1) I'm not "concluding" that Uber is pushing out Lyft. I'm stating that from Pando's ceaseless coverage of all things Uber over the past 18 months. You're right- most drivers for Lyft also drive for Uber. However, these are two startups that aren't making profit and the bubble is about to pop. Only the strong will survive. It's not appropriate to model either as regular businesses considering that the fundamentals of both can be completely out of whack and still garner investment cash.

I should have stated that more generally. Why are you concluding that only one company will survive in the rideshare industry.

If the business model is not workable, then both companies would be affected by that. The bigger the company, the more exposure the company has to the deficiencies in the business model. It's possible that the bigger company will be more adversely affected.

The reason Google dominates the market is because the more users who use Google, the better the search engine becomes, so more people use it. The reason Facebook dominates the market is because the platform that more people use is the platform that people will have to use to connect to those people.

In the rideshare industry, the customer wants to get from point A to point B. The company's app that provides that is fungible.

In the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can co-exist because both those products are fungible.

The reason for one company dominating the rideshare industry is not clear.

2) Didi is every bit as illegal as Uber, but the torch and pitchforks reserved for Uber rarely hit Lyft.

The reason for that might be that Uber is the pioneer and the most aggressive player in that market. The company that trail blazes the way will get more flak until the laws change and there is more acceptance. Or alternatively, the laws won't change and the whole concept will dissipate.

3) It's a bad idea to form an alliance with a company that has demonstrated disloyalty and bad acting. There is no good press for Uber. Apple doesn't need any bad press right now. Uber, for its part, has demonstrated an ability to generate bad press on a weekly basis.

How would Uber's bad press affect Apple? Google has invested in Uber without any noticeable effects. There's no reason to believe that Apple would be different in that.

From the article:

And Google-- while it’s sparred with Uber-- is also an investor in Uber.

4) It matters why Microsoft invested in Apple because we're discussing business. The business reason for the Apple investment was related to legality and anti-trust. It is therefore not applicable in this case.

It's the business reason why Microsoft invested in Apple. From Apple's perspective, that doesn't have a bearing. Apple benefited from the investment Microsoft made in Apple regardless of Microsoft's motives for doing so.

It's only applicable if in this case, as in that case, Apple is making decisions based on its rivalries rather than business sense. In the case of Microsoft, Steve Jobs had the foresight to accept the funding, regardless of the reason for the funding.