
Lyft speeds ahead with its autonomous initiatives - apancik
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/23/lyft-is-buying-london-ar-startup-blue-vision-labs-to-fuel-its-autonomous-car-efforts/
======
edshiro
> _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.

~~~
trhway
>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.

~~~
alehul
Uber and Tesla are dead last in self-driving tech, beaten by everyone from
Hyundai to Baidu-BAIC. I don't know where you get the idea that "car companies
can't even get cameras all around the body to avoid accidental scratches." The
leaders of the industry are Daimler-Bosch, GM, Waymo, Volkswagen, Ford, Aptiv,
and BMW-Intel-FCA. Mostly car companies.

------
lolc
> 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.

~~~
darawk
> Another instance of the "more data is better" fallacy.

More data is better. The fact that humans have better algorithms that need
less data does absolutely nothing to negate this.

~~~
skywhopper
Depends on whether it’s the right data, or meaningful data. The idea that Lyft
needs this acquisition in order to implement video capture from its drivers’
cell phones is laughable so something else is going on with this acquisition.
But to your point, the assumption that this is even a problem of “not enough
data” is questionable at this point. How to turn that data into results is
something no one has come close to figuring out yet.

~~~
darawk
> Depends on whether it’s the right data, or meaningful data.

Street level mapping data isn't relevant or meaningful? Basically every
company working on this problem seems to pretty strongly disagree with you.

> But to your point, the assumption that this is even a problem of “not enough
> data” is questionable at this point. How to turn that data into results is
> something no one has come close to figuring out yet.

This is trivially false. Given infinite data, all possible situations would be
represented in the data, and the solutions applied in those situations could
be copied exactly, something that existing algorithms are completely capable
of doing.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> This is trivially false. Given infinite data, all possible situations would
be represented in the data, and the solutions applied in those situations
could be copied exactly, something that existing algorithms are completely
capable of doing.

In principle. In practice, you'd need infinite time and infinite storage.

Btw, do you have to add stuff like "This is trivially false" to your comments?
It doesn't make your comments sound more right, only less well considered.

~~~
darawk
> In principle. In practice, you'd need infinite time and infinite storage.

That is irrelevant.

> Btw, do you have to add stuff like "This is trivially false" to your
> comments? It doesn't make your comments sound more right, only less well
> considered.

Trivial in the mathematical sense. As in, there is a trivial counter-example
to your point. Citing infinity is a 'trivial' case. I'm using 'trivial' to
describe my counter-example, not his error.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
If I may be frank: don't use language in the mathematical sense if you are not
in a maths classroom or you dont' know maths.

------
yalogin
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.

~~~
bunderbunder
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.

~~~
whatshisface
The first self-driving car deployment could be someone who buys a single car
and uses Uber and Lyft as pre-made customer-finding platforms. If self-driving
cars become cheaper than humans by enough of a margin for cab companies, then
quick movers with capital can work with Uber or Lyft to deploy a self-driving
micro-fleet of their own. It would be a great way to park your money, a much
cheaper version of buying lease properties or fast food franchises.

~~~
bunderbunder
But not, I think, cheaper than a cab company setting up their own fleet.

Being a bigger player, a cab company is better-positioned to take advantage of
what few economies of scale exist in this space: The power to negotiate a
lower per-unit cost, and the ability to operate your own garage so you don't
have to pay retail prices for maintenance and repairs.

The cab company would also be the more vertically integrated option, which
gives them additional opportunities to economise and pass the savings on to
the customer.

------
hmhrex
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?

~~~
grandmczeb
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.

~~~
romed
That seems like a highly questionable statement demanding some evidence.
Perhaps you meant if they retrenched into existing markets while raising
prices and laying off all of their business development staff?

~~~
slackoverflower
Uber definitely has the levers to become profitable anytime they want since
they are entrenched in hundreds of major cities in the world. At the end of
the day they control the supply and demand of their own platform and most Uber
users will pay whatever the price is since they have been a necessity in many
of their user's lives.

~~~
ghaff
>most Uber users will pay whatever the price

So Uber is charging their current rates as a way of giving back to the
community or whatever? If Uber (or even Uber and Lyft) were to double their
prices tomorrow there would most certainly be a drop in volume. Just a couple
of days ago I took a Lyft from the airport for no other reason than that a cab
would cost about 2x. Yes, there are also circumstances and places in which
Uber/Lyft is demonstrably better than a cab but the decision can also just be
about who is cheapest.

~~~
Animats
Uber is funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.[1] Softbank's Vision Fund is
mostly a front for the Kingdom. That may be more of a political move than a
financial one.

Even that wasn't enough money. Uber recently borrowed another $2 billion at
7.5 to 8% for 5-8 years.

[1]
[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding_rounds/funding_rounds_list)

------
Animats
This focus on detailed mapping is misplaced. Most driving problems come from
moving obstacles.

~~~
maccam94
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.

------
avelis
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.

~~~
maged
Lyft is a 15B+ company. Neither Ford, nor any other auto company, has the cash
to acquire them.

~~~
blattimwind
Toyota has some 150 bn USD in cash reserves.

~~~
avelis
Toyota has the cash but seems to have trouble understanding that electric is
the future of automotive transportation. I hope they figure it out for their
sake.

------
savrajsingh
If you’re not demoing your car at selfracingcars.com, you don’t exist.

------
AVcarEng
So they have 1 car and literally coming in last in the AV field. This is a
headfake for IPO. Waymo is 10 years ahead of them, minimum.

If Waymo's cars don't have usability issues and launch this year, Lyft's
valuation will plummet.

