G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft • Hacker News Board

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#331

Post by exw » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #59

exw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that this is probably the end state of this space, but I think this is much more Google's than Uber's vision - Uber is terrified of autonomous cars (since it eliminates the supply network effect of their driver network and opens up the space to anyone with deep pockets). Once autonomous cars become a reality, I think you are going to see a fierce battle between Uber and Google.

>Once autonomous cars become a reality, I think you are going to see a fierce battle between Uber and Google. Google Ventures invested $258M in Uber in 2013 and are one of it's largest shareholders.

Google Ventures independent from Google (and goes through pains to point this out when you pitch them). While there is obviously a lot of synergy, Google Ventures employees are not Google employees, and do have not have Google stock options.

Also, if you want to look back through the annals of tech history, many larger companies partner with disrupters when a new technology emerges, only to enter the market when the new technology grows into a significant market.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#332

Post by saosebastiao » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:03 PM UTC

biot wrote: post #322

saosebastiao wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same capability currently exists independently of driverless cars. What makes you think the utilization of this tactic will change with driverless cars?

Coordinating this is a hassle. With driverless cars, you could say "I need a vehicle to take me from A to B" and a vehicle just shows up, possibly with one or more passengers who were already enroute to B. It wouldn't surprise me if that becomes the norm with an option for "I require a private trip" for an extra fee.

I currently have two apps on my phone that provide me a way of saying "I need a vehicle to take me from A to B". Both have attempted to do what you are talking about, but have settled on something more similar to "Walk to checkpoint A and wait for 5 minutes and you'll be dropped off at checkpoint B that is kinda close to where you actually want to go".

As it turns out, coordinating rides is pretty difficult, even with sophisticated software doing a lot of the work for you. Maybe if either of those companies had huge market shares, then maybe the problem gets easier. I'm not counting on it.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#333

Post by nodesocket » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:16 PM UTC

This kind of leaves a sour taste in my mouth, seeing as GM took an 11 billion dollar government bailout. Should they really be allowed to make speculative bets in a highly competitive market, where the market leader (Uber) essentially has unlimited capital? Isn't this the kind of stuff that got GM into trouble?

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#334

Post by MajorLOL » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #267

MajorLOL wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if you owned 10 rental properties, were a plumber, an electrician, a basketball coach or had almost any job other than something in the tech industry. You would use your truck/van/large SUV for hauling trash, wire, sports equipment, etc. You would laugh at the idea of selling your primary transport and using an uber/lyft every day to transport all your equipment. Every time one shows up or drops off, remove a…

Most people I know who work in the trades own the vehicle as part of their business, and have separate passenger car(s) for hauling family. The vehicle subscription would replace the passenger car, not the truck used for heavy work, not at the least because the depreciation of the work vehicle is deductible as a business expense. Also, a vehicle actively used for construction work is already heavily utilized (it is h…

If 60% of the fleet is trucks and trucks are rarely purchased for explicitly moving humans and instead purchased for the moving of things.

Rideshare already only has 40% of the market to convince to sell their car and perpetually rent on demand. What's the conversion rate of that 40% who could use the on demand service for moving humans? 50%? That's not a massive pile of customers.

Built in car-seats are almost a mirage, they are wildly uncommon. The premise still remains, overwhelming majority of people will not want to abandon a personally owned vehicle for some on-demand car that arrives and some varying condition and layout that you have to load/unload every time with your things.

Try it for a week if you drive, take your car charger/paperwork/sunglasses/whatever in and out of the car every time you park. That alone will sell you on private ownership.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#335

Post by MajorLOL » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #274

MajorLOL wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debt: 6 years to realize the savings on the interest? It nearly took GM that long to repay the debt they took on. It's sounding like a worse investment all the time. OTJ Experience: I think it's less speculative and lines less wealthy billionaires pockets to invest directly into education and industry beyond private market money to provide great learning experiences for people.

>It's sounding like a worse investment all the time. Until you realize the negative feedback loop of hundreds of thousands of GM employees hitting unemployment lines, and the secondary and tertiary companies that supply and contract for GM also shutting down. 200,000 employees * 1,000/mo unemployment * 100 weeks = $20 billion dollars. Obviously a terrible case, but not even a worst case as I examine only GM employees…

So the core of it is; the ROI is irrelevant, it's value was the prevention of job loss and market failures.

Now you see why I'm not excited and jumping for joy when people spin it as a profitable investment. It never was a money making endeavor, if it turned out to be, it was by happenstance.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#336

Post by chc » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:46 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #315

hueving wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A smartphone doesn't cost more than the average American annual salary.

You don't buy a 747 to fly across the country do you? No, you buy a ticket from Southwest or another carrier. Kids will one day laugh at how we used to buy vehicles instead of rent them by the miles. "Auto loans?!?" The horror!

Companies that need to use planes a lot do sometimes buy their own (e.g. FedEx does not simply buy tickets from Southwest). Ordinary folks don't own planes because they don't fly around everywhere — they mostly drive.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#337

Post by jonknee » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:46 PM UTC

JonFish85 wrote: post #294

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would only estimate a 3-5x reduction in fleet size 10x is admittedly bullish. I expect 4 to 7x within 20 years, i.e. 3 to 4 product cycles. But 10x is more reasonable than it seems at face value. Let's use Manhattan to illustrate. Another HN user (wadenick) kindly provided [1] some references I'd like to point to. Car ownership across the United States stands at 81% of households [2]. In Manhattan it's 23% [3]. Man…

"Uber pays 75% of its earnings to its drivers. How much cheaper could a driverless be? 50% less?" Remember that from that 75% is supposed to be things like insurance policies and such, and I suspect that currently drivers aren't bothering to properly insure their cars (using it for a business rather than personal use). In a driverless car case, someone is going to have to pay for that insurance, whether the manufactu…

> In a driverless car case, someone is going to have to pay for that insurance, whether the manufacturer, operator or rider, that cost is going to come from someplace, and will probably be significant. I'm not sure that you could achieve 50% savings, and maybe not even 25%.

The fleet provider (e.g. Uber) would surely self-insure. Insurance for self driving cars will be extraordinarily cheap (at least an order of magnitude less than driver based insurance).

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#338

Post by bduerst » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:49 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #329

bduerst wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For rural and light suburban areas I wonder if we'll probably see more of a hybrid shuttle service with at-door pickups, not unlike school buses. Even without the wage-cost of drivers, individual taxi service may still be too expensive to match the lower demand.

Never lived in the rural area did you? No one likes buses, because buses are slow. They're slow because they make lots of stops that are irrelevant to your trip. As someone that regularly rode the school bus on a route that took an hour, compared to a 10 minute direct route. Fuck buses. Yes taxis, exist, but not many. The only people I knew that ever took them were people that lost their licenses. What you've actuall…

I grew up in a rural area, thank you.

The cycle of poverty is strong in these rural locations because of the lack of public transportation and the cost to maintain a vehicle to hold a job. There are plenty of low-income people moving to common destinations (city center, plants, etc.) that would use an on-demand shared shuttle service if it had at-door pickup.

Having worked a couple summers on a factory line, we would set up carpools and pick people up along the way to work each day. Don't be a dismissive dick just because you personally didn't like your school bus ride.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#339

Post by hueving » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:57 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #315

hueving wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A smartphone doesn't cost more than the average American annual salary.

You don't buy a 747 to fly across the country do you? No, you buy a ticket from Southwest or another carrier. Kids will one day laugh at how we used to buy vehicles instead of rent them by the miles. "Auto loans?!?" The horror!

We already have taxis, Uber and rental cars. People still seem to be buying cars even at their high price. Why do you think that is?

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#340

Post by shoyer » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 11:58 PM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #332

biot wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coordinating this is a hassle. With driverless cars, you could say "I need a vehicle to take me from A to B" and a vehicle just shows up, possibly with one or more passengers who were already enroute to B. It wouldn't surprise me if that becomes the norm with an option for "I require a private trip" for an extra fee.

I currently have two apps on my phone that provide me a way of saying "I need a vehicle to take me from A to B". Both have attempted to do what you are talking about, but have settled on something more similar to "Walk to checkpoint A and wait for 5 minutes and you'll be dropped off at checkpoint B that is kinda close to where you actually want to go". As it turns out, coordinating rides is pretty difficult, even wit…

Uber and Lyft already do this in San Francisco, and it works very well.