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

Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

sifted.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#31

Post by dr-evil »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #23
qball wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And "sharing" is kind of stupid. If you own your escooter Then it gets stolen. The main value of the rentables comes in making it so you never have to deal with that eventuality. The fact that they're far more difficult for the average thief to turn a profit from stealing compared to a private vehicle is a bonus for the company (getting away with stealing one requires a Faraday cage or some similar way to jam GPS, a…

Agree, low ROI on theft, at least until we run into a supervillain who is short on cash and needs thousands of powerful hub motors and batteries.

No but if you can get your hands on some laser beams with shark-mounting hardware I would be interested.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#32

Post by alephxyz »

mardifoufs wrote: post #18
1_1xdev1 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike share systems with docks have the same demand problem, but they are locked to docks so don’t get thrown into the River. They survive fine. Maybe a docked scooter share would work?

Aren't those subsidized by cities? I know that they are here in Montreal, and the Bixi corporation behind our bike share system went bankrupt at least once in the past.

Bixi isn't subsidized anymore (and I don't think they have been since they went private in 2014). They even got acquired by Lyft last year.

Edit: I was thinking of their international division. Looks like the Montreal network is still run by the city of Montreal.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#33

Post by robennals »

qball wrote: post #20
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #7

Looking at the roadmaps for the core component (batteries) they definitely jumped the gun. Sodium Ion batteries should produce dirt cheap scooters that will probably be 1/3 the cost of whatever they were using back when they invested. And "sharing" is kind of stupid. If you own your escooter, the battery will probably be removable (for easy recharging) and you just lock up the shell. Sharing is basically only good fo…

>And "sharing" is kind of stupid. If you own your escooter Then it gets stolen. The main value of the rentables comes in making it so you never have to deal with that eventuality. The fact that they're far more difficult for the average thief to turn a profit from stealing compared to a private vehicle is a bonus for the company (getting away with stealing one requires a Faraday cage or some similar way to jam GPS, a…

Getting stolen is only a problem if you leave your scooter somewhere public. One of the big advantages of an electric scooter over an e-bike is that some of them fold down small enough that you can just carry them wherever you are going.

Nobody is going to steal it if it’s sitting under your desk charging.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#34

Post by uoaei »

nasmorn wrote: post #4

It is just really expensive to ride. I use it sometimes where there are no good public transport options and it is like half a cab fare. I can’t see them maintain a market if they increase prices. Maybe if we had longer lasting batteries they could drop the prices since they would not need to be charged so often. But as it stands it is either a curiosity or replacing something already expensive like a taxi for a smal…

The system makes sense in well-planned (dense, accessible) cities. Most American cities -- indeed, most cities designed primarily after the invention of automobiles -- do not fit this definition.

A classic XY problem. The issue is not the cost, it is what the built environment demands.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#35

Post by tyg13 »

uoaei wrote: post #34
nasmorn wrote: post #4

It is just really expensive to ride. I use it sometimes where there are no good public transport options and it is like half a cab fare. I can’t see them maintain a market if they increase prices. Maybe if we had longer lasting batteries they could drop the prices since they would not need to be charged so often. But as it stands it is either a curiosity or replacing something already expensive like a taxi for a smal…

The system makes sense in well-planned (dense, accessible) cities. Most American cities -- indeed, most cities designed primarily after the invention of automobiles -- do not fit this definition. A classic XY problem. The issue is not the cost, it is what the built environment demands.

The article talks about how they're not even really working in European cities, despite being less spread out and more amenable to cycling options.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#36

Post by lmm »

qball wrote: post #20
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #7

Looking at the roadmaps for the core component (batteries) they definitely jumped the gun. Sodium Ion batteries should produce dirt cheap scooters that will probably be 1/3 the cost of whatever they were using back when they invested. And "sharing" is kind of stupid. If you own your escooter, the battery will probably be removable (for easy recharging) and you just lock up the shell. Sharing is basically only good fo…

>And "sharing" is kind of stupid. If you own your escooter Then it gets stolen. The main value of the rentables comes in making it so you never have to deal with that eventuality. The fact that they're far more difficult for the average thief to turn a profit from stealing compared to a private vehicle is a bonus for the company (getting away with stealing one requires a Faraday cage or some similar way to jam GPS, a…

The breakdown of public order to the point that bike/scooter theft is rampant and normalised seems like the real issue here. Police apathy seems like a big part of the problem, but fundamentally how do we solve that?

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#37

Post by uxp100 »

northwest65 wrote: post #28
mc32 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something I don't understand. Why are people throwing these things into the river, so to speak? The more you break these the more units will have to be bought and the more expensive the ride becomes and the more resources "energy" is necessary to keep the system going --which seems ironic since riders are the ones who opt to ride in order to use fewer energy resources to begin with...

Maybe because they're an eye sore? Some people probably resent that if they were the ones leaving their product lying around all over common areas, such as footpaths, so they could make a buck, they would feel the weight of the local municipality. But they have to put up with it because a VC backed company can move faster than local government because DiSruPtive? Yeah, fuck 'em, harvest them for 18650s I say.

I mean people do that with cars too, and I don’t mean public parking, they drive their shit up on the sidewalk and park, park on cross walks and drive down bike paths and do donuts in the park. drivers generally don’t give a shit ever. But people mostly leave them be. So I think the answer is easier. People throw scooters in the river because it’s easy and fun. Anything that is left around near a river and is light enough to throw, somebody is going to throw.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#38

Post by imgabe »

mc32 wrote: post #24
SilverBirch wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's just the batteries, the whole economic model makes no sense. First, they're expensive - they need to be built for commercial use, so they're $500+ each. Second, demand is massively inefificent, a hundred thousand people want to travel from the train station to their office in the morning, and then back in the evening. Either you pay someone to keep riding the scooters back to the train station in t…

There is something I don't understand. Why are people throwing these things into the river, so to speak? The more you break these the more units will have to be bought and the more expensive the ride becomes and the more resources "energy" is necessary to keep the system going --which seems ironic since riders are the ones who opt to ride in order to use fewer energy resources to begin with...

Kids do it. Kids destroy stuff just for the fun of destroying stuff. They don't care about the rides becoming expensive or whatever. It's just funny to them to throw it in the river.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#39

Post by tshaddox »

uxp100 wrote: post #37
northwest65 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because they're an eye sore? Some people probably resent that if they were the ones leaving their product lying around all over common areas, such as footpaths, so they could make a buck, they would feel the weight of the local municipality. But they have to put up with it because a VC backed company can move faster than local government because DiSruPtive? Yeah, fuck 'em, harvest them for 18650s I say.

I mean people do that with cars too, and I don’t mean public parking, they drive their shit up on the sidewalk and park, park on cross walks and drive down bike paths and do donuts in the park. drivers generally don’t give a shit ever. But people mostly leave them be. So I think the answer is easier. People throw scooters in the river because it’s easy and fun. Anything that is left around near a river and is light e…

People give a shit with cars too. In some places you’ll get towed quickly for putting your car somewhere a homeowner doesn’t like. And obviously if cars were easier to move people would absolutely shove them out of the way.

Re: Was the $5B that VCs plugged into escooters worth it?

#40

Post by birdyrooster »

e40 wrote: post #19
panick21_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need to be on bicycle infrastructure. That said, if they remove cars from the road they are worth it.

I agree with that. The problem is people. > 50% of the people I saw using the devices were on the sidewalk. And many of them that I conversed with (in a calm tone) who I told to use the street said "but it's too dangerous out there!" My retort that them being on the sidewalk was too dangerous for me fell on deaf ears.

Just yell at them and make being on the sidewalk more dangerous than the road. I throw shit in front of them or kick them off of their stupid looking scooter. Shows them. They won't try that shit in front of my home again. Best thing is that your jury will never find you guilty because that shit is annoying.
Post reply on HN