taxi company in many areas. What's the mechanism that allows only one company in rideshares?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but all ridesharing services are de facto illegal.

If that's the case, then Didi is just as much illegal as Uber. If Didi were in the same countries as Uber, the same illegalities would apply to them.

when you're throwing billions of dollars around, it's best not to spend it on corporate cultures that refine for sociopathy.

Why? There have been lots of businesses based on unsavory practices in the past that have been very successful.

Steve Jobs and Apple have been criticized for some of their moral choices. Many have called Steve Jobs a sociopath. Is Apple now investing based on ethics?

I do realize that there's a lot of Uber hate, particularly on Reddit. Are Didi's business practices so much better?

Something people who weren't paying attention to tech press back then don't realize is that Microsoft invested in Apple in order to stave off monopoly concerns.

From a business standpoint, it doesn't matter why Bill Gates invested in Apple. If it was financially beneficial for both of them, then it was a good decision on both their parts.

But Apple feels like fucking that up.

It looks that way. But is it a wise business decision?