Why do you think GM invested in Lyft rather than Uber?
In my experience, Uber is more established, well-respected, leading the ride-sharing movement. Why would GM partner with the seemingly second-place horse in the race?
G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
231–240 of 402 posts
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#232It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…
Sorry, I think this is just totally disconnected from the reality of the average American who lives outside of a major urban center. 1. Mom, dad, and kid all need to go to work/school at roughly the same time. If they all have a 15-20 minute commute (well below average for many areas) and the destinations for all three aren't in the same immediate vicinity, we're right back to the family needing 2-3 cars. 2. Eh, no.…
> If I live in 20 minutes outside the city, then I probably have to wait 20-30 minutes for a ride to arrive before I even start my trip
Not according to studies I've seen, including the one cited in my original comment [1]. They map commute patterns, urban, suburban and rural, and take simultaneity and fleet access into account.
In Ann Arbor, Michigan a "shared fleet [was predicted to] provide almost instantaneous access [fractions of one minute] to a vehicle with a fleet of only 15% of the number of privately owned vehicles that would have been used for these trips." In a rural study conducted in Germany, maximum wait was estimated at 5 minutes with fleet capacity at around 20%.
[1] http://sustainablemobility.ei.columbia.edu/files/2012/12/Tra...
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Mom, Dad, and Junior share rides with other Moms, Dads, and Juniors who are headed in the same direction?
Because that is already a possibility (carpooling is an established idea), and the critical reasons why it isn't more popular don't significantly change with automated cars. People don't want to spend their commute with random people who just happen to be going the same direction. Perhaps more important is that it creates a strict commitment to be prepared to leave on time and a reliance on others leaving on time.
I think many people just don't want to coordinate with strangers, like a pickup time, place, etc.
This will be much smoother if you just open an app like Uber and it tells you the next pickup time for where you want to head.
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#234It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…
I think, just like with most predictions that are based on trends, the current set of expectations will be uprooted by an unforeseen technological advancement.
I'll even go as far as predicting that this technological advancement will be a personal (or family) aerial vehicle[1] that makes commuting as easy as vehicular travel, but perhaps safer, and definitely faster.
In other words, I think the automobile will diminish in quantities, much like the horse, not because people need them less, but because something better comes along.
1. This could be a gyrocopter-like device or a drone-like device, but will likely not be a fixed-wing "flying car", especially beyond the extent to whicih a V-22 Osprey is a fixed-wing.
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Manhattan it's 23% ( http://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars ). This is quite scarce relative to the rest of the USA and indeed even relative to the suburban boroughs of the greater New York City metro area. For the US the last average I saw (World Bank data http://web.archive.org/web/20140209114811/http://data.worldb... ) was 81%.
I should have said Manhattan. 23% is "scarce" in that, on the island, there are relatively few gas stations, parking is expensive, and getting your car serviced reasonably encumbering. It's also a four-fold reduction from the U.S. average. How much cheaper would a driverless Lyft or taxi be? 50%? How many more people would forego driving, in Manhattan, if ridesharing were half as expensive as it is today? If half do…
Yes, I agree with your premise here. Personal anecdote, I lived in San Francisco in the city 8 years. It was by far more economical for me to have both Zipcar and taxis (later UberX and Lyft) combined per month than to have a vehicle lease + parking costs + insurance/maintenance/gas. By far. In both $ and time.
I'm not certain that other elements of your vision work in non-metro areas.
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The US Treasury made a ~ $2.4 billion profit on a $17.2 billion investment Factor in the interest USA would have saved by paying down the national debt instead. Additionally, consider what private investors would have returned with the same investment and what they would have paid in tax on personal income if they had never been taxed that $17.2b instead. They won on this one, we can point at the various Solyndras t…
>Factor in the interest USA would have saved by paying down the national debt instead. The average interest rate on the debt is 2.43$, we have around $17 trillion debt, and you're talking about a $17 billion paydown (0.1%). The amount of interest saved would be around $400 million per year. The profit on the GM bailout was $2400 million, so it would have taken 6 years for the decreased interest to total 2.4 billion.…
Slightly technical point, but the average interest rate of outstanding debt is not particularly relevant, the relevant would be the average short term rates over the span of the investment. Would've been much lower than 2.4% over the life time of this investment.
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford was in bad shape in 2006. Does anyone even remember the Ford of 2006? With their awful Focus when everyone was clamoring for the euro version? Or the Ford 500? They didn't avoid a "bailout" because they were a strong company. Two years earlier they mortgaged everything (including the iconic blue-oval logo) while money was still cheap. It was pure luck. Not strength or some sort of moral superiority. So by the ti…
I apologize if this is incorrect as the only bits I know are from my interest in cars and not finance, but I don't think it was completely luck that Ford decided to try to get money. From what I understand, they did all this because Alan Mullaly just took over as CEO and he wanted to cushion a potential unexpected event. At least that's what it says here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09ford.html?scp=5..…
It's always a mix. And is it luck or preparedness and foresight? Either way, there's a strong argument to be made that Ford was in very bad shape, and their timing in 2006 was amazing. Had they held out much longer there might very well not be a Ford today.
This is an interesting article I just ran across, and suggests the fundraising actually predated Mullally: http://fortune.com/2011/05/25/fords-forgotten-man/
I dunno. Ford is looking a bit 90's Apple right now IMO. Product (outside of the F-series) seems a week point.
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I think this is just totally disconnected from the reality of the average American who lives outside of a major urban center. 1. Mom, dad, and kid all need to go to work/school at roughly the same time. If they all have a 15-20 minute commute (well below average for many areas) and the destinations for all three aren't in the same immediate vicinity, we're right back to the family needing 2-3 cars. 2. Eh, no.…
> If I live in 20 minutes outside the city, then I probably have to wait 20-30 minutes for a ride to arrive before I even start my trip Not according to studies I've seen, including the one cited in my original comment [1]. They map commute patterns, urban, suburban and rural, and take simultaneity and fleet access into account. In Ann Arbor, Michigan a "shared fleet [was predicted to] provide almost instantaneous ac…
Why not link to the study you are quoting?! Would be useful :)
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what about trucking? According to this[0] there are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States. I hate to go down the route of "machines are going to replace everything", but doesn't autonomous automobiles and AI based routing mean these people effectively get eliminated? http://www.alltrucking.com/faq/truck-drivers-in-the-usa/
>doesn't autonomous automobiles and AI based routing mean these people effectively get eliminated? Most assuredly and it can't happen soon enough. We need to run headlong into automation, eliminating as many jobs as we can. The sooner we eliminate industries, the sooner we enter the post-labor era.
I feel that's pretty dangerous without adequate adjustments in redistribution of wealth and other sociopolitical realities. The tradition from agrarian to industrial significantly depressed labor for quite some time, so I can't imagine what a transition from labor to non-labor would do for current civilization.
Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft
#240It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…
I think it's crazy unrealistic that autonomous cars will be the majority in anything short of 20 to 30 years. The tech doesn't even exist yet.
It's taken that long just to see ABS become standard equipment across 90% of vehicles.
And this just completely ignores the ~5 to 7 year product cycle. There's no way that in just one or two generations of the Taurus we have a completely self-driving car capable of operating in all normal driving conditions, and that it's displaced the 4 or 5 previous generations of vehicles commonly on the road without the tech.