Slashdot Mirror
GM Dumps $500 Million Into Lyft (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: General Motors has invested $500 million in ride-sharing service Lyft, and also committed resources to develop an on-demand network of autonomous cars. "GM will also work with Lyft to set up a series of short-term car rental hubs across the United States, places where people who do not own cars can pick up a vehicle and drive for Lyft to earn money." Lyft thinks the future of self-driving cars is in a network of vehicles people share, rather than individual ownership. GM, which produces millions of automobiles every year, seems to agree. The money will help Lyft compete with competitor Uber, which has raised over $10 billion in investments already. "The alliance with GM is surprising because automakers could consider ride-hailing companies like Lyft as long-term threats to auto sales. In an interview, [GM president Daniel Ammann] said that GM wanted to be part of the changing business models in transportation."
shouldn't they change the name to Drop.....
So Rent a Car ding and dent scam + 1099 work?
also if the courts say the drivers are W2 then the rent fees can pull them under min wage and if they damage the cars you can't make the driver pay for the cost that pulls them under min wage.
I don't think GM really believes it's 'the future' or anything as blue-sky as that, they're just hedging their bets against the possibility of this combination being viable.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
"GM will also work with Lyft to set up a series of short-term car rental hubs across the United States, places where people who do not own cars can pick up a vehicle and drive for Lyft to earn money."
So....taxis?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
GM wanted to be part of the changing business models in transportation."
How the mighty have fallen.
Back in the day GM wanted to be part of changing the business models in transportation.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If they were smart, they would have offered Lyft drivers incentives on new GM vehicles.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
A lot of consumer cars are used relatively lightly, so they last a lot longer than cars used as mass transportation vehicles. Additionally, they seem to be targeting people who don't own cars, which, by my math, says they would be selling more cars.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
The funding, which recently closed, values Lyft, which is based in San Francisco, at $4.5 billion.
Startup valuations are such a sham. I swear, Silicon Valley accounting puts Hollywood to shame.
GM will also work with Lyft to set up a series of short-term car rental hubs across the United States, places where people who do not own cars can pick up a vehicle and drive for Lyft to earn money.
its all good up to the lyft for money plug. Lyft and Uber as a 'play taxi for cash' concept is break-even at best. These services will exist for maybe 5-6 more years before folding or being gobbled up by taxi companies under a combination of legislative overhaul targeting the livery vehicle segment, and the fact that neither of these options lets their "contractors" put food on the table. GM is hoping to cash in on two companies skirting multiple federal and state labour and taxi regulations before said companies collapse...but why?
because GM has seen the writing on the wall for the past 10 years. Millenials drive less, not more than previous generations and so far interfaces for their phones to their cars doesnt seem to be enticing them to change that trend. Its partly the culture, and partly the great recession of 2008 thats pushed this segment of budding new drivers into the climate controlled hull of city busses and taxis, and more importantly, used cars. Millenials buy more things online and less things at malls and shopping centers, meaning less driving of those used cars overall. GM is using lyft as a marketing device, but if the only association millenials take from their experience with GM's venture is scraping together rent and sitting in gridlock on saturday nights while the cool kids party, its not going to get them far.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Really? Ride-hailing companies are GREAT for automakers. You're not going to completely forgo buying a car just because you use Lyft as your designated driver when you go out drinking. Meanwhile, the Lyft drivers are all driving their cars much, MUCH more than they were before - without even the benefit of having a mechanic specifically employed to save them money, like a regular taxi company. That means that in the big picture, they're buying MORE cars, while their customers are buying just as many cars as they did before.
And now GM gets to double dip by selling cars to Lyft itself, too!
GM will also work with Lyft to set up a series of short-term car rental hubs across the United States, places where people who do not own cars can pick up a vehicle and drive for Lyft to earn money
But that's totally different from a taxi company, because ... er ... freedom!
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Going through tax paperwork over the weekend I noticed that my auto policy now prohibits claims made if I ever tried to use my car in an Uber, Lyft, or even another "ridesharing" program.
I wonder if that will have an effect on everyone trying to make extra money on the side; it's not like they can really claim that they weren't providing a paid ride during a period in which an accident happens since the dispatch app will have all the records server-side.
Lyft thinks the future of self-driving cars is in a network of vehicles people share, rather than individual ownership.
Like public, mass-transit: buses, trains and planes?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It isn't ride-sharing if you have to pay for it. What's next? Will retail stores become product-sharing places? Will restaurants become food-sharing places?
GM invests $500 million in mustache rides.
Because GM has been such a spectacular steward of finances in the past.
So they will be Gate and gas cab drivers?
well the city sets the meter fee and gate fees.
also the car's / drivers have full insurance and liability not the kind of that uber / lift has.
Okay, let me see if I remember things properly, and in the right order.
GM was headed into bankruptcy, but the US government bailed them out because they were too big to fail.
Over the next couple of years, the government lost 11 billion dollars on the deal, money that all the rest of us taxpayers have to make up.
During that same time, GM made 22.6 billion dollars..
Also during that time, GM made vehicles with faulty ignition switches which killed over a hundred people, vigorously denied doing so, quietly fixed the problem, and back-edited the documentation to show that it was fixed all along.
Today, GM has enough spare cash to invest in other companies.
Oh, and also today we have an article on the front page about improving school performance by fighting poverty, and the comments are all responses to people who want to eliminate handouts to the poor.
This is the news and state of the world presented to us on the first working day of the new year.
But the finance industry should be. Car makers don't care how the miles are driven - sure there will be a few less cars in active usage if this plan goes well, but I see them making it up in new revenue streams like Lyft partnerships. The real losers might end up being finance companies and sleazy used car lots who make a killing not off sales but off finance costs. An overall win for society if you ask me.
Of course Millenials drive less.
I wonder how that breaks down when you factor out all the basement/garage/childhood bedroom dwellers.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Going through tax paperwork over the weekend I noticed that my auto policy now prohibits claims made if I ever tried to use my car in an Uber, Lyft, or even another "ridesharing" program.
That one *might* not hold up in court.
Contracts are important, but not iron-clad; it's generally frowned up on by the courts if a company takes your money for a reasonable expectation of service and then denies the service. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume that having paid insurance for 3 years, a claim could be denied because 8 months ago you gave an Uber lift.
However, if they could demonstrate you were an active Uber provider, they may have a case.
And, if it proves profitable, the government will recover its losses from the bailout. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/
For some reason people want personal space we already have buses and taxis yet people still own their own car (well I say own but many are still making payments)
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I'd rather they dumped $500MM into electric car technology.
it's an APP and web site.. what the hell.
what's the 10 billion dollars for other than to pad company valuation pre-IPO to inflate the value of founders' and investors' shares?
That's probably only valid if your claim is for an incident occurring while you're ridesharing.
Uber provides insurance covering you while providing ridesharing.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The GM - Lyft model is any random guy without a car can borrow a conveniently parked GM car and be a taxi driver pretending to be non-taxi driver.
Wow! Pretty soon we will have random guys with lock box code to apartment keys and be an inn-keeper pretending to be a non-inn-keeper. and the possibilities are endless.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
>> Uber provides insurance covering you while providing ridesharing.
There's a wonderful grey "on call" area in there too that appears to have gotten some people in trouble:
https://www.policygenius.com/b... (search ahead to "CPUC’s first step in regulating TNCs")
I predict that taxi companies will no longer purchase GM cars to be used as taxi's.
You're not carrying passenger, but on the way, so you're covered by neither your insurer nor Uber. Okay, that's a new one on me.
It seems to me (reasonable person test) driving on your way to pick up someone for an Uber call is the same operation as driving to a job interview, or driving to meet your (existing) friends at a new night club. Hell, I have to drive down to an unfamiliar part of town in an hour to pick up a guitar I had shipped from another Guitar Center. That's the same scenario.
Carrying an unknown passenger carries unknown risk. The passenger may be crazy, distracting, or otherwise disruptive to the driving operation in an unknown way. Carting around your friends means you deal with known risks of their asshole behavior (known known); picking up a stranger means you deal with unknown risks of their asshole behavior (a known unknown).
Legally, a contract has no force until an exchange occurs. If you haven't picked up a passenger, they have no obligation to enter your car or to pay you. Legally, this strongly suggests an exchange hasn't occurred; in that case, until you pick up the passenger, you are not performing a contracted service.
I'm going to say this is on your insurer for behaving in an illegal manner and categorizing non-commercial driving as commercial driving. This is akin to delivering pizza for Dominos (all pizza companies make you use your own car) and not having insurance when driving from your house to work because you are en route to start your shift as a commercial pizza driver: Until you enter that car with a pizza, you are not operating that car in a commercial context.
This illegal behavior is a risk. You always risk your insurer behaving illegally and disenfranchising you of a valid claim. This is a specific known risk of such behavior, rather than the generic known unknown (which is also less likely).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
They stole taxpayer funds and now did this? Fuck them.
What about shorter trips? 5-10 minutes gets me to the grocery store; given that I'm likely to be loaded down with bags when I leave, not having to shift transports twice would be a real time saver.
For getting to the transport hub most of the time you should be able to get by with a vehicle even smaller than smart cars. Other times you might want the storage area of a SUV when you're going to the airport on vacation.
That being said, automatic ordering combined with automatic delivery and manual requests would also be 'nice'. You could even have a custom vehicle I could haul the groceries out of that releases my stuff while keeping other people's food secure.
I don't read AC A human right
This is so totally and utterly obvious to anyone with half a brain who cares to sit down and think it through for a few minutes - at least for the mass market. In fact, it seems so obvious to me, that I'm worried I've got tunnel vision for it, does anyone know any viable arguments for private ownership in a world where cars drive themselves?
Oil companies over took them for a while, then software companies.
Can put an end to all homelessness and hunger in the US pretty much right now. Nobody cares.
When you add up the costs of homeless shelters, police, damage, emergency rooms(due to illness caused/made worse by being without shelter), jail space, court costs, etc... Each homeless person costs roughly $40k/year. Between private parties, city, state, and federal governments.
Homeless people are expensive. It's actually cheaper to spend the $10k-20k to put them up in permanent housing, without requiring things like 'you have to pass a drug test first!' Living on the street sucks. Of course they're going to keep using drugs until they're off them!
Yes, we can solve homelessness NOW, and it wouldn't even cost us a cent. As a practical minarchist, I support that move.
I don't read AC A human right
This has been true for a long time. Insurance companies want you to have a commercial policy to cover the additional risk(s).
Geez GM, talk about backing the wrong horse.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So GM, the company that "the gov" bailed out of bankruptcy 7 years ago with 20 Billion USD is now backing a "not-taxi" startup with 500 Million USD?
Great.....there goes more of our tax dollars.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Your "reasonable person test" doesn't seem to work too well, as driving your car to pick up a fare is part of using your car for business. Visiting a nightclub or going to an interview involves using the car, but can be performed with any other form of transport, so it's hardly comparable. Delivering pizzas is the same thing - you are simply driving to work until you start using your car for business. I can see why you think the way you do, but don't assume you are the sole arbitrator of reason, just as I won't.
It's a trap! They just want to increase the visibility and competition of services like Uber so governments make them illegal ASAP. "The alliance with GM is surprising because automakers could consider ride-hailing companies like Lyft as long-term threats to auto sales." What's half a billion to them if it removes, even partly, this massive multi-year threat to their sales?
Half a billion dollars seems a pretty big hedge, even for GM.
Then again, these corporations make profits that are hard to conceptualize at times.
So driving a car to a location without an anonymous passenger is different than driving a car to a location without an anonymous passenger?
Or are you arguing that driving a car to a location *with* an anonymous passenger in your car is *the* *same* *as* driving that car to a location *without* an anonymous passenger in your car?
Support my political activism on Patreon.