4 ms·

Don’t they spend a lot more on self driving than say lyft? I think a bet on Uber is a bet they win self driving. A bet on taxi apps is a bet on lyft.

• pen2l 8y ago
  But hasn't Google invested a couple billion on Lyft? And since Google is the leader in self-driving, might not Google help Lyft in its self-driving endeavors -- therefore making Lyft more able to pull-off a fleet of self-driving taxis?
  • gamblor956 8y ago
    Self-driving cars are more expensive than a human-driven fleet. Lyft would need to own (or lease) the vehicles themselves, and pay all the associated maintenance costs. Their current business model is entirely predicated on not paying those costs, and nothing about self-driving will provide the necessary margins for the economics of a self-driving fleet to pan out.
    • djakjxnanjak 8y ago
      Owning a fleet is mostly a problem when they are laying around depreciating without being used. Higher capacity factor of self-driving cars will make the economics a lot better. The main issue would be if one player owns the self-driving IP they can capture that surplus. So investing to develop that IP is an good opportunity.
    • brianwawok 8y ago
      > Self-driving cars are more expensive than a human-driven fleet. Only in the very short term. Over 10 years the cost of self driving is much much less than the cost of paying a worker to drive a car for 10 years, once the tech is developed and good enough. Just a matter of who wins that race - and how long they win that race for. If you beat the rest of the market by 10 years, there is some serious profit to take. If your competitor finishes 10 years of research 3 months after you, you are in trouble.