1. Uber drivers are not commodified. There is in fact a difference between drivers, both known in advance (rating) and during/after the actual trip. I have had very pleasant experiences with some drivers, and very unpleasant experiences with others. The pleasant drivers I tipped extra and gave high ratings. The unpleasant ones I did the opposite.
2. I am not perpetuating a straw man that "all collective bargaining is price-fixing". I am arguing that in this particular case, this is the bad one (price fixing), not the good one (collective bargaining). This is because the drivers (not Uber) have monopoly power in the market. The disagreement is stemming from the fact that you believe that any action taken by "labor" cannot be price-fixing, which I disagree with.
3. "This is ridiculous on its face." It is not ridiculous. This is called supply-and-demand and it actually works quite well for pricing things. If Uber "sets" the price too high, riders will not use the service. If they "set" the price too low, drivers will not want to participate and then you don't have a market. Again, the price is "set" at whatever value riders are willing to pay and drivers are willing to accept. Anything else and the system fundamentally doesn't work.
4. At least in California:
a. you choose which rides you want. you are not forced to take certain rides ("make a certain app").
b. drivers can set prices
c. the Uber cut is not obscure (pretty sure it's always been 30%). The time this doesn't apply is when Uber gives both counterparties a great deal by paying the driver more and charging the rider less and using VC money to split the difference.
d. you can ride for Lyft as well, or be a private car for hire without a ride-sharing app ("market yourself")
e. my option with Stripe is "sell my app using them or not", ditto for Steam. Can I sell it without them? Sure. Just like a driver can sell private car-for-hire services without Uber.
5. You might want to break it to a number of companies that some of their core businesses don't actually exist because they came out of acquisitions. Regardless, that wasn't my point. Investors invested in a ride-sharing app. Uber makes money because they have an app. Without the app (but 1000s of drivers) they would not have a business. They would literally be a cab company. But actually they wouldn't be because they don't have any medallions, which you need if you're not connecting riders directly to drivers with... your app. The core business is definitely the app. That's how Lyft can also exist in the same space with the same drivers. Because their business is in making an app that enables a marketplace for ride-sharing, just like Uber. But it's a different app. But the same drivers. Given your assertions, I guess they're pretty lucky to exist in an industry where you could have 100 competing ride-sharing apps, but because "the drivers are their core business", they will all do just fine because they all have drivers!
6. Most of this is addressed in 4. For the rest of it, you're just tacking on more and more made-up criteria that obviously don't apply. If I hire a guy to mow my lawn, I can stipulate that he uses an electric mower. Maybe this is because I care about the environment, don't like gas fumes, or want to look fancy in front of my neighbors. My reasons are my own and he is still an independent contractor. Likewise, Apple forces you to develop in a certain way for the App Store – still a marketplace. They require you to adhere to certain standards of app design/development – ya know, so you don't hurt their brand. Steam could (does?) do that too, and it wouldn't make them not a marketplace. I also notice you ignored Etsy/Twitch, which most certainly do rely on one-person delivery for their core business.