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."

Comments

Hedging their bets

[kheldan]

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.

Prior art?

[Nidi62]

"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?

Re:Prior art?

[gstoddart]

No no no .. haven't you been paying attention to what Uber says?

Taxis are a commercial service, requiring a commercial license, a taxi license, proper insurance and liability.

This will be random people under no regulations driving you around for a fee.

See, due to the magical thinking of Uber, a car for hire through an app isn't anything like a taxi and isn't subject to regulations because they say so.

Nothing at all like a taxi.

I plan on starting a service called "nothing at all like a lawyer" where for a fee I will show up and defend you in court. Only I'll not know anything about the law, not be covered under any regulations, and bear no professional responsibility, so when your ass gets sent off to prison that's your damned problem.

I'm also thinking of buying a dremmel tool and branching out into the "nothing at all like a dentist" business. That's probably pretty lucrative too.

Of course, apparently the real money is in having the app which connects you to a "nothing at all like an X", take a cut, and pretend that you're not really just illegally plying a trade and ignoring the regulations around it. If you can convince enough suckers of this they'll throw billions of dollars at you, apparently.

Re:Prior art?

[gstoddart]

But but ... my business model says I'm not covered by the regulations, if it works for Uber why not for anything else?

Or, gasp, maybe Uber is full of shit when they say such things?

Re:Prior art?

[gstoddart]

And yet, there are literally millions of assholes like me who use Uber constantly, and would take a ride managed by Uber over a taxi any day.

Meh, I place no judgement on people who use the service. Some schmuck trying to save a couple of bucks is understandable, it doesn't make you an asshole.

Why we allow a corporation to claim a car for hire isn't a care for hire "because business model" ... that I have no idea.

However, where I live, taxis -- in addition to being properly licensed and insured -- must also have a camera in their vehicle. The cab drivers fought it tooth and nail until one of their own was violently robbed. Which means unlike Uber, there's a record of a crime if your driver turns out to be a mugger or a rapist.

If you choose to get into a car with a random stranger, who isn't properly licensed or insured, that's your damned choice.

To me Uber is just a bootleg cab company claiming taxi regulations don't apply to them. So, I don't trust them and have no intention of rewarding them for it.

But get into a random car with a driver who has had no background check or otherwise complied with any of the laws which exist for my safety? No thanks.

Re:Prior art?

[GGardner]

You are totally missing the point. The goal is to get $1B in funding to start a service called "nothing at all like a lawyer", were you get other suckers who are not lawyers to represent even bigger suckers in court, and you sit back and take a percentage of all transactions. If the not-lawyers get in trouble with the local courts, hey, that was their decision, and not really your fault. Profit!

Just noticed my auto policy forbids Uber, Lyft...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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.

The first work day of the new year

[Okian Warrior]

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.