3 ms·

The tone of this article is troubling. First, the focus is on savings to Lyft, and not how this innovation benefits customers in any way. Second, it is highly

The tone of this article is troubling. First, the focus is on savings to Lyft, and not how this innovation benefits customers in any way. Second, it is highly antagonistic to Google - who is probably still a partner to Lyft in many other aspects (advertising etc). Taking shots at your partners is generally considered bad for business.

acdha 3y ago
Savings benefit Lyft customers directly by keeping the company solvent – since the rides aren’t being heavily subsidized, the rates are going to go up and things like this will reduce the sting. It also helps indirectly by giving them control. Google doesn’t do product development well and Maps has been stagnant or even regressing for years. Lyft can always flub it but now they have the incentives lined up where the only party needed to make what Lyft users want is Lyft. As for Google, they’re a big company and they can take criticism. It’s certainly not like they’re shy about canceling products or changing the terms any time some MBA thinks it’ll help their bonus, and I’d be quite surprised if they didn’t pass on the opportunity to keep a customer multiple times before now.
uneekname 3y ago
It may be antagonistic, but Google Maps really isn't the one-stop shop it used to be in the mapping world. Companies like Lyft have been looking for alternatives for a while now.
LeFantome 3y ago
The article I read talked a lot about the benefits to drivers. That translates fairly directly to the service being offered to customers. Having your driver more easily figure out where to pick you up or drop you off is a huge service win for customers. Keeping your driver more focussed on navigation translates not only to better trips but safer ones as well. The statement was that they did not want to rely on a 3rd party to generate 90% of the pixels your customers are looking at. How did you miss all this customer focus? I am not sure it is fair to say this was all about profit juicing for Lyft. My issue with the article is just the mind-boggling premise that leveraging an Open Source mapping project is “the impossible” vs using Google Maps. Also, there are lots of other options including of course ESRI.
heed 3y ago
Cost savings was definitely a factor, but this is the key point from the article: "And yet, until very recently, Lyft had limited control over that navigation experience, which was built using Google Maps. “For our entire existence, we couldn’t fundamentally change that product,” says director of project management Ben Schrom." I've worked in the mapping space for more than 20 years and I can tell you one of the biggest annoyances with using third party mapping data is that you are beholden to their cadence and tooling for making updates to the map - you have virtually no control over the data. This is a big reason both Google and Apple built their own map. The benefit of using OSM is that you are provided decent tooling and a relatively streamlined process for making updates. Map data quality is incredibly important, especially for navigation and it's really hard to manage because the map is always changing - it's not a static thing.
- thelittlenag 3y ago
  I was part of a startup whose entire point was opening up that control. Sadly we failed to gain traction. At least our idea is still around and we may pick it back up if we find the time and energy.
neurostimulant 3y ago
> Second, it is highly antagonistic to Google - who is probably still a partner to Lyft in many other aspects (advertising etc). Taking shots at your partners is generally considered bad for business. Wasn't it Google that significantly raised their map api price a few years ago that prompted ride sharing apps to pursue open source solutions to replace google maps? Google took the first shot here. Other ride sharing apps are doing this. Grab is another ride sharing app that invest heavily in open street map.

acdha 3y ago

Savings benefit Lyft customers directly by keeping the company solvent – since the rides aren’t being heavily subsidized, the rates are going to go up and things like this will reduce the sting. It also helps indirectly by giving them control. Google doesn’t do product development well and Maps has been stagnant or even regressing for years. Lyft can always flub it but now they have the incentives lined up where the only party needed to make what Lyft users want is Lyft. As for Google, they’re a big company and they can take criticism. It’s certainly not like they’re shy about canceling products or changing the terms any time some MBA thinks it’ll help their bonus, and I’d be quite surprised if they didn’t pass on the opportunity to keep a customer multiple times before now.

uneekname 3y ago

It may be antagonistic, but Google Maps really isn't the one-stop shop it used to be in the mapping world. Companies like Lyft have been looking for alternatives for a while now.

LeFantome 3y ago

The article I read talked a lot about the benefits to drivers. That translates fairly directly to the service being offered to customers. Having your driver more easily figure out where to pick you up or drop you off is a huge service win for customers. Keeping your driver more focussed on navigation translates not only to better trips but safer ones as well. The statement was that they did not want to rely on a 3rd party to generate 90% of the pixels your customers are looking at. How did you miss all this customer focus? I am not sure it is fair to say this was all about profit juicing for Lyft. My issue with the article is just the mind-boggling premise that leveraging an Open Source mapping project is “the impossible” vs using Google Maps. Also, there are lots of other options including of course ESRI.

heed 3y ago

Cost savings was definitely a factor, but this is the key point from the article: "And yet, until very recently, Lyft had limited control over that navigation experience, which was built using Google Maps. “For our entire existence, we couldn’t fundamentally change that product,” says director of project management Ben Schrom." I've worked in the mapping space for more than 20 years and I can tell you one of the biggest annoyances with using third party mapping data is that you are beholden to their cadence and tooling for making updates to the map - you have virtually no control over the data. This is a big reason both Google and Apple built their own map. The benefit of using OSM is that you are provided decent tooling and a relatively streamlined process for making updates. Map data quality is incredibly important, especially for navigation and it's really hard to manage because the map is always changing - it's not a static thing.

thelittlenag 3y ago
I was part of a startup whose entire point was opening up that control. Sadly we failed to gain traction. At least our idea is still around and we may pick it back up if we find the time and energy.

neurostimulant 3y ago

> Second, it is highly antagonistic to Google - who is probably still a partner to Lyft in many other aspects (advertising etc). Taking shots at your partners is generally considered bad for business. Wasn't it Google that significantly raised their map api price a few years ago that prompted ride sharing apps to pursue open source solutions to replace google maps? Google took the first shot here. Other ride sharing apps are doing this. Grab is another ride sharing app that invest heavily in open street map.