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]

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.

Re:good job

[andymadigan]

"GM chief Mary Barra: 'pattern of incompetence' caused fatal recall delay"

GM was completely incompetent, which is why it went out of business. GM was renamed to Motors Liquidation Company and split into trusts to deal with the long term effects of GM's incompetence. The incompetent, decrepit organization was of course transferred to a new corporation, so that it can fail again in a few years.

The new GM made sure it wouldn't be responsible for the legal consequences of the poor quality vehicles it released prior to 2009, so it can't claim the history of the company that manufactured them either. New GM is a brand new company, with the same failed engineering organization.

Who knows, maybe GM will be the Yahoo! of cars, with its ownership stake in various companies worth more than the core business. In any case, Lyft will hopefully do something more productive with GM's money than GM would have done with it.