7 ms·

There's one area where Lyft is ahead of Uber, the whole "we are nicer" thing discounted: investment from an auto company (Lyft took money from GM). If you take

by ktamura 11y ago

There's one area where Lyft is ahead of Uber, the whole "we are nicer" thing discounted: investment from an auto company (Lyft took money from GM). If you take a truly long-term view, the marketplace for on-demand drivers will become obsolete once autonomous driving becomes good enough to be adopted everywhere. At that point, Uber's biggest edge -financing and supply-side field logistics- will erode very quickly against companies that own vehicle production (auto giants) and AI (autonomous driving) Uber knows this, and that's why they have been investing a lot of money on robotics and AI around their partnership with CMU. However, they still do not get the kind of data Google can get from their Maps and Waze (It's interesting to note that Lyft and Waze partnered) to enable their AI researchers. Uber is still going to be a very successful company in the next few years: For technical and legal reasons, self-driving, on-demand vehicle services will be at least a decade out. But I'm not as sure about Uber's survival in, say, 20 years.

stcredzero 11y ago
There's one area where Lyft is ahead of Uber, the whole "we are nicer" thing discounted The way cultural currents are going, there's a lot of room for companies to make marketing headway through "we are nicer" and "we are not douchebags" public images. (Hopefully, fairly accurate public images.) I mean, when it's been years since Apple has been parodied with a "We're mad with power" tagline, and when public shaming has become a way of life online, it's about time for nice.
Fennhella 11y ago
I have no doubt about uber being around in 20 years, they're just too well established and understand where the industry is heading to become irrelevant. Though what I do think will happen is an erosion of their lead where they go from the sole 800lb gorrilla in the west to being one of many with automakers coming into their own offering self driven taxi style service on what will probably be a subscription model (like how we have monthly payments for cars today).
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  >>Though what I do think will happen is an erosion of their lead where they go from the sole 800lb gorrilla in the west to being one of many with automakers coming into their own offering self driven taxi style service on what will probably be a subscription model (like how we have monthly payments for cars today). Either this, or I could easily seeing aggregator apps, similar to the many that have popped up to manage multiple social media accounts, appearing to help drivers and riders manage both Uber and Lyft accounts.
- msabalau 11y ago
  There was a time, less than 20 years ago, when people would have said the same thing about Nokia.
- ipsi 11y ago
  They already kinda are. Look at, say, Drive Now (https://uk.drive-now.com/ https://uk.drive-now.com/) - they're owned by Sixt, and they operate Drive Now jointly with BMW (BMW cars being the only type you can have with DN). I imagine automakers have relationships with other "car-sharing" firms (e.g. Zip Car) as well. You might already know that, but for everyone who doesn't live in a city where they're available... :)
jbhatab 11y ago
"However, they still do not get the kind of data Google can get from their Maps and Waze (It's interesting to note that Lyft and Waze partnered) to enable their AI researchers." Google is invested in uber, why would they not supply them the data they needed?
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Uber is afraid of Google. That's why the maps in Uber's driver app can't plan a route according to traffic, they don't use google maps.
  - tedmiston 11y ago
    Uber is already integrated into Google Maps from the consumer side. From the VC side, Google Ventures invested ~$250M in Uber a few years ago. How is it they're afraid of Google?
    - ams6110 11y ago
      Google has the map data. Google are working on autonomous vehicles. When they get the latter, what is the need for Uber? The $250M would be an irrelevant sunk cost at that point.
    - zorpner 11y ago
      Because Google routinely undermines their partners through internal productizing (see e.g. Flintstone/OnHub), and Google has a large self-driving car program. There's a clear path from there to a Google(/Alphabet)-owned ride provider regardless of investment in Uber.
    - jorts 11y ago
      Uber is building out their own map system so that they are no longer dependent upon a third party. It's already in production on a limited basis. Isn't Google Ventures pretty isolated from Google?
      - 11y ago
afarrell 11y ago
> legal reasons Keep in mind that AARP is excited about driverless cars because for millions of seniors, losing their ability to drive means losing their independence. Also, by age 50, everyone knows somebody killed by a human-driven car. AARP's members vote at very high rates even in non-presidential elections, so they are a very powerful lobby. http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-201...
- dmix 11y ago
  It feels strange to see so many traditional backers for this tech. I've been hesitant to let myself get too excited for the possibility that driverless cars will reach the market when the technology is ready - instead of when it is deemed ready by regulators, lobbyists, and the gatekeepers who are backed up by legacy protectionist policies. There seems to be so much positive traction among political and industry players that this might turn out to be one of those rare technologies who's progress doesn't get crippled by vested incumbents. But experience has taught me to be cautiously optimistic at best.
  - om42 11y ago
    It does make sense though. The majority of people have driven a car and can relate to the hassles. Especially with drunk driving. Eliminating drunk driving is in everyone's best interest and hard to argue. Plus who would fight against self-driving cars? The only self-interest groups here would be the drivers themselves and even then I don't think it'll be a big enough lobby group.
    - lern_too_spel 11y ago
      Automobile manufacturers will see their market shrink considerably due to higher utilization from autotaxis.
      - aplummer 11y ago
        Maybe a subscription model, now you can't pay once and maintain your car with your local mechanic for 20 years, it has to be done by the manufacturer and contains expensive software updates?
wcummings 11y ago
>the marketplace for on-demand drivers will become obsolete once autonomous driving becomes good enough to be adopted everywhere I'm not holding my breath, it'll be a looong time (decades, plural) before driver-less cars work everywhere, in poor weather conditions, in areas with lots of cyclists and pedestrians, in developing nations and parts of developed nations with bad roads, bad or unenforced traffic laws etc.. Human drivers will have a reduced role, but they won't be "obsolete" any time soon. Driver-less cars likely means people taking more trips, causing more congestion and more pollution on the roads where they can actually operate. I wouldn't be surprised if some cities ban them.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  Taking more trips to get to places they want to be. Traffic is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  - wcummings 11y ago
    >Traffic is a good thing, not a bad thing. Until your kid gets asthma so people can have the privilege of spending 2 hours in a car commuting. Not to mention making the roads less usable for everyone who isn't in a car.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    No, people taking trips is a good thing. Traffic is a mostly negative side effect of that, if they choose to travel by car.
- epistasis 11y ago
  I think by then, electric cars will be cheaper to purchase and operate than gas vehicles, so the pollution won't be much of an issue. But you are 100% right that congestion will be the problem. Cars simply do not scale well, as the amount of sqft/passenger/minute is huge. We seem to be unwilling to devote the huge amounts of land to highways that we would need to in order to make congestion go away. And in cities, intersections can only let so many vehicles through per minute. As another commenter said, traffic is a good problem, however it's only good until it stops trips. It's great for people to be moving about, but when traffic prevents that, it's bad. Autonomous drivers give people back their time in the car to do with as they please, but they will definitely increase congestion.
kuschku 11y ago
> For technical and legal reasons, self-driving, on-demand vehicle services will be at least a decade out. At least the legal reasons are now moot at least in Germany, as all the laws required for self-driving cars have already been passed. All the harbors and airports have been using fully automated vehicles for transport on their area for quite a while now, and the recent showcase where autonomous trucks from all european car manufacturers drove to the netherlands has shown reliability on streets as well. At least in the transport market autonomous cars are less than half a decade out.
- kaonashi 11y ago
  There's a vast difference between cars that operate in a closed environment and cars that operate 'in the wild'.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Those areas are not more closed areas than the wild is. Everything can constantly change, people and cars can always appear anywhere in the path, etc.
- SilasX 11y ago
  So manufacturers already know under what conditions/standard they can put an unassisted self-driving car on the public roads, and it's the same as (or analogous to) the rule for automated port tools? What is that standard?
  - kuschku 11y ago
    I don’t know myself, I’d have to look in the laws, but the rules were written because Mercedes and VW have now a decade of unassisted self-driving experience and plan to release the first fully self-driving vehicles for transport (trucks, etc) within of the next year.
dmix 11y ago
> Lyft took money from GM GM also aquired Cruise which builds automated driving kits http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/mar/0311-cruise.html http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/...
- corin_ 11y ago
  Is (almost certainly) going to, but hasn't yet, acquired
askafriend 11y ago
Per your point that Google knows far more data than Uber via Maps/Waze, I'd like to point out that Google Ventures plowed 200mm+ into Uber at one point. So a partnership between the two is not unlikely in a future like the one your describe.
DSingularity 11y ago
Whats the big deal? They arent decades behind their competiton. At most you can argue they are a few years behind. With their resources they can catch up quick.

by ktamura 11y ago

stcredzero 11y ago

There's one area where Lyft is ahead of Uber, the whole "we are nicer" thing discounted The way cultural currents are going, there's a lot of room for companies to make marketing headway through "we are nicer" and "we are not douchebags" public images. (Hopefully, fairly accurate public images.) I mean, when it's been years since Apple has been parodied with a "We're mad with power" tagline, and when public shaming has become a way of life online, it's about time for nice.

Fennhella 11y ago

I have no doubt about uber being around in 20 years, they're just too well established and understand where the industry is heading to become irrelevant. Though what I do think will happen is an erosion of their lead where they go from the sole 800lb gorrilla in the west to being one of many with automakers coming into their own offering self driven taxi style service on what will probably be a subscription model (like how we have monthly payments for cars today).

bsbechtel 11y ago
>>Though what I do think will happen is an erosion of their lead where they go from the sole 800lb gorrilla in the west to being one of many with automakers coming into their own offering self driven taxi style service on what will probably be a subscription model (like how we have monthly payments for cars today). Either this, or I could easily seeing aggregator apps, similar to the many that have popped up to manage multiple social media accounts, appearing to help drivers and riders manage both Uber and Lyft accounts.
msabalau 11y ago
There was a time, less than 20 years ago, when people would have said the same thing about Nokia.
ipsi 11y ago
They already kinda are. Look at, say, Drive Now (https://uk.drive-now.com/ https://uk.drive-now.com/) - they're owned by Sixt, and they operate Drive Now jointly with BMW (BMW cars being the only type you can have with DN). I imagine automakers have relationships with other "car-sharing" firms (e.g. Zip Car) as well. You might already know that, but for everyone who doesn't live in a city where they're available... :)

jbhatab 11y ago

"However, they still do not get the kind of data Google can get from their Maps and Waze (It's interesting to note that Lyft and Waze partnered) to enable their AI researchers." Google is invested in uber, why would they not supply them the data they needed?

paulsutter 11y ago
Uber is afraid of Google. That's why the maps in Uber's driver app can't plan a route according to traffic, they don't use google maps.
- tedmiston 11y ago
  Uber is already integrated into Google Maps from the consumer side. From the VC side, Google Ventures invested ~$250M in Uber a few years ago. How is it they're afraid of Google?
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Google has the map data. Google are working on autonomous vehicles. When they get the latter, what is the need for Uber? The $250M would be an irrelevant sunk cost at that point.
  - zorpner 11y ago
    Because Google routinely undermines their partners through internal productizing (see e.g. Flintstone/OnHub), and Google has a large self-driving car program. There's a clear path from there to a Google(/Alphabet)-owned ride provider regardless of investment in Uber.
  - jorts 11y ago
    Uber is building out their own map system so that they are no longer dependent upon a third party. It's already in production on a limited basis. Isn't Google Ventures pretty isolated from Google?
    - 11y ago

afarrell 11y ago

> legal reasons Keep in mind that AARP is excited about driverless cars because for millions of seniors, losing their ability to drive means losing their independence. Also, by age 50, everyone knows somebody killed by a human-driven car. AARP's members vote at very high rates even in non-presidential elections, so they are a very powerful lobby. http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-201...

dmix 11y ago
It feels strange to see so many traditional backers for this tech. I've been hesitant to let myself get too excited for the possibility that driverless cars will reach the market when the technology is ready - instead of when it is deemed ready by regulators, lobbyists, and the gatekeepers who are backed up by legacy protectionist policies. There seems to be so much positive traction among political and industry players that this might turn out to be one of those rare technologies who's progress doesn't get crippled by vested incumbents. But experience has taught me to be cautiously optimistic at best.
- om42 11y ago
  It does make sense though. The majority of people have driven a car and can relate to the hassles. Especially with drunk driving. Eliminating drunk driving is in everyone's best interest and hard to argue. Plus who would fight against self-driving cars? The only self-interest groups here would be the drivers themselves and even then I don't think it'll be a big enough lobby group.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    Automobile manufacturers will see their market shrink considerably due to higher utilization from autotaxis.
    - aplummer 11y ago
      Maybe a subscription model, now you can't pay once and maintain your car with your local mechanic for 20 years, it has to be done by the manufacturer and contains expensive software updates?

wcummings 11y ago

>the marketplace for on-demand drivers will become obsolete once autonomous driving becomes good enough to be adopted everywhere I'm not holding my breath, it'll be a looong time (decades, plural) before driver-less cars work everywhere, in poor weather conditions, in areas with lots of cyclists and pedestrians, in developing nations and parts of developed nations with bad roads, bad or unenforced traffic laws etc.. Human drivers will have a reduced role, but they won't be "obsolete" any time soon. Driver-less cars likely means people taking more trips, causing more congestion and more pollution on the roads where they can actually operate. I wouldn't be surprised if some cities ban them.

Nutmog 11y ago
Taking more trips to get to places they want to be. Traffic is a good thing, not a bad thing.
- wcummings 11y ago
  >Traffic is a good thing, not a bad thing. Until your kid gets asthma so people can have the privilege of spending 2 hours in a car commuting. Not to mention making the roads less usable for everyone who isn't in a car.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  No, people taking trips is a good thing. Traffic is a mostly negative side effect of that, if they choose to travel by car.
epistasis 11y ago
I think by then, electric cars will be cheaper to purchase and operate than gas vehicles, so the pollution won't be much of an issue. But you are 100% right that congestion will be the problem. Cars simply do not scale well, as the amount of sqft/passenger/minute is huge. We seem to be unwilling to devote the huge amounts of land to highways that we would need to in order to make congestion go away. And in cities, intersections can only let so many vehicles through per minute. As another commenter said, traffic is a good problem, however it's only good until it stops trips. It's great for people to be moving about, but when traffic prevents that, it's bad. Autonomous drivers give people back their time in the car to do with as they please, but they will definitely increase congestion.

kuschku 11y ago

> For technical and legal reasons, self-driving, on-demand vehicle services will be at least a decade out. At least the legal reasons are now moot at least in Germany, as all the laws required for self-driving cars have already been passed. All the harbors and airports have been using fully automated vehicles for transport on their area for quite a while now, and the recent showcase where autonomous trucks from all european car manufacturers drove to the netherlands has shown reliability on streets as well. At least in the transport market autonomous cars are less than half a decade out.

kaonashi 11y ago
There's a vast difference between cars that operate in a closed environment and cars that operate 'in the wild'.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Those areas are not more closed areas than the wild is. Everything can constantly change, people and cars can always appear anywhere in the path, etc.
SilasX 11y ago
So manufacturers already know under what conditions/standard they can put an unassisted self-driving car on the public roads, and it's the same as (or analogous to) the rule for automated port tools? What is that standard?
- kuschku 11y ago
  I don’t know myself, I’d have to look in the laws, but the rules were written because Mercedes and VW have now a decade of unassisted self-driving experience and plan to release the first fully self-driving vehicles for transport (trucks, etc) within of the next year.

dmix 11y ago

> Lyft took money from GM GM also aquired Cruise which builds automated driving kits http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/mar/0311-cruise.html http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/...

corin_ 11y ago
Is (almost certainly) going to, but hasn't yet, acquired

askafriend 11y ago

Per your point that Google knows far more data than Uber via Maps/Waze, I'd like to point out that Google Ventures plowed 200mm+ into Uber at one point. So a partnership between the two is not unlikely in a future like the one your describe.

DSingularity 11y ago

Whats the big deal? They arent decades behind their competiton. At most you can argue they are a few years behind. With their resources they can catch up quick.