(Twitch and Cruise will be the only two YC unicorns to have exited and Kyle is co-founder of both. I imagine he'll soon have a queue of VCs lining up to fund his next thing....)
That's assuming he's not going to continue working on Cruise at GE. I would suspect he'll work on it for at least a year or two though depending on how passionate he is about it he may just stay at GE for along time.
Speaking of, what does a typical vesting schedule look like in stock-based acquisitions? Is it always negotiable or is there an industry standard? I assume it's not the same 4/1 used in normal employee options, or else no founder would sell to a company requiring him to work four years to realize the full value of the acquisition.
Neither GM nor Cruise has announced a number. Fortune says "No financial terms were disclosed, but Fortune has learned from a source close to the situation that the deal is valued at “north of $1 billion,” in a combination of cash and stock."
There will be fortunes made and lost on the basis of automated features in cars over the next decade, GM definitely wants to be in the winner's circle.
EDIT: It's very hard to pinpoint an exactly value for R&D heavy startups. Their tech could easily be worth well over $1 billion if it plays a crucial role in developing & accelerating GM producing & selling driverless cars. Just know that GM sold $154 billion worth of car last year.
Just from a back-of-the-envelope perspective, something seems strange here. If you asked me how much money autonomous cars would take to create and perfect, I'd guess maybe $10 billion.
What could Cruise have built that justifies this price? Why wouldnt GM just put $100mm or even $500mm into their own funded startup?
Time will tell, but I suspect GM got swindled here.
Many investments don't pan out, but when they do, they're worth every penny.
And I would guess you're incredibly low. If you're using "perfect" to mean bring to market vehicles that can be sold to operate fully autonomously on public roads, you're talking about an industry-wide effort over decades. By way of context, a single company in the IT industry, Intel, spends more than $10b on R&D annually right now.
Uber has a customer base and minimal physical plant, which is a huge advantage for them. On the other side, car manufacturers have enormous balance sheets and can be vertically integrated travel providers -- and have a huge incentive not to simply become manufacturers for fleet operators, which will put them in the wrong part of the value chain (basically the equivalent of "dumb pipe" telecom carriers).
Most of the car manufacturers will go out of business. My guess the survivors 20 years from now will be three from the set of Ford, Daimler, VW, Toyota and maybe Renault/Nissan and GM. Almost certainly Daimler will be on that list, not sure about which of the others. And the rest are already walking dead.
By the way cars will become quite boring commodity products (like planes) because the users and the buyers will be different.
Bing hits the road with Toyota Entune
Is the deal between Google and Toyota strictly for autonomous driving? One would think Google would try to get Toyota to use its cloud platform for everything if they could persuade Toyota to do so.
Honestly, as far as I can tell their biggest asset is a relatively complete 3D LIDAR map of San Francisco. Other than that, I don't think they were really set up to compete against the likes of Google, who has the resources and man-power to develop custom cars, algorithms, and sensors. Given this, from the start I thought the company was designed to flip. Originally I figured they'd sell to Google, but looks like I was wrong about that.
Kyle appears to be 30-31 years old.
If you compare yourself to everyone else there are going to be lots of people 'ahead' of you all the time (to quote a well known film 'there can be only one'), seems like a waste of time to be concerned with how other people are doing.
I ride in a bicycle club, I'm probably one of the slowest riders there but I don't care since the only performance I care about is me from a month ago.
(Age is highly irrelevant).
Tesla is best position overall. They're building the best battery tech (for any use) and charging stations all over the world.
Be careful not to fall prey to the Availability Heuristic: If you live in a city, remember there are a lot of people who live in the 'burbs or far outside a city.
Also, many people actually like driving.
Disclaimer: I work for GM, any opinions here are solely my own.
I'm surprised GM bought them. Cruise is basically lane keeping plus smart cruise control, with extra hype. Their driving record isn't very good.
As for the rest of it, sounds like sour grapes and honestly a lack of understanding about how companies value other companies in acquisitions. I question whether you really have any experience in this industry at all.
Obviously we're not going to delete it, but I think it's fair to attach a caveat lector.