Car culture means that anyone who does gain a monopoly will still have a ton of small competitors. Delivery services have existed for centuries before Uber. All it did was offer a single interface for a wider area so it can take a cut. Ultimately, I don't think local deliveries or taxis are profitable enough for there to be a cut for some middleman unless the market is artificially restricted (which it was for taxis, hence Uber being very welcome when they first started up until people realized they were looking to take over what the taxi racket was doing, not give the public more choices).

Classifying drivers as employees for such apps might prevent the non-profit iteration that just charges drivers an infrastructure fee but otherwise allows them to set their own prices. IMO the approach should have been to open up how they charge fees and pay drivers, change it to be commission-based with the drivers getting most of the money. But that might be getting too close to challenging how most of the rich make their money (it's not from their own hard work).

It does depend on interest rates to some extent. For the past decade, the prevailing wisdom of the software industry has been to pour money into unprofitable ventures with the hope of getting profitable later. In the past year, austerity measures like heightened interest rates have made it so VCs are more interested in money now instead of money later.