Originally Posted by
DJH8098
I do not think that history will repeat itself. In the case of GM, they were looking to make/sell more cars to make more money. Lyft/Uber want to dominate ride sharing on all fronts and they do not really care if more cars are sold. In fact I'm sure they wish less people would drive, so that all people who did drive would drive for them (pipe dream will probably not happen). The battle that is about to take place is which system can be in more cities, deliver the best product, and make the most money.
Presumably Lyft would rather people book vehicle rides than get on the bikes however.
Especially if they can get people to still pay to have a membership, but end up booking rides more, and opting for the bike less.
So it would be something sneaky, that doesn't kill the bike share system or even feel like it has come renewal time, but nudges the daily "which to take" consideration a little more towards ordering the car.
That's why I like the idea of two vendors with a common membership fee, compensated proportionate to their share of the usage. Ironically, that's sort of how Lyft itself operates, only with thousands of vendors...