# GM Dumped $500 Million Into Lyft But It's Not Really Working Out



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Both General Motors and Lyft have ambitious goals to commercialize autonomous taxis in some way, but after teaming up more than two years ago, with the former investing $500 million in the latter, it seems they'll no longer be pursuing that endeavor together

The plan originally was for GM and the Uber competitor to eventually co-develop an autonomous, on-demand ride-hailing car network. GM President Dan Ammann got a seat on Lyft's board, GM would provide Lyft drivers with vehicles, and Lyft would get venture capital financing from the automaker. At the time it was heralded as a very big deal.
But GM CEO Mary Barra distanced the automaker from the ride-hailing company this week, saying that while it still has a financial investment in Lyft, "Right now, though, we have no active projects underway."

From The Detroit News:
Her confirmation that GM and Lyft are not actively working together on a new project comes a week after GM President Dan Ammann stepped down from Lyft's board. Maggie Wilderotter, a former telecommunications executive who sits on Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.'s board with Ammann, will fill his seat.

GM invested $500 million in Lyft in 2016.
We have to wonder what caused the schism, although a lot of this, presumably, has to do with GM's rapidly accelerated effort to develop autonomous driving technology of its own. The automaker is looking to launch a driverless car pilot program called Cruise in San Francisco as early as this year, Jalopnik recently reported, and it hopes to have cars on the road without a steering wheel and driver as early as 2019.

And as the News notes, GM's been through a lot of organizational changes in the past year, from selling its perpetually money-losing Opel-Vauxhall division to the French and downsizing its South Korean operations.
Lyft, meanwhile, jumped headfirst into the autonomous car race in 2017, partnering up with several companies to figure out ways to introduce self-driving cars into its ride-hailing network. Some pilot programs are under way, including one Jalopnik tested out in January.

With much of the auto industry teaming up to figure out how, if at all, autonomous cars can work, I think many expected GM and Lyft's partnership would persist, given the high dollar amount the automaker dumped into the mix. But, alas, it really is a cutthroat world out there.
If you have any intel on how this split happened, let us know.

https://jalopnik.com/gm-dumped-500-million-into-lyft-but-its-not-really-wor-1826793919


----------



## kdyrpr (Apr 23, 2016)

It looks like my High School diploma and military service is more than enough to run a major company. .... Half a billion .hahaha. I wouldn't invest 14 cents in LYFT.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

kdyrpr said:


> It looks like my High School diploma and military service is more than enough to run a major company. .... Half a billion .hahaha. I wouldn't invest 14 cents in LYFT.


Well, according to some users on this forum, if corporations invest billions in self driving technologies, "they know what they are doing".

This shows the contrary!


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Both General Motors and Lyft have ambitious goals to commercialize autonomous taxis in some way, but after teaming up more than two years ago, with the former investing $500 million in the latter, it seems they'll no longer be pursuing that endeavor together
> 
> The plan originally was for GM and the Uber competitor to eventually co-develop an autonomous, on-demand ride-hailing car network. GM President Dan Ammann got a seat on Lyft's board, GM would provide Lyft drivers with vehicles, and Lyft would get venture capital financing from the automaker. At the time it was heralded as a very big deal.
> But GM CEO Mary Barra distanced the automaker from the ride-hailing company this week, saying that while it still has a financial investment in Lyft, "Right now, though, we have no active projects underway."
> ...


When is Waymo gonna wake up and smell the coffee? LOL


----------



## kdyrpr (Apr 23, 2016)

Waymo hasn't had a good odea since the Super Ball! Oh...whoops that was Whamo.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

iheartuber said:


> When is Waymo gonna wake up and smell the coffee? LOL


when people start dying in their cars


----------



## theLaw (Jul 4, 2017)

I think that the problem is if you let Lyft/Uber go bankrupt, you'll just need to replace them in a few years when automated vehicles come online, so why not keep them solvent until then?

With Uber's IPO next year, they'll probably be set financially until this change-over. Not sure about Lyft, but it sounds like they'll be breaking even in the next couple of years, so the market won't let them die unless they run into some serious legal trouble.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

theLaw said:


> I think that the problem is if you let Lyft/Uber go bankrupt, you'll just need to replace them in a few years when automated vehicles come online, so why not keep them solvent until then?
> 
> With Uber's IPO next year, they'll probably be set financially until this change-over. Not sure about Lyft, but it sounds like they'll be breaking even in the next couple of years, so the market won't let them die unless they run into some serious legal trouble.


If uber or/and Lyft go bankrupt this forum will change it's name in DidiPeople or OlaPeople.

And a self driving vehicle service will be a autonomous toilet for drunks to pee in while going home.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

theLaw said:


> I think that the problem is if you let Lyft/Uber go bankrupt, you'll just need to replace them in a few years when automated vehicles come online, so why not keep them solvent until then?
> 
> With Uber's IPO next year, they'll probably be set financially until this change-over. Not sure about Lyft, but it sounds like they'll be breaking even in the next couple of years, so the market won't let them die unless they run into some serious legal trouble.


If you know absolutely nothing about the taxi/rideshare biz on paper having a fleet of robo cars sounds like a good business plan. After all, you're not paying the driver, so you're making lots of money right?

Well, not once you factor in the costs. Again if you're just looking at this on the surface you think hey this is great. But Uber drivers know all the costs involved. They know the P&L.

For these reasons, robo taxis don't quite sound like a "slam dunk" to me. Not to mention the fact that the tech is not quite fleshed out yet. Uh, freeways anyone?


----------



## theLaw (Jul 4, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> If you know absolutely nothing about the taxi/rideshare biz on paper having a fleet of robo cars sounds like a good business plan. After all, you're not paying the driver, so you're making lots of money right?
> 
> Well, not once you factor in the costs. Again if you're just looking at this on the surface you think hey this is great. But Uber drivers know all the costs involved. They know the P&L.
> 
> For these reasons, robo taxis don't quite sound like a "slam dunk" to me. Not to mention the fact that the tech is not quite fleshed out yet. Uh, freeways anyone?


You're not wrong here; the question is probably more of when this is going to happen than if it will happen.

The difference between human and driver-less vehicles is potential liability. The Ride-share industry runs entirely on algorithms, and that's a perfect match for automation. Perhaps not in 5 years, but eventually this will be the norm, so Uber/Lyft need to figure out how to merge these two very different business models in the meantime.

Keep in mind that the liability associated with their current business model is enormous. A few class action lawsuits could seriously effect their bottom line by spooking investors. I think this is probably why Kalanick had to go; optics are powerful sorcery in the tech industry, and he just looked too dangerous (and probably was).


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

People seem to think if you invest enough money into something, you will make it a reality. Just throw enough money at it and you will make it work. Sorry but that is called wishful thinking.

Any kind of investment always comes with a lot of risk, especially when it involves a totally new and unproven technology. Statistically 80% of new business ventures fail within five years. Within 10 years, 90 to 95% have failed. Pumping billions of dollars into something is no guarantee it will pay off. But there are no shortage of suckers aka investors who get carried away by the hype and will end up losing their shirts.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

getawaycar said:


> People seem to think if you invest enough money into something, you will make it a reality. Just throw enough money at it and you will make it work. Sorry but that is called wishful thinking.
> 
> Any kind of investment always comes with a lot of risk, especially when it involves a totally new and unproven technology. Statistically 80% of new business ventures fail within five years. Within 10 years, 90 to 95% have failed. Pumping billions of dollars into something is no guarantee it will pay off. But there are no shortage of suckers aka investors who get carried away by the hype and will end up losing their shirts.


The only way a product or service becomes huge is if the creator put his or her heart and soul into its development.

Steve Jobs put his heart and soul into the iPhone and to this day people line up to buy it when the new models hit the shelves.

Uber didn't put their heart and soul into the service per say, but the drivers ("partners") certainly did.

Now let's look at Waymo. Giving credit where credit is due I will say they are putting their heart and soul into the technology aspect of this. But as for the taxi part: no way. It's almost like an afterthought to them.

And that, boys and girls, is why I'm such a naysayer on this robo taxi business.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

Ask a cabbie 5 years ago if Uber would become huge. Well, they got the support of the consumer and cut rates in half. Look at uber/lyft now.

If sdc get the support of the majoraty, history will repeat itsself. And if the cut rates more, pax will accept some compromises, lets be realistic.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

doyousensehumor said:


> Ask a cabbie 5 years ago if Uber would become huge. Well, they got the support of the consumer and cut rates in half. Look at uber/lyft now.
> 
> If sdc get the support of the majoraty, history will repeat itsself. And if the cut rates more, pax will accept some compromises, lets be realistic.


You really need to pay very close attention to this video and stop dreaming about SDC's, imagining Jean Luc Picard is or will be a real person. - https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-...explained-by-scientists-working-on-it.266391/


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

I'll take a look at the video. I am not dreaming of SDC's. I actually drive 80k miles a year for work. I love driving. But I believe SDC's are plausible.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

doyousensehumor said:


> I'll take a look at the video. I am not dreaming of SDC's. I actually drive 80k miles a year for work. I love driving. But I believe SDC's are plausible.


I also like driving and initially, when I've heard and read how SDC's will supposedly change the world, I was like... hold on a second here... this is way too good to be true.... and started digging.

Turns out is probably the biggest lie of this century. All these corporations are peeing against the wind, and tell people is great to get peed on.

SDC's are a lesson about how to lose billions when you are incredibly stupid to believe Uber (the model disruptor) successfully (making profit) disrupted something, anything.

Former robotics engineers pushed the rigid car manufacturers into the scare of viable SDC future (when Lewandowski left Google for Uber in 2015 - because Uber was already a large scale operation, theoretically easily capable to integrate SDC's in their model).


----------



## Yam Digger (Sep 12, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> And a self driving vehicle service will be a autonomous toilet for drunks to pee in while going home.


They'll also make great roving brothels for prostitutes as well as roving crack houses for drug dealers too.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Yam Digger said:


> They'll also make great roving brothels for prostitutes as well as roving crack houses for drug dealers too.


You left out roving Morgues for when the crack heads overdose on their ride...


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Yam Digger said:


> They'll also make great roving brothels for prostitutes as well as roving crack houses for drug dealers too.





Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> You left out roving Morgues for when the crack heads overdose on their ride...


So let' see what disruption really means....

*The Flying Poop Mobile*









*The Gentle Rocking "Limo"*









and

*The Deadly Powder Wagon*


----------

