You're getting downvoted, but it's a valid question. What was Ford's real purpose for acquiring them in the first place?

to see if it was a viable business and they could make the numbers work (they couldn't), to show the board and investors they were staying on top of the latest trends in "micro mobility", and to acquire the software dev and startup strategy talent which it can now put towards other efforts such as self-driving or other ride hailing efforts

I think it's a fairly common pattern by now, startup gets bought out, and then shut down a few years later. There is probably strategic reasons for doing things like this.. Even if it does screw over the customers of the startup.

There's few common reasons: - Startups focus mostly on growth. Once you're part of a big company, they may look at your business and see that there is a lot of fraud (even if it wasn't intentional by the startup, but they just didn't focus at it) that makes it unsustainable - Lots of startups operate in space that just not profitable, but big companies buy them, out of fear of missing out. Then they realize, that there's really no money to be made there - Acqui-hiring - Startups often overrepresent what they can actually do or deliver

The Ford CEO famously/stupidly announced his plans to grow Ford into a data company on NPR [0]. So it’s likely he saw Chariot as a software acquisition.

0. https://threatpost.com/ford-eyes-use-of-customers-personal-d...

"How did they mess it up?"

All I know is once I was driving down Cesar Chavez in San Francisco and I looked over and there was a massive lot filled with Chariot commuter vans. It was the daytime on Saturday.

I thought dang they must be wasting a ton of money just having a whole fleet of commuter vans parked in a lot, unused simply because it was the weekend. I imagine this same mentality transferred to non-peak hours during the week as well.

It seems that there would be a lot of ways to put those vans to use during the weekend as well. I cannot imagine that was the main factor.

I understand your point but if true, doesn't it mean it's a proven business model with a ready market that can be tapped into by someone else?

The acquire and kill model should only really work when there's a barrier to entry that limits replacements.

This is purely my own speculation informed by some Clayton Christiansen, but it's possible that someone at Ford sees Ford as a transportation company, not a car company. So the job to be done is moving people and things around. Ford also sponsors the Ford GoBikes that you see all over San Francisco. This could be seen as competing with the Ford the car company. Or it's just part of the portfolio of products from Ford the transportation company.

That kind of thinking could help them mitigate disruptive pressure, especially in markets like SF where driving is pretty awful, but so is transit.

What you’re describing is actually Theodore Levitt Marketing Myopia. Probably overapplied. https://www.cnet.com/news/marketing-myopia-isnt/

Thanks for pointing this out. Seems right!

Ford just stopped the GoBike sponsorship, so I think they are moving out of alternative means of transportation.

Hopefully that doesn't get shut down anytime soon (it's actually owned by Lyft I think). That service is one of the few services I've seen over the past several years I've seen where I've gone "Wow, this is a great thing for the world"

Ford did buy Spin, an electric scooter startup, just two months ago.

I hope the founders did well. I remember meeting the founder and he’s a good guy!