Lyft attempted sale to Apple, Didi Chuxing, Uber, GM, others

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2016
Lyft, the second-largest ride-hailing firm in the U.S., in recent months made overtures to sell itself to tech companies, automotive manufacturers and competitors, but failed to hook a buyer.




Citing sources familiar with the situation, The New York Times reports Lyft held talks with or approached Apple, Amazon, General Motors, Google, Uber and Didi Chuxing over a potential sale. The ride-hailing service was unable to find a suitable buyer.

GM, which recently boosted Lyft's valuation to $5.5 billion with a $500 million infusion, showed the most interest in an acquisition, but ultimately passed without tendering a formal written offer. A separate report from The Information last week said Lyft was propositioned by GM, but rejected the takeover bid in favor of a new funding round.

Further confusing the situation is Uber China's sale to Apple partner Didi Chuxing. Lyft previously struck an accord with Didi, among other services, to stave off an aggressive international push from Uber. It is unclear how Didi's acquisition of Uber China's assets will affect the deal with Lyft.

The Times says that while Lyft is not yet profitable, the company has some $1.4 billion in cash to keep it afloat.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    Disruption is easy. Making money is not. 
    slprescottbobcat62DeelronSpamSandwichtallest skilbaconstangstanthemanapplesauce007designrlostkiwi
  • Reply 2 of 22
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,767member
    If the class-action lawsuit against Uber go through and they are forced to treat their freelance drivers / independent contractors as if they were real employees (which includes all of the myriad legal negatives associated with such an arrangement), then both Lyft and Uber will have a very hard time of making their models work, IMO.
    latifbpDeelronlostkiwicornchip
  • Reply 3 of 22
    shardshard Posts: 96member
    These companies are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan. It can be replicated very easily. The only thing they have going for them is the branding and that is worth pennies to the dollar.
    tallest skilronnlordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 4 of 22
    bigmikebigmike Posts: 245member
    because the pink mustache is killing us softly.
    nolamacguycornchiplordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 5 of 22
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,299member
    Imagine how far this would get on Shark Tank.

    What is the valuation of your company?
    5.5 Billion.

    How much profit did you make?
    Nothing.

    Errrrr.....
    nolamacguytallest skilbaconstangronncornchiplordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 6 of 22
    evilution said:
    Imagine how far this would get on Shark Tank.

    What is the valuation of your company?
    5.5 Billion.

    How much profit did you make?
    Nothing.

    Errrrr.....
    I like your scenario!

    Oddly, in some cases Wall Street really likes that:
       Salesforce.com
       Market cap: $52B
       Earnings: negative (losing money)

    I'm not slamming Salesforce, just using them as an example of odd behavior on Wall Street (IMHO). In certain growth industries, Wall Street seems to focus more on revenue than on profit.
    Deelronronncornchiplordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 7 of 22
    Disruption is easy. Making money is not. 
    Yes indeed.

    ...and I think it will become more and more difficult to make money let alone profits using this scheme.
    Security is non-existent in the states when using these rides for the driver nor the passenger.
    They also have serious lawsuits pilling up against them in various countries.

    The way they expect to make money and profits is by bi-passing standard taxi laws and security protocols.
    In the long term this will not be good for the drivers nor the passengers.

    zimmermannbaconstangDeelronronnlolliver
  • Reply 8 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 355member
    shard said:
    These companies are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan. It can be replicated very easily. The only thing they have going for them is the branding and that is worth pennies to the dollar.

    "just software and a business plan" huh? So is Facebook. So is Google. In fact there are a lot of companies that are "just software and a business plan."

    In Uber/Lyft case, you're also ignoring the network effects in those businesses. I doubt it is as easily duplicated as you might imagine.

    Finally, it isn't even so much about the software...it is about business execution. Lots of people can create software...amazing software in fact. Many fewer can execute well on a business model and plan.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 9 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 355member
    If the class-action lawsuit against Uber go through and they are forced to treat their freelance drivers / independent contractors as if they were real employees (which includes all of the myriad legal negatives associated with such an arrangement), then both Lyft and Uber will have a very hard time of making their models work, IMO.
    This plus the taxi cartel fight back in some cities.
    applesauce007lostkiwiSpamSandwich
  • Reply 10 of 22
    designr said:
    shard said:
    These companies are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan. It can be replicated very easily. The only thing they have going for them is the branding and that is worth pennies to the dollar.

    "just software and a business plan" huh? So is Facebook. So is Google. In fact there are a lot of companies that are "just software and a business plan."

    In Uber/Lyft case, you're also ignoring the network effects in those businesses. I doubt it is as easily duplicated as you might imagine.

    Finally, it isn't even so much about the software...it is about business execution. Lots of people can create software...amazing software in fact. Many fewer can execute well on a business model and plan.
    No sir!
    Can't compare Uber & Lift with Google or FaceBook or Microsoft because the way they make money is completely different.
    That's why the later are very profitable.

    Granted execution is important in any business but the business model and go to market strategy are even more important.
    When you look at it this way you see that Uber and Lyft have very little software and not very much to stand on.

    An example:
    =========
    Uber is illegally doing business New York City by bi-passing the required medallion license, fees and regulations that the Yellow Taxi cabs have to endure for the right to do business in New York City (Manhattan).  Other cabs are not allowed to pick-up passengers in Manhattan but crooked mayor Bloomberg allowed Uber to do this so the Yellow Cab owners and their banks are suing.  A New York City medallion license use to sell for a million dollars, they are now worth about half as much hence leaving the owners and their lenders holding the bag but hoping for the day of reckoning.  Losing this lawsuit and paying the penalties alone could wipeout Uber.  Not to mention that there are similar issue in other countries around the world.
    ronn
  • Reply 11 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 355member
    designr said:

    "just software and a business plan" huh? So is Facebook. So is Google. In fact there are a lot of companies that are "just software and a business plan."

    In Uber/Lyft case, you're also ignoring the network effects in those businesses. I doubt it is as easily duplicated as you might imagine.

    Finally, it isn't even so much about the software...it is about business execution. Lots of people can create software...amazing software in fact. Many fewer can execute well on a business model and plan.
    No sir!
    Can't compare Uber & Lift with Google or FaceBook or Microsoft because the way they make money is completely different.
    That's why the later are very profitable.

    Granted execution is important in any business but the business model and go to market strategy are even more important.
    When you look at it this way you see that Uber and Lyft have very little software and not very much to stand on.

    An example:
    =========
    Uber is illegally doing business New York City by bi-passing the required medallion license, fees and regulations that the Yellow Taxi cabs have to endure for the right to do business in New York City (Manhattan).  Other cabs are not allowed to pick-up passengers in Manhattan but crooked mayor Bloomberg allowed Uber to do this so the Yellow Cab owners and their banks are suing.  A New York City medallion license use to sell for a million dollars, they are now worth about half as much hence leaving the owners and their lenders holding the bag but hoping for the day of reckoning.  Losing this lawsuit and paying the penalties alone could wipeout Uber.  Not to mention that there are similar issue in other countries around the world.
    That the business models are different from Google or Facebook is not really relevant to refuting your broad, over-generalized claim. And while Uber may be violating the current cartel protection laws in NYC, that doesn't mean they are operating illegally everywhere. I do agree that Uber should be working, through the legal system, to end these unfair and anti-competitive taxi laws. That said, your original statement of "just software and a business plan" is still an insufficient "analysis" of the situation.

    lostkiwi
  • Reply 12 of 22
    shardshard Posts: 96member
    designr said:
    shard said:
    These companies are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan. It can be replicated very easily. The only thing they have going for them is the branding and that is worth pennies to the dollar.

    "just software and a business plan" huh? So is Facebook. So is Google. In fact there are a lot of companies that are "just software and a business plan."

    In Uber/Lyft case, you're also ignoring the network effects in those businesses. I doubt it is as easily duplicated as you might imagine.

    Finally, it isn't even so much about the software...it is about business execution. Lots of people can create software...amazing software in fact. Many fewer can execute well on a business model and plan.
    Just look at Friendster, MySpace etc they had super valuations but they pretty much died when the next thing came along ending with Facebook. You are correct that it is all about business execution, but these companies are too easily replicated.

    Lets use a very simplistic example, you need an army, a moat and a wall to protect your castle. With these companies, you are defending with just an army because the moat and the wall can be bypassed with almost no effort.

    On the topic of Facebook, in the early days it was as vulnerable as everyone of those before it but it has now grown to be something more than software and a business plan and it is constantly evolving.

    As for the likes of Uber/Lyft, Uber got beaten in China and had to leave with some face saving deal, they are losing money in other markets where there are local competition. Local competition that only showed up because of Uber.


  • Reply 13 of 22
    shardshard Posts: 96member
    designr said:
    No sir!
    Can't compare Uber & Lift with Google or FaceBook or Microsoft because the way they make money is completely different.
    That's why the later are very profitable.

    Granted execution is important in any business but the business model and go to market strategy are even more important.
    When you look at it this way you see that Uber and Lyft have very little software and not very much to stand on.

    An example:
    =========
    Uber is illegally doing business New York City by bi-passing the required medallion license, fees and regulations that the Yellow Taxi cabs have to endure for the right to do business in New York City (Manhattan).  Other cabs are not allowed to pick-up passengers in Manhattan but crooked mayor Bloomberg allowed Uber to do this so the Yellow Cab owners and their banks are suing.  A New York City medallion license use to sell for a million dollars, they are now worth about half as much hence leaving the owners and their lenders holding the bag but hoping for the day of reckoning.  Losing this lawsuit and paying the penalties alone could wipeout Uber.  Not to mention that there are similar issue in other countries around the world.
    That the business models are different from Google or Facebook is not really relevant to refuting your broad, over-generalized claim. And while Uber may be violating the current cartel protection laws in NYC, that doesn't mean they are operating illegally everywhere. I do agree that Uber should be working, through the legal system, to end these unfair and anti-competitive taxi laws. That said, your original statement of "just software and a business plan" is still an insufficient "analysis" of the situation.

    I said they are just a software and a business plan.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 355member
    shard said:
    designr said:
    That the business models are different from Google or Facebook is not really relevant to refuting your broad, over-generalized claim. And while Uber may be violating the current cartel protection laws in NYC, that doesn't mean they are operating illegally everywhere. I do agree that Uber should be working, through the legal system, to end these unfair and anti-competitive taxi laws. That said, your original statement of "just software and a business plan" is still an insufficient "analysis" of the situation.

    I said they are just a software and a business plan.
    Actually, you said: "These companies are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan. It can be replicated very easily. The only thing they have going for them is the branding and that is worth pennies to the dollar."

    I addressed your claim that they "are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan." A claim which I believe to be over-generalized, superficial and lacking substance.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 15 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 355member
    shard said:
    designr said:

    "just software and a business plan" huh? So is Facebook. So is Google. In fact there are a lot of companies that are "just software and a business plan."

    In Uber/Lyft case, you're also ignoring the network effects in those businesses. I doubt it is as easily duplicated as you might imagine.

    Finally, it isn't even so much about the software...it is about business execution. Lots of people can create software...amazing software in fact. Many fewer can execute well on a business model and plan.
    Just look at Friendster, MySpace etc they had super valuations but they pretty much died when the next thing came along ending with Facebook. You are correct that it is all about business execution, but these companies are too easily replicated.

    Lets use a very simplistic example, you need an army, a moat and a wall to protect your castle. With these companies, you are defending with just an army because the moat and the wall can be bypassed with almost no effort.

    On the topic of Facebook, in the early days it was as vulnerable as everyone of those before it but it has now grown to be something more than software and a business plan and it is constantly evolving.

    As for the likes of Uber/Lyft, Uber got beaten in China and had to leave with some face saving deal, they are losing money in other markets where there are local competition. Local competition that only showed up because of Uber.

    I realize all businesses (except those protected by the government) are subject to the creative destruction forces of market competition (in your examples Friendster and MySpace vs. Facebook). But this still does not rise to support your previous claim that they "are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan."

    If you wish to change your argument (for example to the claim they are fundamentally worthless because they are operating illegally or going up against government protected businesses), please do. But that claim is ridiculous.

    "
    Local competition that only showed up because of Uber."

    Wow. Great. Thanks Uber! The market works. You seem to be implying that I think they (Uber, Lyft, etc.) are immune from competitive forces. Not at all. The only ones that are really immune are those with government protection from competition (e.g., taxi drivers in many cities).
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 16 of 22
    If the class-action lawsuit against Uber go through and they are forced to treat their freelance drivers / independent contractors as if they were real employees (which includes all of the myriad legal negatives associated with such an arrangement), then both Lyft and Uber will have a very hard time of making their models work, IMO.
    Which was the intent. There wasn't enough room for government graft with the Uber/Lyft model. 
    designrSpamSandwich
  • Reply 17 of 22
    shardshard Posts: 96member
    designr said:
    shard said:
    Just look at Friendster, MySpace etc they had super valuations but they pretty much died when the next thing came along ending with Facebook. You are correct that it is all about business execution, but these companies are too easily replicated.

    Lets use a very simplistic example, you need an army, a moat and a wall to protect your castle. With these companies, you are defending with just an army because the moat and the wall can be bypassed with almost no effort.

    On the topic of Facebook, in the early days it was as vulnerable as everyone of those before it but it has now grown to be something more than software and a business plan and it is constantly evolving.

    As for the likes of Uber/Lyft, Uber got beaten in China and had to leave with some face saving deal, they are losing money in other markets where there are local competition. Local competition that only showed up because of Uber.

    I realize all businesses (except those protected by the government) are subject to the creative destruction forces of market competition (in your examples Friendster and MySpace vs. Facebook). But this still does not rise to support your previous claim that they "are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan."

    If you wish to change your argument (for example to the claim they are fundamentally worthless because they are operating illegally or going up against government protected businesses), please do. But that claim is ridiculous.

    "Local competition that only showed up because of Uber."

    Wow. Great. Thanks Uber! The market works. You seem to be implying that I think they (Uber, Lyft, etc.) are immune from competitive forces. Not at all. The only ones that are really immune are those with government protection from competition (e.g., taxi drivers in many cities).
    You are arguing against 2 different people like we are one and hence putting words in our mouths... I am the one that posted about Lyft being just software and a business plan, someone else posted about them being illegal or something.

    I mentioned Friendster and MySpace and local competition for Uber not because the market works. It is because what Friendster/MySpace and Lyft/Uber does can be so easily replicated by being "just software and a business plan" and when done by others either more familiar with local markets or with better execution they fail to compete even though they are earlier to market.

    This is my personal opinion and it's pointless to further the discussion as you seem intent to disagree for the sake of disagreeing to the point that you can't tell separate posters apart.
    edited August 2016 topper24hours
  • Reply 18 of 22
    designrdesignr Posts: 355member
    shard said:

    You are arguing against 2 different people like we are one and hence putting words in our mouths... I am the one that posted about Lyft being just software and a business plan, someone else posted about them being illegal or something.

    Yes, I see where I became a little confused. I apologize for that. I was originally and primarily dealing with the "just software and a business plan" comment. Which is a ridiculous statement or, at best, woefully incomplete and superficial analysis.


    shard said:

    I mentioned Friendster and MySpace and local competition for Uber not because the market works. It is because what Friendster/MySpace and Lyft/Uber does can be so easily replicated by being "just software and a business plan" and when done by others either more familiar with local markets or with better execution they fail to compete even though they are earlier to market.

    Whether you meant the Friendster and MySpace and local competition for Uber examples as evidence the market works or not, it clearly is. The failure to compete whether first (or earlier) to market still doesn't rise to level of supporting the silly claim that "These companies are fundamentally worthless because it is just software and a business plan."


    shard said:

    This is my personal opinion and it's pointless to further the discussion as you seem intent to disagree for the sake of disagreeing to the point that you can't tell separate posters apart.

    No, I'm not "intent to disagree for the sake of disagreeing." You made what I consider to be a patently ridiculous claim ("just software and a business plan") which I chose to address because of its ridiculousness. That's all. I apologize for my confusion on you and the other poster. It was an honest, inadvertent mistake.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    designr said:

    "just software and a business plan" huh? So is Facebook. So is Google. In fact there are a lot of companies that are "just software and a business plan."

    In Uber/Lyft case, you're also ignoring the network effects in those businesses. I doubt it is as easily duplicated as you might imagine.

    Finally, it isn't even so much about the software...it is about business execution. Lots of people can create software...amazing software in fact. Many fewer can execute well on a business model and plan.
    No sir!
    Can't compare Uber & Lift with Google or FaceBook or Microsoft because the way they make money is completely different.
    That's why the later are very profitable.

    Granted execution is important in any business but the business model and go to market strategy are even more important.
    When you look at it this way you see that Uber and Lyft have very little software and not very much to stand on.

    An example:
    =========
    Uber is illegally doing business New York City by bi-passing the required medallion license, fees and regulations that the Yellow Taxi cabs have to endure for the right to do business in New York City (Manhattan).  Other cabs are not allowed to pick-up passengers in Manhattan but crooked mayor Bloomberg allowed Uber to do this so the Yellow Cab owners and their banks are suing.  A New York City medallion license use to sell for a million dollars, they are now worth about half as much hence leaving the owners and their lenders holding the bag but hoping for the day of reckoning.  Losing this lawsuit and paying the penalties alone could wipeout Uber.  Not to mention that there are similar issue in other countries around the world.
    Uber does not pick up passengers on the streets on NYC. De Blasio launched a war against Uber, on the behest of the Taxi cartel, and he lost.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 20 of 22
    designr said:
    No sir!
    Can't compare Uber & Lift with Google or FaceBook or Microsoft because the way they make money is completely different.
    That's why the later are very profitable.

    Granted execution is important in any business but the business model and go to market strategy are even more important.
    When you look at it this way you see that Uber and Lyft have very little software and not very much to stand on.

    An example:
    =========
    Uber is illegally doing business New York City by bi-passing the required medallion license, fees and regulations that the Yellow Taxi cabs have to endure for the right to do business in New York City (Manhattan).  Other cabs are not allowed to pick-up passengers in Manhattan but crooked mayor Bloomberg allowed Uber to do this so the Yellow Cab owners and their banks are suing.  A New York City medallion license use to sell for a million dollars, they are now worth about half as much hence leaving the owners and their lenders holding the bag but hoping for the day of reckoning.  Losing this lawsuit and paying the penalties alone could wipeout Uber.  Not to mention that there are similar issue in other countries around the world.
    That the business models are different from Google or Facebook is not really relevant to refuting your broad, over-generalized claim. And while Uber may be violating the current cartel protection laws in NYC, that doesn't mean they are operating illegally everywhere. I do agree that Uber should be working, through the legal system, to end these unfair and anti-competitive taxi laws. That said, your original statement of "just software and a business plan" is still an insufficient "analysis" of the situation.

    I disagree. Once a cartel system is established, it's exceedingly difficult to bust, especially if you don't have the financial means to do so. Uber won the war in NYC without bowing down to these nonsensical laws. If they tried to work "through the legal system", it would simply become too unprofitable for them to operate.
    edited August 2016 tallest skil
Sign In or Register to comment.