Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 383 posts

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#241

Post by ysavir »

CPLX wrote: post #218
quonn wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> literally lighting billions of dollars in funds on fire Figuratively. But even that's not true, since customers have saved real money and spent it elsewhere.

Literally. Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Well that's.... Sad. I think I will take what little authority I (don't) have and veto that definition, seeing as it literally defeats the purpose of definition #1.

And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#242

Post by markdog12 »

CPLX wrote: post #218
quonn wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> literally lighting billions of dollars in funds on fire Figuratively. But even that's not true, since customers have saved real money and spent it elsewhere.

Literally. Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Eternal shame on merriam-webster.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#243

Post by [deleted] »

neosat wrote: post #117

This could be a longer term death blow for Lyft, ironically. If Google has the self driving tech, the car & car partnerships, the money, maps, access to end consumers, what exactly does it need Lyft for? Lyft will be a vehicle for Google to kickstart and test this out with a current ride sharing network before Lyft is cut off ...

[deleted]

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#244

Post by martinald »

ridgeguy wrote: post #51
sikosmurf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I feel like there is no way Uber would be on the brink of bankruptcy and not be able to fundamentally change the problems that have persisted so far. I guess what I'm getting at is that a company valued at 69 billion dollars going out of business in less than 2 years should be a surprise to everyone .

Valuation differs from cash in the bank. Uber could be valued at a gazillion $, but if it can't make payroll in 90 days, it's got a problem that would be tough to fix, given the apparent lack of a profitable business model.

Yes, and even worse the 'auxiliary' services business seems to be doing very badly and is adding to cash burn, instead of increasing utilisation of their existing fleet.

UberEats for example is completely dying a death in London (this may be different for other markets). Speaking to a few restaurant chain owners they get virtually no orders through and the experience is terrible, because drivers get lost and the food gets cold. They then blame the restaurant and leave loads of bad reviews everywhere.

I genuinely think Uber has very limited network effects. The driver fleet can drive for other companies at the same time, the user will just use the app that is cheapest/works the best/has the best service. I don't see enormous stickiness there, and the other services they offer don't work well IMO.

nb. why on earth is ubereats a seperate app, for example? It should be in the same app.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#245

Post by Asooka »

ysavir wrote: post #241
CPLX wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally. Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Well that's.... Sad. I think I will take what little authority I (don't) have and veto that definition, seeing as it literally defeats the purpose of definition #1. And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.

It's not quite as bad as you think, literally is usually used figuratively in "A is literally B" to indicate that while A is obviously not literally B, the outcome that A will have will be practically the same as that from B.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#246

Post by htormey »

alphast0rm wrote: post #146
htormey wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Uber get a significant chunk of Didi stock when it agreed to exit china? I have no idea how uber is doing overall abroad but china didn't appear to be a total wash for them at least.

Uber received a 17.5% stake in Didi as part of the deal [1], which is worth ~8.75B given their most recent raise at a ~50B valuation [2]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-28/china-s-d... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/didi-chinas-uber-raises-5-5-bil...

Not that bad of an outcome really. I think Uber blew about $1 billion chasing after China.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#247

Post by jorvi »

Tepix wrote: post #221
nodesocket wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there are only a handful of places in the US where Uber is banned. Contrary to popular belief (and intentionally propagated by smear campaigns), Uber wasn't banned in Austin TX... they pulled out of that market voluntarily.

Why talk about the US? It's only one market of many. In many other countries Uber has been banned.

Yeah, this is a really pervasive attitude on HN and tech in general. By not taking that path WhatsApp has pretty much locked down the international messaging market, so it's a stupid attitude too.

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#248

Post by jfoster »

rorykoehler wrote: post #61
jfoster wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lyft barely exists outside of the US. Uber is still on top if you take a global view.

Lyft have a deal with Grab here in Southeast Asia. As I understand I can use Grab to book Lyfts in areas where Lyft operates and Grab doesn't (and vice versa).

Not anymore.

http://mashable.com/2017/03/22/didi-chuxing-lyft-roaming-dea...

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#249

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

jorgenev wrote: post #91
Larrikin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Chicago and Richmond atleast the drivers I've talked to that are doing it for a full time job tend to drive Uber, Lyft and every other small start up in the area. The drivers that aren't just getting started said they use Uber for volume but will take a Lyft over Uber because of the better pay. The only drivers I've had that are Uber only are just getting started/trying it out. The drivers I've talked to that just…

> I've also heard more than once that Lyft customer's tend to be more well behaved in the car for whatever reason. I have also heard this as well from lyft drivers and I am very curious as to why

I know some passengers (myself included) prefer Lyft because they do more driver vetting. For instance, to drive for Lyft you actually have to have someone from Lyft get in the car and ride around with you, which is not a requirement for Uber.

Perhaps the people who value that sort of thing are better behaved? Or more likely, it's probably because the people who are willing to pay slightly more for a better experience are better behaved (like Walmart vs Target).

Re: Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars

#250

Post by coldpie »

ysavir wrote: post #241
CPLX wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally. Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Well that's.... Sad. I think I will take what little authority I (don't) have and veto that definition, seeing as it literally defeats the purpose of definition #1. And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.

Language changes, and as speakers of modern English, we should adapt to changes instead of tilting at that particular windmill. However, I commiserate with you over the transformation of a useful word into yet another synonym for "really".
Post reply on HN