5 ms·

Right? Even if autonomous taxis _is_ their endgame, why couldn't companies that actually produce the cars do it cheaper? Almost all of them are heavily investin

Right? Even if autonomous taxis _is_ their endgame, why couldn't companies that actually produce the cars do it cheaper? Almost all of them are heavily investing in it right now, some are even partnering up with companies that know how to do a lot of it. I don't see how this works out for Lyft or Uber. To me it just looks like they'll both eventually run out of money and get squashed. Maybe I'm missing something?

SeanAppleby 8y ago
My thoughts exactly. My understanding is that Tesla plans on including a clause to prevent their autonomous cars from being used on other ridesharing platforms and simultaneously launching their own service. I believe Lyft has significant financial ties with GM, who has Cruise, so maybe they'll be able to navigate it from a partnership angle.
webninja 8y ago
FYI, Toyota bought a 500m stake in Uber. Some of these car companies just consider the internal combustion engine to be their core competency; then just outsource everything else. Usually to India, Japan or H1B bodyshops.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Auto companies are not service companies, those are very different things. That said, given the dynamism of markets, there's nothing to indicate that Lyft/Uber will have any huge advantage when the time comes. But this is a game of musical chairs - early investors need to create the biggest, most miraculous but 'believable' story so they can pass the bag onto retail investors long enough to cash out. If retail investors were able to do their homework, or rather, if their advisors at Morgan Stanley etc. were to do their jobs, I think that they'd see there is far more risk in these things than the valuations imply. The problem is of course is that Morgan Stanley private wealth managers, managing for all those doctors, dentists, lawyers etc. only make money if there is buying action. And the emotional excitement of 'getting in on an IPO' is just too much to ignore. The 'bragging rights' value of your dentist in Akron Ohio being able to tell to his buddies on the golf course that 'he has an 'in' on the Lyft IPO' (not really of course, he's at the tail end), is just worth more than a scrutinized deal. Also - notice the PR/branding for Lyft, it's so funny, like the opposite of Uber - and yet they are for all intents and purposes the very same thing.
- panarky 8y ago
  > so they can pass the bag onto retail investors long enough to cash out I used to say this too, when companies sold stock to the public at outrageous valuations. I thought it was insane to be the retail "dumb money" left holding the bag on companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Twitter and Snap. So will Lyft and Uber be more like Snap or the others on this list?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    They are all different kinds of companies from different eras. Amazon went IPO very early and had a very long term vision. Lift and Uber, it's hard to say and also depends on price.
monort 8y ago
Why couldn't companies that actually produce cars just rent them out? I'd really like to have a mono-brand short-term rentals, but they just don't exist. Why is the case different for taxis?
- Faark 8y ago
  Currently renting cars could be seen as a distraction from car makers core business. The idea is self driving taxis becoming so cheap owning a car will be uneconomical. In other words they drastically have to revamp their sales product anyway. Worst case they'll be a the whim of very few big ai taxi companies... so cutting them out in the first place seems quite realistic.

SeanAppleby 8y ago

My thoughts exactly. My understanding is that Tesla plans on including a clause to prevent their autonomous cars from being used on other ridesharing platforms and simultaneously launching their own service. I believe Lyft has significant financial ties with GM, who has Cruise, so maybe they'll be able to navigate it from a partnership angle.

webninja 8y ago

FYI, Toyota bought a 500m stake in Uber. Some of these car companies just consider the internal combustion engine to be their core competency; then just outsource everything else. Usually to India, Japan or H1B bodyshops.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Auto companies are not service companies, those are very different things. That said, given the dynamism of markets, there's nothing to indicate that Lyft/Uber will have any huge advantage when the time comes. But this is a game of musical chairs - early investors need to create the biggest, most miraculous but 'believable' story so they can pass the bag onto retail investors long enough to cash out. If retail investors were able to do their homework, or rather, if their advisors at Morgan Stanley etc. were to do their jobs, I think that they'd see there is far more risk in these things than the valuations imply. The problem is of course is that Morgan Stanley private wealth managers, managing for all those doctors, dentists, lawyers etc. only make money if there is buying action. And the emotional excitement of 'getting in on an IPO' is just too much to ignore. The 'bragging rights' value of your dentist in Akron Ohio being able to tell to his buddies on the golf course that 'he has an 'in' on the Lyft IPO' (not really of course, he's at the tail end), is just worth more than a scrutinized deal. Also - notice the PR/branding for Lyft, it's so funny, like the opposite of Uber - and yet they are for all intents and purposes the very same thing.

panarky 8y ago
> so they can pass the bag onto retail investors long enough to cash out I used to say this too, when companies sold stock to the public at outrageous valuations. I thought it was insane to be the retail "dumb money" left holding the bag on companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Twitter and Snap. So will Lyft and Uber be more like Snap or the others on this list?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  They are all different kinds of companies from different eras. Amazon went IPO very early and had a very long term vision. Lift and Uber, it's hard to say and also depends on price.

monort 8y ago

Why couldn't companies that actually produce cars just rent them out? I'd really like to have a mono-brand short-term rentals, but they just don't exist. Why is the case different for taxis?

Faark 8y ago
Currently renting cars could be seen as a distraction from car makers core business. The idea is self driving taxis becoming so cheap owning a car will be uneconomical. In other words they drastically have to revamp their sales product anyway. Worst case they'll be a the whim of very few big ai taxi companies... so cutting them out in the first place seems quite realistic.