Lyft Announces Strategic Partnership with Didi | Hacker News Reader

Lyft Announces Strategic Partnership with Didi

blog.lyft.com

145 pointsmikedb76 comments

I still think there is potential in Lyft's original idea "Ride sharing" rather than a taxi competitor that both of these companies have become.

Really curious why such an option still doesnt exist:

"I am driving from Soma to Palo Alto so just notify me about the customers trying to do the same thing"

Lyft shouldn't be anyone's full time or part time job. In my opinion that's the only way they can co-exist with Uber.

Lyft already has it, and it's in the app if you are a driver and the region supports Lyft Line. You set a destination you are driving to, and it'll match up with any Lyft Line passenger going sorta same direction: https://drivers.lyft.com/customer/portal/articles/1778131-de...

>"I am driving from Soma to Palo Alto so just notify me about the customers trying to do the same thing"

This exactly BlaBlaCar's* thing...unfortunately they have no plans to come to the U.S. I live in NYC and unlike most people here I have my own car. I often drive to nearby cities to visit friends. I would LOVE to have a widely used service like this, I'm so jealous to see, for example, BlaBlaCar's listings for people looking to share a ride from Paris to Lyon this Friday evening.

[1] https://www.blablacar.com/

I absolutely loved using BlaBlaCar when I was backpacking in France. It was recommended to me by several other travellers who all raved about it. It is a fraction of the price of the train, and far more convenient (in terms of pick-up/drop off locations and timing) than the bus. Plus I met some pretty cool people along the way.

Unfortunately I'm not optimistic about a similar service doing well in North America. The main advantage BlaBlaCar has in Europe is geography. Cities in North America are more scattered. Also, French culture is much more open to hitchhiking, which BlaBlaCar feels like a natural extension to. And European road tolls are far more expensive than in North America, giving drivers a much larger incentive to take some ridesharers with them. For example, on a long weekend roadtrip along the Cote d'Azur my French friend and I racked up close to 200 Euros in tolls, but happily made almost half of that back by picking up BlaBlaCar passengers at various convenient points along the way.

> This exactly BlaBlaCar's* thing...unfortunately they have no plans to come to the U.S. I live in NYC and unlike most people here I have my own car. I often drive to nearby cities to visit friends.

Lyft Line already does this, and it's available in NYC. I'm not sure if it works between cities, but within the NYC metro area you should be fine.

Do many people use BlaBlaCar in the UK? Given the very high train prices, they should. Yet the search doesn't seem to accommodate pickups along a route. If you search Oxford to London, you get several results. But if you search High Wycombe to London, you get none. The former route will undoubtedly overlap the latter - why not offer pickups? It would presumably expand the pool of available trips considerably.

I imagine you suffer from market size problems.

This works when one destination has strong mass transit connections (e.g. the casual carpooling over the SF Bay Bridge), but without that, pairing seems hard.

If I'm going from X to Y, what are the odds that there will be another person traveling along this route that within the next M minutes will be near X? Note that M must be small to encourage me not to use alternative options.

If there's not enough drivers, passengers stop using it. Not enough passengers.. drivers stop using it. Because of the need for both source and destination alignment, unlike the taxi which just needs source alignment, much larger critical mass is needed for this to be useful.

> If there's not enough drivers, passengers stop using it. Not enough passengers.. drivers stop using it.

It would be nice if this integrated with an always-on app while driving, like Google Maps[0], so as a driver you could always be aware of nearby opportunities to pick up passengers going your way. I think it would be more difficult for passengers -- because of the possibility a driver could cancel or lollygag, a 15 minute wait is a huge investment that could result in you still having to find alternative transportation.

[0] This was very uncomfortable at first as the son of a UPS driver, someone who's usually able to find a place again after going there just once, but now I navigate with Google Maps for routine trips in the Bay Area just to find shortcuts around traffic. I'd imagine integrating with onboard navigation would make this even easier for most drivers with newer cars.

> Really curious why such an option still doesnt exist:

> "I am driving from Soma to Palo Alto so just notify me about the customers trying to do the same thing"

This concept was discussed a couple of weeks ago in the Stratechery article Uber 2.0: Human Self-Driving Cars[0].

0: https://stratechery.com/2015/uber-2-0-human-self-driving-car...

I agree that this potential exists. A friend and I are building/operating a service aimed at facilitating this more social, casual, and original form of "ride sharing" based out of Vancouver, BC. It's called HitchPlanet (https://www.hitchplanet.com).

Lyft is Twitter to Uber's Facebook.

They should accept being a tenth the size of Uber, and having a meaningful business, instead of trying to compete head-on with Uber and destroying their potential. Investors of course don't like that premise, as a $3 or $5 billion market cap won't cut it after taking a billion dollars in VC.

There's little or no money in that.

This could be great for both companies in the long term, but in the short term they need to solve the language barrier problem.

I assert that the vast majority of Lyft users (and even the subset that intends to visit China in 2016) do not speak Chinese. Furthermore, >99.5% of Didi's current rides are for Chinese passengers, and very few of their drivers speak English.

This isn't just a problem for Lyft/Didi. I have used Uber 18 times in the past week, exclusively in China. On all 18 occasions, I received a phone call from the driver within 100 seconds of allocation. They asked me to confirm my current location, and my destination. I did this in Chinese. 2 or 3 of the drivers had passable English. The other drivers would have failed to communicate with a non-Chinese-speaking visitor from the US.

Uber is experimenting with solving this by adding an additional 'English' service next to the existing UberX, People's Uber etc. But they don't have many drivers who can speak English, so the quoted wait times for that service are something like 5x the wait time for People's Uber.

Didi isn't as reliant on foreigners for growth, so what is their incentive to attract English-speaking drivers who can adequately serve Lyft customers?

Your premise that drivers need to speak English is incorrect. We are talking about two parties with aligned goals, smartphones and automated translation tools available, even human translators available by phone if required.

However, I agree with your statement that foreigners are nearly irrelevant to the vehicle booking market in China. Frankly this move sounds like it's mostly about marketing hype.

"Your premise that drivers need to speak English is incorrect."

Next time you have non-Chinese-speaking friends visiting you in China, have them try to get around using Ubers, without your help. I'd be very surprised if their successful journeys (picked up and dropped off in correct places) are more than 50% of the total.

With a taxi hailed in the street, you just need the destination address on a business card or piece of paper. With Uber, it was often a challenge for them to find you to pick you up, before they started calling every time.

Uhh ... heard of GPS? Wifi? Bluetooth? Any of these could assist with geo-locating the other party without the need for conversation. Similarly, a shot of the surroundings with a phone camera.

"Uhh ... heard of GPS? Wifi? Bluetooth?"

Yes, I'm aware of these technologies.

"Any of these could assist..."

Yes, someone _could_ build a system/process which would solve the problem. The thing is, no one has done that _yet_.

That's why Uber has introduced an 'English' service as a workaround. Sure, the wait time might be 5x the other services, but the driver has a better chance of finding you if you don't speak Chinese.

I stand by what I wrote earlier: a non-Chinese-speaking tourist hailing regular Ubers in China (UberX or People's Uber) has a ~50% chance of being picked up at the right place without excessive delay or confusion.

Why is English speaking necessary for this type of service? It's more of a bonus, but not a requirement.

Because incorrect location dots are so frequent here that every_single_time you order an Uber, the driver will phone you and ask you where you are (e.g. cross streets, landmark, ...).

If you don't speak Chinese, then you're going to have a hard time replying.

Assuming that Didi didn't have the resources to expand into the US directly (and god knows Lyft isn't going into China any time soon), I think this is a great deal. It allows Didi to maintain a reasonable modicum of pressure on Uber and dip its toes into the US market without any significant resource outlay. It doesn't though help Lyft to compete with Uber any better than the somewhat lackluster job they've done of it in the past couple of years. Perhaps the money, and the advertising it allows, will help. There is still a significant proportion of people who have never used Uber or Lyft, what the companies do to capture them is going to be very interesting.

Is Lyft doing a lackluster job competing with Uber? My friends and I all use Lyft and I hardly know anyone that uses Uber. This is in Seattle.

And here's the problem with anecdata: Most people I know use both, or Uber exclusively. This is also in Seattle.

Uber is doing 10x more revenue and 20x more bookings(last time I saw stats, which was 1-2 years ago)

I think it's relatively uncontroversial that Uber is substantially larger than Lyft in most or all markets. But Lyft also appears to be maintaining its share and even growing it in many markets, where many left it for dead.

Is it just me or did the phrasing in the following sentence make it seem like they were helping with rides from the US to China...

> We are partnering with China’s largest rideshare company, Didi, to make it easier for people to get friendly, safe and reliable rides when they travel between the U.S. and China.

It's not just you.

I smell a buyout or merger coming. They can't take on Uber individually.

Don't we think transportation is big enough that both Uber and Lyft can coexist "peacefully"?

Especially with Uber experimenting into non-ride services on top of their infrastructure, like food delivery, etc.

Maybe I haven't followed closely enough, but my understanding is that Lyft is still really focused on just making a good, friendly, affordable ride option.

Happened to me last week in San Francisco; an Uber driver accepted a Lyft pickup, as I was still in the car for my Uber ride..

How does that work? How did the Uber driver get a hold of the Lyft costumer?

I assume he was also a Lyft driver and was accepting rides on both apps.

Ah, makes sense.

yep, exactly

Especially given that most drivers I've seen use both the apps, and other operating costs are pretty slim.

It's the worldwide presence where Uber had the massive advantage. If Didi/Ola/Lyft/Others decide to merge/parter only than will they stand a chance.

customer acquisition costs are high, and driver acquisition costs are very high.

At least, as long as drivers are human [0]. ;p

0: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/01/27/how-ubers-autono...

If one eventual use for these services is as a smart-routed bus of sorts, why can't one of the companies tackling Uber jump straight to that? Or at least make a serious experiment of it?

A number have tried, and failed. Interestingly, the following three failed as a function of being based in transit-legislation-heavy San Francisco:

* Loup

* Leap

* Night School

My understanding is that Chariot is still operating and doing well, though.

All of them "failed" for legal reasons, not because there weren't making enough money, with enough funding legal reasons also vanish..

That's basically Lyft Line[1], which offers fixed price $5 (at least in Manhattan[2], not sure about other markets) smart routed shared taxis. Seems like buses would just be a matter of improving routing further and scaling each vehicle up.

[1] https://www.lyft.com/line

[2] http://blog.lyft.com/posts/highfivenyc

Yeah, you can imagine it as a continuum: as you go from left to right, you have lower convenience (how far out of your route or schedule it takes you), longer trips, and lower costs, and vice versa.

On the left end would be a private, dedicated chauffer. (Or private helicopter for extreme left!) On the right end would be public transit or walking.

Putting transit options on the continuum would look like:

Private Chauffer -- Personal Car -- Taxi -- Livery/Lyft/Uber -- Lyft Line/UberPool -- Lyft Line + Hotspots -- <potential new bus-like offerings> -- public transit -- walking

My earlier comment on the continuum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10122701

That's an elegant way to think about it.

Perhaps one slight deviation in Lyft Line is is when other people being picked up by your car are running late [0].

0: Personal experience in SF in October.

> Perhaps one slight deviation in Lyft Line is is when other people being picked up by your car are running late [0].

FYI, the Lyft driver is supposed to wait no longer than one minute. If they wait longer than that, you can prod them to move on (or mention that in their review).

I spent this summer in SF and took a Lyft Line home every day. This was only an issue once, and the driver left after ~1 minute, so it didn't actually delay my ride at all.

I'm not sure what you mean; that's consistent with the continuum. It's less convenient (more stops not on your route) and takes longer than regular Lyft, and in return it costs less.

I thought of the abrupt stop as a deviation in convenience / increase in time (out of your control) that doesn't happen on public transit.

Right, but public transit also doesn't (generally) go directly to your pickup spot or destination, and likewise has to make a significantly greater number of stops that don't have to do with your route. Similarly, they can be held up by passengers.

The point is, in general, public transit routes are farther from your ideal route and schedule. Taxis and regular Uber/Lyft go direct, while Lyft Lines are in between, requiring some compromise on route and schedule (waiting for a match).

True. If you decide to do a longer post about the transit continuum, I'd love to see it.

I've built a similar continuum for all of the taquerias in my neighborhood considering price and quality.

The point of Uber isn't to fix transportation, it's to feed Travis Kalanick's god complex. So, no, they won't be able to co-exist peacefully.

What evidence do you have to support this? What personal knowledge to do you have to support this? What accompanying expertise do you have to support this?

It's odd to me that people with (assumingly) no knowledge on the matter feel they can aptly deduce complex situations into one sound bite of a sentence.

The fact that the company is called Uber, which is an obvious reference to Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensch. The fact that Kalanick has said, publicly, that the point of starting the company was to enable his already-rich friends to "be baller" in San Francisco. The fact that he had Uber build a thing called "God Mode" into their software so that he could watch famous people come and go on the service and occasionally put that enormous power on display to other powerful people.

He's a raging, power-hungry narcissistic sociopath, in public, all the time. This isn't guess work. The parent of my original post is suggesting that Uber exists for reasons other than the ones Kalanick has given in public, and that's just silly.

I can appreciate a point about someone violating privacy by building that particular feature, but your comment is so caustic and accusatory it's just noise, not a valid addition to a legitimate debate.

You cannot call someone a "raging, power-hungry narcissistic sociopath" or accuse him of having a "god complex" for 1. wanting to build a successful company catering to rich people or 2. naming a company after a Nietzschian ideal. Does NASA have a god complex because they used the name Apollo?

Your points about Travis do not seem to be informed by reason or experience with the man. In fact, it just seems as though you're emotionally invested to the point of complete and utter bias.

You can certainly take away a different interpretation of the evidence than I do, but to me the gestalt of the man's public persona and actions add up to a picture of a person entirely driven by a desire for power, not some narrow notion of "improving transportation".

That you don't see the same thing demonstrates your own bias to give certain people and behaviors more room for doubt. Which is fine, as long as you recognize it's still a bias. We are the same kind of meat-machine, with the same bugs. Don't try to act like you're above it.

I have yet to see any 'evidence', or personal insight. Yet you seem to think you understand a man, whom you've never met nor interacted with, and his deep personal motivations. Based upon his 'public persona'. You don't see anything odd about that?

No, I don't. His public persona is what he is choosing to project to the world. It amounts to the things he wants us to know about him. And more importantly, one is what one does, not what one intends.

"One is what one does, not intends"

I couldn't agree more. Travis (and the team) has created $51bn of market value, provided cheaper and more efficient transportation to tens of millions of people in hundreds of cities all around the world. He's fought, and defeated, corruption of city officials in many locations all around the world. Uber has and will have a massive positive impact on tens/hundreds/thousands of millions of people in the world (with the self driving vehicle). How he's portrayed in the media is largely irrelevant, to me at least.

Oh, readers of HN, you credulous fools.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because people disagree with your unfounded claim of the supposed "god-complex", it means they believe Kalanick is just trying to a public service. Your post paints a false dichotomy.

I personally think they're just trying to make a lot of money.

Agree. The best case for Lyft is that they enable a major international player (Didi, Ola etc) to enter the US market. Similar to what UrbanSpoon did for Zomato (vs Yelp).

I don't think so. I think they're much better off focusing the product on one specific market. The partnership would let people use the basic service and if they wanted to use market specific feature like Lyft Line or Ola Food, they would have to download the app for that local market.

I disagree. If Lyft goes too deep into a specific market, then they risk Uber using their dominance in another market to push them out of this one. They need to compete on all fronts to keep Uber away from their cash cow.

Can you please explain that? How can Uber's strength in other regions impact performance in a specific one?

Consumers in the app-hire/ride-share market aren't stuck to one market; Someone who uses Lyft-Line may also use UberX. If Uber release "Uber-Line", and Lyft doesn't have a comparable "LyftX", then there's no reason to use Lyft anymore. Everything you need is in Uber.

Calling it a "Strategic Partnership" right in the blog post seems so... business-y. Their whole brand is being Uber's cooler cousin.

Why not say "You can now use Lyft in China!", and go from there?

(EDIT: removed third-person stuff because it wasn't relevant to my point; thanks gkop)

I'm having trouble understanding your point. Yes, using the proper name "Lyft" in describing themselves is the third-person, but that's exactly what you do in your suggestion. And the author of the post mostly uses the pronouns "we" and "our," the first-person, not the third-person.

You caught me going against my own complaint :) I guess the difference is that theirs refers to the company, whereas mine refers to the product.

I see Lyft more as Uber's more frugal, down-to-earth cousin.

I view Lyft as the friendly, reasonable, still studying, humble struggling Actor.

I view Uber as the demanding, narcisstic, dictatorial, know-it-all, spoiled, "I only want the green M & M's" Actor.

Kinda kidding? I see too many desperate people buying into Uber's marketing, and buying that specific 4 door car, going into debt, and ruining their credit.

>As part of our global partnership, Didi also invested $100 million in Lyft.

Hmmm..very interesting. Looks like Didi is trying to get more aggressive in Uber's own backyard.

Would be interesting to know who gets the revenue when using another app.

I smell a merger. Didi already merged with its main chinese competitor, raised a ton of money recently, and is expanding faster than Uber in china. This seems like a perfect fit. Lyft seems to not have their shit together the way Uber does (even if their company SEEMS more friendly to employees and drivers).

words to stop using in blog posts: "mission", "reconnect", "communities". Can you please talk like normal people instead of this marketing bla bla?

I understand the sentiment, but isn't that unlikely? That's like asking startups to stop using the long landing page design that's become so popular lately. The PR department (if the resources even exist) is interested (usually) in expressing information without "rocking the boat", one way to do that is probably to avoid treading new ground where prose/wording is concerned.

I am just allergic to this "we are changing the world" speak, when all you offer is a Taxi service. They did not fly to Mars or anything. They offer a service where you can order a car to go from A to B. This is not a "mission", they just make money. They are not "reconnecting" anyone, I just have to go to places, you know, to do stuff.

Maybe I am just bitter...

Yeah it's definitely hyperbole most of the time. In Uber's case it might be more truth than hyperbole though, since the taxi racket is pretty widespread, and they're actually changing how people travel (which is something large swaths of people do).

Can you please stop having unfounded opinions on corporate mass communication?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com