Interesting to see that Ford is investing in entire transportation stack at the same time. They are working on a self-driving car, ride sharing service AND a service to manage those rides efficiently for organizations. From my limited knowledge of Ford's activities, it seems like they are significantly behind GM and Waymo (and probably Uber too). Anyone know the timeline and how they are stacking up against these other companies?
And bikes. They're working with cities around the Bay Area to sponsor bike shares. I can see the biker/trip data also feeding into their data lake. If they can make meaning through all that data, it seems like a good long bet.
I think they are making a wise long-term bet on automation, but their current products are behind GM's. If Ford had a viable Chevy Bolt competitor, they'd be selling it.
If you think Ford is on the right long-term track, the stock is a bargain right now. I think they are, and I hope the shareholders won't force the company back to a traditional business model to boost their short-term profits.
I'm not worried about Waymo and Uber as a threat to the traditional car companies. They may be the ones who invent self-driving technology, but they won't be the ones who produce millions of automated cars -- it will be Ford and GM who do, and they'll license the automation software if they need to. It's really hard to make cars at scale, as Tesla is now learning.
> "The bigger risk is doing nothing," executive chairman Bill Ford told WIRED back in 2015, as he outlined a future where a single, digital ticket could buy you a ride on a car, taxi, subway, bus, or bicycle. "I am very confident that we can compete and morph into something quite different."
We already have that in Los Angeles. It’s called a TAP Card.
Most reputable automakers wouldn't be caught dead running Ford's software, especially if it means putting a Ford shield on their vehicle. Where you might see it is in budget vehicles and public transportation, if Ford plays their cards right. These things may help generate some revenue, but neither of them is likely to be good for the brand.