The unthinkable has happened. In an environment where technology is all-pervasive, and companies that disrupt markets using algorithms and smart software can seemingly do no wrong, Sadiq Khan's Transport for London (TfL) has reached for the stop button.
To many Londoners, Uber symbolises the democratisation of a closed-shop industry that has sometimes offered bad service and charged high prices for too long.
In a city that only recently gained a 24-hour Tube service, the prevalence of a mass transport service that offered flexibility at low prices had to be welcomed.
Sure, it has its problems - from price surges at peak times to drivers who do not always know where they are going and, in a small number of instances, individuals who should not be driving at all.
But on the whole, Uber has been a force for good. London, after all, is a world city partly because it has a history of welcoming new entrants.
The debate around Uber often plays out in a binary way - either for or against.
But just as nobody has ever been forced to hail a black cab, so nobody has ever been forced to order an Uber. The point - which is often missed - is that its presence in London, and the 15 other UK cities it operates in, adds to the existing services in a largely positive way.
For TfL- which answers to Mayor Khan but is said to have taken the decision independently of him - to strip Uber of its licence goes against what the city stands for.
More importantly, it also goes against free markets and the desire to make London a capital of the technology world.
Clearly, there are questions to be asked as to the way the company operates in certain quarters and some of the technology it operates. The objections of TfL are largely trading standards issues and as such should be resolvable.
The question of course is whether the capital's transport authority really just objects to Uber on the grounds it says it does, or whether it has been nobbled by union leaders who have been unhappy with its presence since it opened for business in the city in 2012.
Despite these issues, there are also clear advantages to Uber - not least the fact that every journey is logged by GPS, and that it has cut down the use of illegal, often unlicensed, uninsured mini-cabs late at night.
Also worth considering are the livelihoods of some 40,000 drivers who will be unemployed overnight should the licence withdrawal stand. That's the equivalent number of jobs lost when Woolworths and BHS shut - but concentrated in one city.
Simply stripping Uber of its licence seems to be a stark over-reaction to a situation that could have been resolved by discussion.
It may be that Khan feels that negotiations with the company have failed. Relations between the two sides certainly seem to have collapsed, with TfL informing Uber of its decision just one minute before it was made public.
It also may be that Khan, cognisant of Uber's wider problems including an investigation by the American financial regulator and the ousting of its founder as chief executive, senses that now is a good time to get a better deal on certain points.
It may transpire that the 21-day appeals process - which Uber has already indicated it will take full advantage of - will allow time for both sides to get around the table and work out their problems, as happened in Austin, Texas, where Uber faced a similar conundrum.
It may also transpire that Uber doesn't want to allow TfL access to its technology - which after all is proprietary and commercially sensitive - and walks away from one of its landmark business venues.
Although not about technology per se, the move will be seen as a retrograde step by tech investors thinking where next to invest.
Sure, Uber has had its fair share of problems in a number of cities, but to allow a business to operate for five years, and then to ban it, seems perverse.
Like it or not, the capital's reputation - and as a by-product, that of the wider UK economy - as a centre for innovation and disruption is at stake here. Companies and investors crave certainty.
What this ruling does is create an uncertain playing field, and send a message to firms that even if you are to operate in the established parameters, the rules may be changed.
Cynics might also suggest that the objections are veiled.
Might it be that although TfL's objections focus largely on safety concerns, what it actually objects to - and what the powerful trade union lobby who speak for London's black cab drivers object to - is the flood of private hire vehicles on the streets of the capital.
For Uber and for Londoners alike, this is a key moment, which sends a clear message to other companies looking to invest here.
The decision to ban Uber from London's streets could yet have wider repercussions for investment in the capital than Khan and his cohorts realise.
The Daily Telegraph, London
