4 ms·

With Google's warchest? Without a doubt. Google could run these guys over with their unsold inventory alone. Though I imagine that's probably used to prop up t

With Google's warchest? Without a doubt. Google could run these guys over with their unsold inventory alone. Though I imagine that's probably used to prop up the CPAs of their big buyers. They could also snap their fingers and add a taxi app to all devices with Google Play Services.

malandrew 9y ago
if they do anything to advantage installation and usage of their own app over the existing alternatives, they are going to be doing the exact same anti-competitive thing as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer.
sumedh 9y ago
> With Google's warchest? So why did Google fail with Google Plus with such a huge warchest?
- grizzles 9y ago
  They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. Instead they made their own thing, because vanity, ego, pride, etc. If they did that before 2007, we'd be talking about Facebook like it was MySpace right now.
  - sumedh 9y ago
    > They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. So you are saying they failed even with the huge warchest.
    - grizzles 9y ago
      That characterization seems imprecise. I believe some parts of Google's social strategy are growing organically (eg. Gmail, Hangouts). My understanding is that a big part of G+ was rebuilding their entire product backend around global identity, and that has been pretty successful. If Google AI in the future makes a magical suggestion to you, it's because all their apps now have a single understanding of who you are, and before G+ that was not the case. If your point is that Google could fuck up a ride market the way they let Facebook slip past, that seems like a pretty broad overreach to me. Identity on the internet is complex thing, they had big brother issues to contend with, also Google was a much more idealistic company back then with their "Dont be Evil" ethos. Ride sharing is a commodity industry and basically consists of an app with a single "Come Here" button. It's a false equivalency in my view.
      - sumedh 9y ago
        Your argument was that Google cannot fail just because they have a huge warchest, I gave you an example where they failed. Just because they have money does not automatically mean then will win the ride sharing market.
        grizzles 9y ago
        So do you think they'd get some market share like Lyft and Uber have? Do you think their driveless cars (that are way ahead of everyone else) might help them lower some of their biggest costs on the supply side on sunny days when passengers need to travel low risk routes? Your argument was that they failed with G+, so that equates with this situation. I'm saying it doesn't equate. Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. G+ brought Google other benefits.
        sumedh 9y ago
        > Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. Exactly, now you get it. Just because a company has huge warchest does not automatically mean they will succeed at everything.
- akgerber 9y ago
  There is much more of a network effect with social networks than with app taxis.
  - tonyztan 9y ago
    Actually taxi apps might have a network effect too. Riders won't download until there are enough drivers, and drivers won't sign up until there are enough riders.
    - karthikb 9y ago
      Yeah but you can solve one side (drivers) with money. With a social network that's not so simple.
cjhanks 9y ago
Not sure why you're being down-voted so harshly. Google already has its own credit processing, mapping, routing, business management, and it's in nearly 60% of consumer pockets. A built-in (default installed) Android app which integrated with those services seems poised to make a serious run at market share. Drivers have no loyalty - better pay always wins. And Google doesn't need a profit, it needs only break even. Though, it wouldn't really make sense given their business model. They want to know where you are, not get you there. If you have an Android phone, they already have that information. So it seems like an unlikely play.
- grizzles 9y ago
  > Not sure why you're being down-voted so harshly. Lyft employees? So far, there are not really any substantive counter arguments being posted. It's pretty rational to down-vote my comments if you have stock options that vest on acquisition. I bear no grudge, these people gotta earn. Google wants in on this market because it fits in with their self driving car plans. Car Drones don't really make sense without the context of a rental market because right now the cost of the LIDAR sensors alone can be as much as the cost of the car itself. That's why Tesla's stated goal is to do it with CCD cameras like the ones found in your phone. Because the cost of adding them to the car is next to nothing.
- mnx 9y ago
  Well... I think the case of google+ shows that it's not that easy to transfer marketshare between products. Or at least that google is not that great at it.
linkregister 9y ago
Indeed, they already have a trial taxi app, Waze Carpool. Though right now they follow the UberPOP pricing model, at-cost rides. It has additional aspects that only work for commutes. For example, the rider has to wait at a pick-up point near a highway. That said, if they made any serious effort, they could likely gain significant market share. Uber and Lyft already did the hard work of lobbying and creating the demand for riding and driving. Google could swoop in and reap the benefits. It would require Google to do something novel for the company: have large distributed customer-facing operations.

malandrew 9y ago

if they do anything to advantage installation and usage of their own app over the existing alternatives, they are going to be doing the exact same anti-competitive thing as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer.

sumedh 9y ago

> With Google's warchest? So why did Google fail with Google Plus with such a huge warchest?

grizzles 9y ago
They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. Instead they made their own thing, because vanity, ego, pride, etc. If they did that before 2007, we'd be talking about Facebook like it was MySpace right now.
- sumedh 9y ago
  > They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. So you are saying they failed even with the huge warchest.
  - grizzles 9y ago
    That characterization seems imprecise. I believe some parts of Google's social strategy are growing organically (eg. Gmail, Hangouts). My understanding is that a big part of G+ was rebuilding their entire product backend around global identity, and that has been pretty successful. If Google AI in the future makes a magical suggestion to you, it's because all their apps now have a single understanding of who you are, and before G+ that was not the case. If your point is that Google could fuck up a ride market the way they let Facebook slip past, that seems like a pretty broad overreach to me. Identity on the internet is complex thing, they had big brother issues to contend with, also Google was a much more idealistic company back then with their "Dont be Evil" ethos. Ride sharing is a commodity industry and basically consists of an app with a single "Come Here" button. It's a false equivalency in my view.
    - sumedh 9y ago
      Your argument was that Google cannot fail just because they have a huge warchest, I gave you an example where they failed. Just because they have money does not automatically mean then will win the ride sharing market.
      - grizzles 9y ago
        So do you think they'd get some market share like Lyft and Uber have? Do you think their driveless cars (that are way ahead of everyone else) might help them lower some of their biggest costs on the supply side on sunny days when passengers need to travel low risk routes? Your argument was that they failed with G+, so that equates with this situation. I'm saying it doesn't equate. Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. G+ brought Google other benefits.
        sumedh 9y ago
        > Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. Exactly, now you get it. Just because a company has huge warchest does not automatically mean they will succeed at everything.
akgerber 9y ago
There is much more of a network effect with social networks than with app taxis.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  Actually taxi apps might have a network effect too. Riders won't download until there are enough drivers, and drivers won't sign up until there are enough riders.
  - karthikb 9y ago
    Yeah but you can solve one side (drivers) with money. With a social network that's not so simple.

cjhanks 9y ago

Not sure why you're being down-voted so harshly. Google already has its own credit processing, mapping, routing, business management, and it's in nearly 60% of consumer pockets. A built-in (default installed) Android app which integrated with those services seems poised to make a serious run at market share. Drivers have no loyalty - better pay always wins. And Google doesn't need a profit, it needs only break even. Though, it wouldn't really make sense given their business model. They want to know where you are, not get you there. If you have an Android phone, they already have that information. So it seems like an unlikely play.

grizzles 9y ago
> Not sure why you're being down-voted so harshly. Lyft employees? So far, there are not really any substantive counter arguments being posted. It's pretty rational to down-vote my comments if you have stock options that vest on acquisition. I bear no grudge, these people gotta earn. Google wants in on this market because it fits in with their self driving car plans. Car Drones don't really make sense without the context of a rental market because right now the cost of the LIDAR sensors alone can be as much as the cost of the car itself. That's why Tesla's stated goal is to do it with CCD cameras like the ones found in your phone. Because the cost of adding them to the car is next to nothing.
mnx 9y ago
Well... I think the case of google+ shows that it's not that easy to transfer marketshare between products. Or at least that google is not that great at it.

linkregister 9y ago

Indeed, they already have a trial taxi app, Waze Carpool. Though right now they follow the UberPOP pricing model, at-cost rides. It has additional aspects that only work for commutes. For example, the rider has to wait at a pick-up point near a highway. That said, if they made any serious effort, they could likely gain significant market share. Uber and Lyft already did the hard work of lobbying and creating the demand for riding and driving. Google could swoop in and reap the benefits. It would require Google to do something novel for the company: have large distributed customer-facing operations.