> The first car from Lyft’s Level 5 self-driving initiative will be the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Lyft’s use of a Ford Fusion apparently isn’t associated with the partnership the two announced last year. Other AV companies have used the Ford Fusion as a platform for integrating self-driving technologies
Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message.
On the topic of the acquisition, it seems like a good strategic buy for Lyft. I am still not sure whether they have the capital nor the talent pool to develop a strong autonomous vehicle product. It also seems like they are a bit late to the party, as there are more and more doubts on the reality of self-driving in the next few years.
I may sound sceptical, but I am just cautious when it comes to news on self-driving cars. However I am genuinely excited at this development and look forward to hearing more about how Lyft is progressing on this quest.
>Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message.
i think it is capability gap between tech companies and car companies. Car companies can't even get cameras around all the body to avoid accidental scratches during parking. Where is tech companies, while could easily do a lot of car tech, have no business case doing anything less than Level 5 - the Level 5 is a tech platform where is anything less is an advanced car, and the tech companies are in the platform business, not car business.
> In effect, every Lyft vehicle in operation today, with a smartphone on the dashboard, could be commandeered to become a “camera” watching, surveying and mapping the roads that those cars drive on, and how humans behave on them, using that to help Lyft’s autonomous vehicle (AV) platform learn more about driving overall.
Another instance of the "more data is better" fallacy. Humans can drive cars safely after only fifteen years of intermittent sensory input. Lyft could collect that "data" within just one year employing ten collectors. That still doesn't give you brains.
Is Techcrunch an outlet for PR pieces? I'm asking because that article reads like one of those.
How is having recorded video of actual roads not valuable data? You're assuming the only option is training self driving cars on it. They might be training something totally separate to recognize signs, or see damaged roads, how quickly pedestrians react at different times of day, etc.
Bear with me here, trying to come at this from the other end.
Why do Uber and Lyft have to develop their own self driving
tech? If what they sell is their routing algorithm for drivers, they can simply lease self driving cars from the companies directly and run them on their network. The car companies would be happy to get a cut of the profits.
What advantage would they get by developing their own tech? They have to manufacture the cars themselves or lease the tech to other companies to cover the costs.
Uber and more so Lyft seem late to the game and Uber in particular seem to be fraught with problems and have not made the progress they hoped. So why pursue that? I understand if they started early and are making great progress. On the flip side is the tech no where near completion? Then that would make sense. But Google seems to indicate that they are very very close to launching their own taxi program.
Uber and Lyft have very little moat to protect them if someone else develops self-driving cars first.
They haven't succeeded in their initial goal of exterminating the existing cab companies, and that leaves them in a situation where developing self-driving technology could be a matter of life and death for them. The incumbent cab companies are much better positioned to profit from self-driving cars. They've already got all the infrastructure, expertise and staff it takes to manage fleets of vehicles. The bigger ones already have their own apps (e.g., Curb). If self-driving cars hit the general market first, basically all they have to do to run Uber and Lift out of town is buy some and factor the fact that they aren't paying cab drivers anymore into their prices.
By contrast, most of Uber and Lyft's basic business models right now are predicated on the idea of hiring humans, who in turn manage their own cars. That has deep implications: It means they have zero expertise in fleet management. They don't have any of their own garages for storing cars and handling maintenance. They do have apps, but the most valuable parts of their apps are the parts for managing humans. Incentive mechanisms designed to try and ensure that supply of rides and demand for rides remain relatively stable, for example. Their existing business operations are heavily built around recruiting humans - both riders and drivers. None of that is particularly useful in a world with self-driving cars, and the bits that are - basically just the mechanics of enabling people to hail rides and pay for them - are drastically easy to copy.
> they can simply lease self driving cars from the companies directly
Nobody really knows what company will develop truly practical SDC tech first. Therefore nobody really knows what revenue model that company will have.
If a vehicle manufacturer does it first, then probably their main goal is still to sell equipment, so they would probably be open to selling/leasing it to anyone and everyone.
If a tech company gets there first (or any company without an existing revenue stream), there's always a chance this company will want it all for themselves.
Sure, Uber and Lyft have the name recognition. And they have the active users (accounts created, apps installed, payment methods on file). But SDC is such a killer tech that whoever has it might decide it outweighs everything else and they can build their own app and get the users to come over.
If you're Uber/Lyft and this happens, you could be completely left out. Not only is your service less sexy, you're also paying labor costs that your SDC competitor isn't.
> What advantage would they get by developing their own tech?
Same with every company in the current climate. Develop every damn thing yourself for fear of anyone having financial power over you.
It really is tiring. Yet, I can't blame them too much. This is where I wish the government would step it. What do I care which company has the best self driving AI? Ffs, define best? It's likely the safest. So we're literally letting them compete for safety - knowing that some will be less safe than others.
There should be a government program here to share knowledge, license startups and ensure equal progression for the benefit of public safety.
I really hate that our safety is being handled by Uber of all companies. Especially since they've already killed someone.
This is a silly game. If self driving tech can even work (questionable in the next few decades), it’ll immediately become a commodity. No such tech could be protected for long. There’s not going to be huge profits to be made once multiple players have self driving fleets on the road. And since unattended cars will inevitably become trashed, individuals will just buy their own self driving cars, and traffic will get that much worse.
From what I can tell, all of the other self-driving companies plan to launch a taxi service first. Even Tesla has plans for that, as evidenced by their "no lyft/uber self-driving" clause in their TOS for any Tesla you buy.
I have just read at https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accid... a little bit about this topic. I think it's always interesting to talk about this future technology. However, for now, I wouldn't risk my family to ride inside one of these self-driving cars. They haven't 100% perfect/safe. Maybe 10 more years.
I imagine Uber+Lyft don't consider their driver routing algorithm a significant barrier to entry to the self-driving car market.
They likely expect the first company to come up with true self driving cars to start their own competitive service to Uber+Lyft. To them, it's an existential threat to not invest in their own self driving technology.
I think every self-driving car project is under the impression that the first stable and safe self driving car network is going to have no incentive to lease the technology out.
You are right. There is no good reason for them to develop and build autonomous cars, just like there is no good reason for them to develop and build conventional cars. When autonomous cars take off, Lyft and Uber can still use their current model. The only difference would be that the car owner doesn't have to drive.
I'm gonna have to side with you here, I don't see the point of what they're doing. Except for distinction and marketing. Distinction, as in, if you have total control of how your car, it is easier to create functionality that competitors don't necessarily have. Marketing, as in, marketing.
I thought the big selling point for Lyft for awhile is that there profitability wasn't dependent on shifting to autonomous vehicles, where Uber's was. This seemed to make drivers move to Lyft because they felt they had more job security. Was that just perceived?
I’ve never heard anything like that. As far as I know, the only difference between Uber and Lyft is in strategy (Uber being much more aggressive about expansion). Regardless, it’s likely Uber would be profitable right now, even without self driving cars, if they stopped expanding into new markets.
It's not like everything stops moving on the road when self-driving car cameras start scanning. "Mapping" isn't just establishing fixed elements, but also learning how things move and obstruct each other.
If I were Lyft I would be looking for an automaker acquisition. Specifically one with an EV program or willing to start one. I say this because once any automaker figures out self driving on an ev, the fleet rideshare aspect would be a negligible effort to add. Once that does happen Lyft would basically no longer need to exist. Maybe this move is what they are trying to do which is be acquired by Ford. Either I applaud there effort and look forward to what they achieve.
edshiro|7 years ago
Why are we still talking about Level 5 autonomous driving when we can't even get Level 4 working properly? I believe this is sending the wrong message.
On the topic of the acquisition, it seems like a good strategic buy for Lyft. I am still not sure whether they have the capital nor the talent pool to develop a strong autonomous vehicle product. It also seems like they are a bit late to the party, as there are more and more doubts on the reality of self-driving in the next few years.
I may sound sceptical, but I am just cautious when it comes to news on self-driving cars. However I am genuinely excited at this development and look forward to hearing more about how Lyft is progressing on this quest.
GauntletWizard|7 years ago
trhway|7 years ago
i think it is capability gap between tech companies and car companies. Car companies can't even get cameras around all the body to avoid accidental scratches during parking. Where is tech companies, while could easily do a lot of car tech, have no business case doing anything less than Level 5 - the Level 5 is a tech platform where is anything less is an advanced car, and the tech companies are in the platform business, not car business.
lolc|7 years ago
Another instance of the "more data is better" fallacy. Humans can drive cars safely after only fifteen years of intermittent sensory input. Lyft could collect that "data" within just one year employing ten collectors. That still doesn't give you brains.
Is Techcrunch an outlet for PR pieces? I'm asking because that article reads like one of those.
darawk|7 years ago
More data is better. The fact that humans have better algorithms that need less data does absolutely nothing to negate this.
soared|7 years ago
Very narrow view point for you to take.
woah|7 years ago
yalogin|7 years ago
Why do Uber and Lyft have to develop their own self driving tech? If what they sell is their routing algorithm for drivers, they can simply lease self driving cars from the companies directly and run them on their network. The car companies would be happy to get a cut of the profits.
What advantage would they get by developing their own tech? They have to manufacture the cars themselves or lease the tech to other companies to cover the costs.
Uber and more so Lyft seem late to the game and Uber in particular seem to be fraught with problems and have not made the progress they hoped. So why pursue that? I understand if they started early and are making great progress. On the flip side is the tech no where near completion? Then that would make sense. But Google seems to indicate that they are very very close to launching their own taxi program.
bunderbunder|7 years ago
They haven't succeeded in their initial goal of exterminating the existing cab companies, and that leaves them in a situation where developing self-driving technology could be a matter of life and death for them. The incumbent cab companies are much better positioned to profit from self-driving cars. They've already got all the infrastructure, expertise and staff it takes to manage fleets of vehicles. The bigger ones already have their own apps (e.g., Curb). If self-driving cars hit the general market first, basically all they have to do to run Uber and Lift out of town is buy some and factor the fact that they aren't paying cab drivers anymore into their prices.
By contrast, most of Uber and Lyft's basic business models right now are predicated on the idea of hiring humans, who in turn manage their own cars. That has deep implications: It means they have zero expertise in fleet management. They don't have any of their own garages for storing cars and handling maintenance. They do have apps, but the most valuable parts of their apps are the parts for managing humans. Incentive mechanisms designed to try and ensure that supply of rides and demand for rides remain relatively stable, for example. Their existing business operations are heavily built around recruiting humans - both riders and drivers. None of that is particularly useful in a world with self-driving cars, and the bits that are - basically just the mechanics of enabling people to hail rides and pay for them - are drastically easy to copy.
adrianmonk|7 years ago
Nobody really knows what company will develop truly practical SDC tech first. Therefore nobody really knows what revenue model that company will have.
If a vehicle manufacturer does it first, then probably their main goal is still to sell equipment, so they would probably be open to selling/leasing it to anyone and everyone.
If a tech company gets there first (or any company without an existing revenue stream), there's always a chance this company will want it all for themselves.
Sure, Uber and Lyft have the name recognition. And they have the active users (accounts created, apps installed, payment methods on file). But SDC is such a killer tech that whoever has it might decide it outweighs everything else and they can build their own app and get the users to come over.
If you're Uber/Lyft and this happens, you could be completely left out. Not only is your service less sexy, you're also paying labor costs that your SDC competitor isn't.
asdkhadsj|7 years ago
Same with every company in the current climate. Develop every damn thing yourself for fear of anyone having financial power over you.
It really is tiring. Yet, I can't blame them too much. This is where I wish the government would step it. What do I care which company has the best self driving AI? Ffs, define best? It's likely the safest. So we're literally letting them compete for safety - knowing that some will be less safe than others.
There should be a government program here to share knowledge, license startups and ensure equal progression for the benefit of public safety.
I really hate that our safety is being handled by Uber of all companies. Especially since they've already killed someone.
skywhopper|7 years ago
jedberg|7 years ago
baddox|7 years ago
I doubt Uber wants to sit around and let Lyft develop self-driving tech, since I doubt Lyft would lease that tech to Uber on very favorable terms.
tonyquart|7 years ago
adt2bt|7 years ago
They likely expect the first company to come up with true self driving cars to start their own competitive service to Uber+Lyft. To them, it's an existential threat to not invest in their own self driving technology.
I think every self-driving car project is under the impression that the first stable and safe self driving car network is going to have no incentive to lease the technology out.
bewo001|7 years ago
chmhsm|7 years ago
paxys|7 years ago
hmhrex|7 years ago
grandmczeb|7 years ago
Animats|7 years ago
maccam94|7 years ago
cbHXBY1D|7 years ago
avelis|7 years ago
maged|7 years ago
savrajsingh|7 years ago
sabareesh|7 years ago
[deleted]
AVcarEng|7 years ago
If Waymo's cars don't have usability issues and launch this year, Lyft's valuation will plummet.