To me it sounds clear that uber has benefits there in that case, unlike the grandparent is claiming. Most consumers favour constant prices without surprises, and dislike negotiation processes.

Only because they force the driver to eat the loss (Or pay him with VC money).

If there is no guarantee of a fare back, this kind of pricing is not sustainable long-term.

I took an Uber from Taipei City to TPE airport. I was charged for the a "return fee" to account for the inconvenience of such an out-of-the way trip.

It was still dirt-cheap compared to a equivalent trip in the US.

Why not? It's definitely sustainable. The loss can be offset by the gains. And if the gains outweigh the loss then it's sustainable.

It's sustainable - if prices for regular rides rise to compensate for the losses drivers take on less profitable ones.

... and all of a sudden, you are back to taxi pricing.

I feel this is the issue with Uber, the price doesn't take into account the destination and probability of finding a return route customer. For example, I've talked with lyft drivers in Seattle who have picked up people in downtown who then say their destination is Tacoma or even Olympia (which can take anywhere from 1 to 2 hours depending on traffic). That's 1 to 2 hours away from anywhere the driver normally operates, and with very little chance of finding a fare for the return drive. It would be fair if the fare was adjusted to take into account these important variations.

That's not true at all. Most consumers in Taiwan, myself included when I lived there, prefer to negotiate a set price for a longer distance trip.

Uber was an enormous improvement in SF and in Beijing (where there just aren't enough cabs). In Taiwan it's a sizable step backwards.