10 ms·

Lyft speeds ahead with its autonomous initiatives

99 points by apancik 8y ago

sabareesh 8y ago
I thought Lyft is working with waymao
hmhrex 8y ago
I thought the big selling point for Lyft for awhile is that there profitability wasn't dependent on shifting to autonomous vehicles, where Uber's was. This seemed to make drivers move to Lyft because they felt they had more job security. Was that just perceived?
- grandmczeb 8y ago
  I’ve never heard anything like that. As far as I know, the only difference between Uber and Lyft is in strategy (Uber being much more aggressive about expansion). Regardless, it’s likely Uber would be profitable right now, even without self driving cars, if they stopped expanding into new markets.
  - romed 8y ago
    That seems like a highly questionable statement demanding some evidence. Perhaps you meant if they retrenched into existing markets while raising prices and laying off all of their business development staff?
    - slackoverflower 8y ago
      Uber definitely has the levers to become profitable anytime they want since they are entrenched in hundreds of major cities in the world. At the end of the day they control the supply and demand of their own platform and most Uber users will pay whatever the price is since they have been a necessity in many of their user's lives.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        >most Uber users will pay whatever the price So Uber is charging their current rates as a way of giving back to the community or whatever? If Uber (or even Uber and Lyft) were to double their prices tomorrow there would most certainly be a drop in volume. Just a couple of days ago I took a Lyft from the airport for no other reason than that a cab would cost about 2x. Yes, there are also circumstances and places in which Uber/Lyft is demonstrably better than a cab but the decision can also just be about who is cheapest.
        Animats 8y ago
        Uber is funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.[1] Softbank's Vision Fund is mostly a front for the Kingdom. That may be more of a political move than a financial one. Even that wasn't enough money. Uber recently borrowed another $2 billion at 7.5 to 8% for 5-8 years. [1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/funding_rounds_list https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/...
        kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
        They don't have to raise prices. Just cut superfluous headcount by 70%. Instant profitability.
    - grandmczeb 8y ago
      See [1]: "we can turn the knobs to get this business even on a full basis profitable, but you would sacrifice growth and sacrifice innovation" and "He said that it’s Uber’s commitment to 'developing' markets that are dragging things down, but he views that as an 'optional investment'". I'm not and have never been an Uber employee, but I've heard very similar things from people who are. Not great evidence, but hopefully that explains my opinion. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/14/uber-could-be-profitable-if-it-wants-to-says-ceo/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/14/uber-could-be-profitable-i...
yalogin 8y ago
Bear with me here, trying to come at this from the other end. Why do Uber and Lyft have to develop their own self driving tech? If what they sell is their routing algorithm for drivers, they can simply lease self driving cars from the companies directly and run them on their network. The car companies would be happy to get a cut of the profits. What advantage would they get by developing their own tech? They have to manufacture the cars themselves or lease the tech to other companies to cover the costs. Uber and more so Lyft seem late to the game and Uber in particular seem to be fraught with problems and have not made the progress they hoped. So why pursue that? I understand if they started early and are making great progress. On the flip side is the tech no where near completion? Then that would make sense. But Google seems to indicate that they are very very close to launching their own taxi program.
- chmhsm 8y ago
  I'm gonna have to side with you here, I don't see the point of what they're doing. Except for distinction and marketing. Distinction, as in, if you have total control of how your car, it is easier to create functionality that competitors don't necessarily have. Marketing, as in, marketing.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  Uber and Lyft have very little moat to protect them if someone else develops self-driving cars first. They haven't succeeded in their initial goal of exterminating the existing cab companies, and that leaves them in a situation where developing self-driving technology could be a matter of life and death for them. The incumbent cab companies are much better positioned to profit from self-driving cars. They've already got all the infrastructure, expertise and staff it takes to manage fleets of vehicles. The bigger ones already have their own apps (e.g., Curb). If self-driving cars hit the general market first, basically all they have to do to run Uber and Lift out of town is buy some and factor the fact that they aren't paying cab drivers anymore into their prices. By contrast, most of Uber and Lyft's basic business models right now are predicated on the idea of hiring humans, who in turn manage their own cars. That has deep implications: It means they have zero expertise in fleet management. They don't have any of their own garages for storing cars and handling maintenance. They do have apps, but the most valuable parts of their apps are the parts for managing humans. Incentive mechanisms designed to try and ensure that supply of rides and demand for rides remain relatively stable, for example. Their existing business operations are heavily built around recruiting humans - both riders and drivers. None of that is particularly useful in a world with self-driving cars, and the bits that are - basically just the mechanics of enabling people to hail rides and pay for them - are drastically easy to copy.
Animats 8y ago
This focus on detailed mapping is misplaced. Most driving problems come from moving obstacles.
- cbHXBY1D 8y ago
  Was that the focus of Blue Vision Lab?
- maccam94 8y ago
  It's not like everything stops moving on the road when self-driving car cameras start scanning. "Mapping" isn't just establishing fixed elements, but also learning how things move and obstruct each other.
AVcarEng 8y ago
So they have 1 car and literally coming in last in the AV field. This is a headfake for IPO. Waymo is 10 years ahead of them, minimum. If Waymo's cars don't have usability issues and launch this year, Lyft's valuation will plummet.
edshiro 8y ago
> The first car from Lyft’s Level 5 self-driving initiative will be the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Lyft’s use of a Ford Fusion apparently isn’t associated with the partnership the two announced last year. Other AV companies have used the Ford Fusion as a platform for integrating self-driving technologies Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message. On the topic of the acquisition, it seems like a good strategic buy for Lyft. I am still not sure whether they have the capital nor the talent pool to develop a strong autonomous vehicle product. It also seems like they are a bit late to the party, as there are more and more doubts on the reality of self-driving in the next few years. I may sound sceptical, but I am just cautious when it comes to news on self-driving cars. However I am genuinely excited at this development and look forward to hearing more about how Lyft is progressing on this quest.
- GauntletWizard 8y ago
  "Level 5" is the name they've given that division - as much a goal as anything. I doubt they'll launch at anything near true level 5 capability
- trhway 8y ago
  >Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message. i think it is capability gap between tech companies and car companies. Car companies can't even get cameras around all the body to avoid accidental scratches during parking. Where is tech companies, while could easily do a lot of car tech, have no business case doing anything less than Level 5 - the Level 5 is a tech platform where is anything less is an advanced car, and the tech companies are in the platform business, not car business.
  - edshiro 8y ago
    Traditional car companies are also working on autonomous vehicles. There is a lot of business to be had with Level 4. While the car may not be able to go everywhere, in restricted areas a robot-taxi/shuttle service would be a great advancement. We would all love to be at Level 5 but I would take a solid Level 4 in a few years instead of waiting much much longer for a viable Level 5 solution.
lolc 8y ago
> In effect, every Lyft vehicle in operation today, with a smartphone on the dashboard, could be commandeered to become a “camera” watching, surveying and mapping the roads that those cars drive on, and how humans behave on them, using that to help Lyft’s autonomous vehicle (AV) platform learn more about driving overall. Another instance of the "more data is better" fallacy. Humans can drive cars safely after only fifteen years of intermittent sensory input. Lyft could collect that "data" within just one year employing ten collectors. That still doesn't give you brains. Is Techcrunch an outlet for PR pieces? I'm asking because that article reads like one of those.
- woah 8y ago
  Yes
- soared 8y ago
  How is having recorded video of actual roads not valuable data? You're assuming the only option is training self driving cars on it. They might be training something totally separate to recognize signs, or see damaged roads, how quickly pedestrians react at different times of day, etc. Very narrow view point for you to take.
  - lolc 8y ago
    I agree that having detailed maps is an advantage. But they only make you a better driver in the places where they are correct. As such you can't rely on them to learn to drive, because you must be able to adapt to changes. Driving is not about the best case, but about the worst case. Using uncalibrated and random positioned phone cameras to learn about driving a car that has better sensory equipment seems backwards to me. But point taken, the article says "learn more about driving overall." So that could be anything.
    - blattimwind 8y ago
      To reiterate, you cannot, ever drive based on any map, regardless of how many smartphones collected that map's data. You might use a map for navigation, but even then you'll have to deal with closed roads or changed traffic flow that isn't yet on the map. You cannot use maps for driving.
savrajsingh 8y ago
If you’re not demoing your car at selfracingcars.com, you don’t exist.
avelis 8y ago
If I were Lyft I would be looking for an automaker acquisition. Specifically one with an EV program or willing to start one. I say this because once any automaker figures out self driving on an ev, the fleet rideshare aspect would be a negligible effort to add. Once that does happen Lyft would basically no longer need to exist. Maybe this move is what they are trying to do which is be acquired by Ford. Either I applaud there effort and look forward to what they achieve.
- maged 8y ago
  Lyft is a 15B+ company. Neither Ford, nor any other auto company, has the cash to acquire them.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    Toyota has some 150 bn USD in cash reserves.
    - avelis 8y ago
      Toyota has the cash but seems to have trouble understanding that electric is the future of automotive transportation. I hope they figure it out for their sake.

99 points by apancik 8y ago

I thought Lyft is working with waymao

I thought the big selling point for Lyft for awhile is that there profitability wasn't dependent on shifting to autonomous vehicles, where Uber's was. This seemed to make drivers move to Lyft because they felt they had more job security. Was that just perceived?

grandmczeb 8y ago
I’ve never heard anything like that. As far as I know, the only difference between Uber and Lyft is in strategy (Uber being much more aggressive about expansion). Regardless, it’s likely Uber would be profitable right now, even without self driving cars, if they stopped expanding into new markets.
- romed 8y ago
  That seems like a highly questionable statement demanding some evidence. Perhaps you meant if they retrenched into existing markets while raising prices and laying off all of their business development staff?
  - slackoverflower 8y ago
    Uber definitely has the levers to become profitable anytime they want since they are entrenched in hundreds of major cities in the world. At the end of the day they control the supply and demand of their own platform and most Uber users will pay whatever the price is since they have been a necessity in many of their user's lives.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      >most Uber users will pay whatever the price So Uber is charging their current rates as a way of giving back to the community or whatever? If Uber (or even Uber and Lyft) were to double their prices tomorrow there would most certainly be a drop in volume. Just a couple of days ago I took a Lyft from the airport for no other reason than that a cab would cost about 2x. Yes, there are also circumstances and places in which Uber/Lyft is demonstrably better than a cab but the decision can also just be about who is cheapest.
      - Animats 8y ago
        Uber is funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.[1] Softbank's Vision Fund is mostly a front for the Kingdom. That may be more of a political move than a financial one. Even that wasn't enough money. Uber recently borrowed another $2 billion at 7.5 to 8% for 5-8 years. [1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/funding_rounds_list https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/...
      - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
        They don't have to raise prices. Just cut superfluous headcount by 70%. Instant profitability.
  - grandmczeb 8y ago
    See [1]: "we can turn the knobs to get this business even on a full basis profitable, but you would sacrifice growth and sacrifice innovation" and "He said that it’s Uber’s commitment to 'developing' markets that are dragging things down, but he views that as an 'optional investment'". I'm not and have never been an Uber employee, but I've heard very similar things from people who are. Not great evidence, but hopefully that explains my opinion. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/14/uber-could-be-profitable-if-it-wants-to-says-ceo/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/14/uber-could-be-profitable-i...

yalogin 8y ago

Bear with me here, trying to come at this from the other end. Why do Uber and Lyft have to develop their own self driving tech? If what they sell is their routing algorithm for drivers, they can simply lease self driving cars from the companies directly and run them on their network. The car companies would be happy to get a cut of the profits. What advantage would they get by developing their own tech? They have to manufacture the cars themselves or lease the tech to other companies to cover the costs. Uber and more so Lyft seem late to the game and Uber in particular seem to be fraught with problems and have not made the progress they hoped. So why pursue that? I understand if they started early and are making great progress. On the flip side is the tech no where near completion? Then that would make sense. But Google seems to indicate that they are very very close to launching their own taxi program.

chmhsm 8y ago
I'm gonna have to side with you here, I don't see the point of what they're doing. Except for distinction and marketing. Distinction, as in, if you have total control of how your car, it is easier to create functionality that competitors don't necessarily have. Marketing, as in, marketing.
bunderbunder 8y ago
Uber and Lyft have very little moat to protect them if someone else develops self-driving cars first. They haven't succeeded in their initial goal of exterminating the existing cab companies, and that leaves them in a situation where developing self-driving technology could be a matter of life and death for them. The incumbent cab companies are much better positioned to profit from self-driving cars. They've already got all the infrastructure, expertise and staff it takes to manage fleets of vehicles. The bigger ones already have their own apps (e.g., Curb). If self-driving cars hit the general market first, basically all they have to do to run Uber and Lift out of town is buy some and factor the fact that they aren't paying cab drivers anymore into their prices. By contrast, most of Uber and Lyft's basic business models right now are predicated on the idea of hiring humans, who in turn manage their own cars. That has deep implications: It means they have zero expertise in fleet management. They don't have any of their own garages for storing cars and handling maintenance. They do have apps, but the most valuable parts of their apps are the parts for managing humans. Incentive mechanisms designed to try and ensure that supply of rides and demand for rides remain relatively stable, for example. Their existing business operations are heavily built around recruiting humans - both riders and drivers. None of that is particularly useful in a world with self-driving cars, and the bits that are - basically just the mechanics of enabling people to hail rides and pay for them - are drastically easy to copy.

Animats 8y ago

This focus on detailed mapping is misplaced. Most driving problems come from moving obstacles.

cbHXBY1D 8y ago
Was that the focus of Blue Vision Lab?
maccam94 8y ago
It's not like everything stops moving on the road when self-driving car cameras start scanning. "Mapping" isn't just establishing fixed elements, but also learning how things move and obstruct each other.

AVcarEng 8y ago

So they have 1 car and literally coming in last in the AV field. This is a headfake for IPO. Waymo is 10 years ahead of them, minimum. If Waymo's cars don't have usability issues and launch this year, Lyft's valuation will plummet.

edshiro 8y ago

> The first car from Lyft’s Level 5 self-driving initiative will be the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Lyft’s use of a Ford Fusion apparently isn’t associated with the partnership the two announced last year. Other AV companies have used the Ford Fusion as a platform for integrating self-driving technologies Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message. On the topic of the acquisition, it seems like a good strategic buy for Lyft. I am still not sure whether they have the capital nor the talent pool to develop a strong autonomous vehicle product. It also seems like they are a bit late to the party, as there are more and more doubts on the reality of self-driving in the next few years. I may sound sceptical, but I am just cautious when it comes to news on self-driving cars. However I am genuinely excited at this development and look forward to hearing more about how Lyft is progressing on this quest.

GauntletWizard 8y ago
"Level 5" is the name they've given that division - as much a goal as anything. I doubt they'll launch at anything near true level 5 capability
trhway 8y ago
>Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message. i think it is capability gap between tech companies and car companies. Car companies can't even get cameras around all the body to avoid accidental scratches during parking. Where is tech companies, while could easily do a lot of car tech, have no business case doing anything less than Level 5 - the Level 5 is a tech platform where is anything less is an advanced car, and the tech companies are in the platform business, not car business.
- edshiro 8y ago
  Traditional car companies are also working on autonomous vehicles. There is a lot of business to be had with Level 4. While the car may not be able to go everywhere, in restricted areas a robot-taxi/shuttle service would be a great advancement. We would all love to be at Level 5 but I would take a solid Level 4 in a few years instead of waiting much much longer for a viable Level 5 solution.

lolc 8y ago

> In effect, every Lyft vehicle in operation today, with a smartphone on the dashboard, could be commandeered to become a “camera” watching, surveying and mapping the roads that those cars drive on, and how humans behave on them, using that to help Lyft’s autonomous vehicle (AV) platform learn more about driving overall. Another instance of the "more data is better" fallacy. Humans can drive cars safely after only fifteen years of intermittent sensory input. Lyft could collect that "data" within just one year employing ten collectors. That still doesn't give you brains. Is Techcrunch an outlet for PR pieces? I'm asking because that article reads like one of those.

woah 8y ago
Yes
soared 8y ago
How is having recorded video of actual roads not valuable data? You're assuming the only option is training self driving cars on it. They might be training something totally separate to recognize signs, or see damaged roads, how quickly pedestrians react at different times of day, etc. Very narrow view point for you to take.
- lolc 8y ago
  I agree that having detailed maps is an advantage. But they only make you a better driver in the places where they are correct. As such you can't rely on them to learn to drive, because you must be able to adapt to changes. Driving is not about the best case, but about the worst case. Using uncalibrated and random positioned phone cameras to learn about driving a car that has better sensory equipment seems backwards to me. But point taken, the article says "learn more about driving overall." So that could be anything.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    To reiterate, you cannot, ever drive based on any map, regardless of how many smartphones collected that map's data. You might use a map for navigation, but even then you'll have to deal with closed roads or changed traffic flow that isn't yet on the map. You cannot use maps for driving.

savrajsingh 8y ago

If you’re not demoing your car at selfracingcars.com, you don’t exist.

avelis 8y ago

If I were Lyft I would be looking for an automaker acquisition. Specifically one with an EV program or willing to start one. I say this because once any automaker figures out self driving on an ev, the fleet rideshare aspect would be a negligible effort to add. Once that does happen Lyft would basically no longer need to exist. Maybe this move is what they are trying to do which is be acquired by Ford. Either I applaud there effort and look forward to what they achieve.

maged 8y ago
Lyft is a 15B+ company. Neither Ford, nor any other auto company, has the cash to acquire them.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Toyota has some 150 bn USD in cash reserves.
  - avelis 8y ago
    Toyota has the cash but seems to have trouble understanding that electric is the future of automotive transportation. I hope they figure it out for their sake.