I felt this article is more about how to use microservices right way vs butchering the idea. It is not right to characterize this as microservices vs monolith service.
Initial version of their attempt went too far by spinning up a service for each destination. This is taking microservices to extreme which caused organizational and maintenance issue once number of destinations increased. I am surprised they did not foresee this.
The final solution is also microservice architecture with a better separation of concerns/functionalities. One service for managing in bound queue of events and other service for interacting with all destinations.
Yandex.taxi is a service provided by Yandex. The deal talks nothing about licesing agreement for Yandex infrastructure (maps etc).
So the claim you make above is under premise that ride sharing will not make money at all and money spend on infrastructure will be far more than what ride hailing can generate.
So if this assumption is wrong then we are in different argument on whether ride hailing is a sustainable business at all.
Every investor is investing hoping ride hailing will be a profitable business. If it is then this combined entity has more to gain than lose.
If you read other articles you can see that Uber spent 170M in Russia till now. Along with this 225M its a total 395M of spending. And now they got 36.6% stake in a company (now a leader in Russia) worth 3.4B. So Uber got 1.4B. How is that not coming out with anything? Uber did same thing in China. While we all think they lost in China, Uber seems to have spent around 2B or so but got away with close to 8B stake in Didi (leader in China). Any investor will be happy with those returns.
Selectively quoting only stuff about Engineer and not quoting anything on actual injunction (which is a win for uber) seems like steering towards a negative narrative against Uber.
Again we can dislike Uber's policies etc. But journalist also needs to lay out facts as they are. Not actually try to steer the argument in one direction.
But I do agree with media bias. The main case was "Injunction". Not a case against Anthony. "Actual case" was Waymo seeking protection for what they claim 121 trade secrets and hence prevent Uber from dong self driving tests.
Specifically on that Judge ruled following
“General approaches dictated by well-known principles of physics, however, are not “secret,” since they consist essentially of general engineering principles that are simply part of the intellectual equipment of technical employees,”
This clearly shows that Judge believed Waymo over-reached when asking for injuction.
Journalists dont find it saucy. So they are just quoting the parts about Anthony downloading files and skipping the above excerpt.
I felt this article is more about how to use microservices right way vs butchering the idea. It is not right to characterize this as microservices vs monolith service. Initial version of their attempt went too far by spinning up a service for each destination. This is taking microservices to extreme which caused organizational and maintenance issue once number of destinations increased. I am surprised they did not foresee this.
The final solution is also microservice architecture with a better separation of concerns/functionalities. One service for managing in bound queue of events and other service for interacting with all destinations.