Which is both a good point and quite a different scenario from what's being illustrated here which is just Uber's version of a taxi stand, and literally the final brick in them going around taxi regulations.
The problem was never when Uber provided something that wasn't being provided, it was when they provided a regulation-free version (early on their drivers were wholly unvetted and many would be driving people around in cars with no commercial insurance and hence the Insurer could deny paying compensation to the passenger in the case of accident) of what was already in the Market by using the laws for Rental Cars With Drivers to avoid the laws for Taxis.
Their business model from the start was just gaining an advantage against established players using Regulatory Avoidance, even if in some situations they did provide a better service rather than just an unregulated version (and hence cheaper because all kinds of costly rules done for the safety of customers weren't obbeyed) of the same thing.