Power

The high-stakes data fight over the future of transportation

As scooters and bikes take over city streets, cities and companies are engaged in a battle over how people will find them.

Various forms of transportation on Market Street in San Francisco

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could summon and pay for all modes of transit — bikes, scooters, taxis, busses, jalopies — in a single app?

Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images

More than a decade ago, Bibiana McHugh saw the future of transportation. In 2005, McHugh, an executive at Portland's TriMet transit agency, wanted a way to get bus and train directions the same way she got driving directions. So she worked with Google to develop a standard called GTFS — Google Transit Feed Specification — that made it easy for Google Maps to integrate real-time public transit data. Fifteen years later, it's a global standard for transit data, and the G in GTFS stands for General.

Now, McHugh sees the next step coming. It's even bigger this time. She remembers the exact moment she figured it out, on her way back from a trip several years ago. "I flew in really late on a Sunday night, and had to get clear across town," she said. A quick Google Maps search said public transit would take 90 minutes to get her home; opening the Uber app said it'd cost $30. Two not great options. Then McHugh remembered she was supposed to be testing a beta app, built by her team at TriMet, that might help.

Get what matters in tech, in your inbox every morning. Sign up for Source Code.

So McHugh opened her tester app and plugged in her home address. It spat out a happy medium: Take an Uber to the first train station, and a train home. Half the time of the train, half the cost of the car. This — what she calls multi-modal transport — felt more like the future than ever.

In McHugh's ideal world, getting around doesn't involve choosing a mode of transport. She imagines data moving freely among services, giving people one-stop access to every train, scooter, car, bike and jalopy in the vicinity. All you do is plug in points A and B, and you should get a personalized, ultra-efficient way to get there.

In many ways, the transportation world has spent the last few years manifesting options to enable McHugh's vision. Scooters, taxis, bike-shares, helicopters to the airport, all summonable with a few taps on your smartphone. But most have become walled gardens, each hoping you will choose one brand for all your getting-around needs. A few apps and platforms are working on ways to bring it all together, to build a new navigation system that includes every available mode of transport, but transportation startups are fighting against that utopian-sounding vision. So while streets and sidewalks flood with new options for getting around, the more important battle is raging under the surface: A battle not over how you get from A to B, but over who gets to manage your journey.

"To tell you the truth, like a lot of things, the technology is easy," McHugh said. The hard stuff is the politics, the policies, the figuring out how to work together. Right now, cities and companies are arguing about lots of things, but mostly about data: who gets it, how it's used, who's in charge. Cities see this data as crucial to the way they build infrastructure, manage fleets and plan for the future. They're also eager to make sure they don't get burned again, after watching Uber and Lyft circumvent permits and processes for so many years. Dozens of companies, meanwhile, are betting billions of dollars on the space, with each company vying to be The One True Transportation Service to the exclusion of all others.

If the industry can't find a middle ground, McHugh and others believe, there will be more transportation than ever but no good way to get around. But even against what seem like intractable differences, there's reason to believe it might work out.

Who gets to see what

As bike- and scooter-sharing have become popular in many cities, a number of companies and organizations have developed a new GTFS-inspired standard to manage them. It's called GBFS — General Bikeshare Feed Specification — and it, too, is designed to transmit real-time information about available vehicles.

Virtually all of these new "micro-mobility" companies, from Lime and Bird to Spin and Skip and Gruv and all the others that seem to magically appear on street corners every week or so, have adopted GBFS in some form. Most have been required to by cities and transit agencies. Many governments, like Chicago and Denver (to name just two from a much larger list), are taking an aggressive stance when it comes to allowing bikes, scooters and other vehicles onto their streets. They're working with select partners, allowing limited numbers of vehicles, and demanding access to data — for the city and for third parties.

GBFS is designed to provide a real-time snapshot of a city's fleet, so people can find a ride — it doesn't keep trip records or personal data. Some cities want more than that: The Los Angeles Department of Transportation, for instance, developed a new data standard called the Mobility Data Specification that more than 80 cities have since adopted. MDS builds on GBFS, providing an even richer two-way stream of data, including information about the routes riders take, instructions for how fleets should be managed and distributed, and more. Uber and others have balked at this, saying sharing this much data is an invasion of user privacy. Cities say they need this data to understand how these mobility services are working and how they could be improved.

The fight between MDS and GBFS, between LA and Uber, is important and well-documented. But there's a party that gets lost in these debates: The apps that help people make use of all these new options. Back in 2005, McHugh said, "what really helped and increased the adoption [of GTFS] at a rapid rate was having it demonstrated in an application." Once companies and agencies saw how useful Google Transit could be, they bought in. This time, there's a whole genre of apps designed to bring all these publicly available data feeds together, caught in the middle of the data wars.

Apps like Scooter Map.

All the scooters on the streets

Victor Pontis built Scooter Map to solve a simple problem: There were too many scooter apps. Scooter Map put multiple companies' scooters onto a single map, so that the service workers — the people who run around a city charging, fixing and redistributing the fleet — could work for multiple companies at a time. "If you're going out and picking up scooters for Bird," Pontis said, "you might as well pick up scooters for Lime, because they're right next to each other." Lime would never show Bird scooters in its own app, and vice-versa — but a neutral third party could make something that worked for everyone.

Initially, Pontis said, scooter companies were supportive of Scooter Map. If anything, Pontis was making their systems more efficient, and saving them from having to work on their own tools. But when Pontis released a new section of Scooter Map, this time aggregating all nearby scooters for riders, the scooter makers changed their tune. Soon after, when another Scooter Map update made it possible to unlock those scooters from within Scooter Map, Lime and Bird both demanded he turn the feature off.

Scooter Map is not the only company trying to tie this data together that had such a run-in. Last September, Transit, a multi-modal transportation app that first made it easy to get bus and train schedules but has since branched out into scooters and bikes, rolled out a feature allowing riders to use the app to pay for Citi Bike rides in New York. Lyft, which took over Citi Bike when it bought bike-share provider Motivate in 2018, immediately shut down the feature. Lyft cited rider safety and theft as reasons for cutting it off; Transit saw it differently. "They're weaponizing bike-share to force you to use their ride-hail app," the company wrote in a scathing blog post.

When they made it possible to rent a scooter or bike without ever opening another app, Scooter Map and Transit stepped on one of the third rails of the transportation revolution. Companies like Lime and Lyft didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars just to put scooters on streets; they can't afford to be seen as a commodity provider of the same hunk of Ninebot-built plastic as everyone else. These companies want to be lifestyle brands, one-stop-shops for the future of transportation. Sure, Lime might integrate with Google Maps, but you still have to unlock the scooter in the Lime app. (And Google's investment in Lime may have something to do with the partnership.)

Sometimes it goes beyond rides, too: Bird now wants you to pay for your coffee with the same app you used to get to the shop. To do that, micro-mobility and ride-hailing companies need you to open their app to find their scooters and their cars and their bikes, not just find the closest ride, logo be damned. A nightmare scenario for a micro-mobility startup like Lime or Bird is that you open an app to find their scooter and then decide to take a Skip — or just get in a car — instead.

Lyft and Uber are the furthest along this road. Uber calls itself "The Amazon of Transportation," and hopes that you'll open its app whenever you want a ride, a bike or a pizza delivery. Meanwhile, Lyft hopes people will "subscribe to a transportation service just like you subscribe to your cell phone plan or your content streaming plan." Lyft, obviously, would like to be that transportation service. The company is building its own transportation universe, hoping to be the only place you go no matter where you need to go. But Lyft will never show the scooter that's even closer to your location, not as long as it has someone else's logo on it.

If there was one app that integrated everything, you know, wouldn't that be great? — Pauletta Tonilas, a transit agency executive

While big companies work to bring more services into their apps, the standards-makers are pushing the other way: They want to make it easy to do more in any app. "The long-term goal for GBFS is to become an all-encompassing standard that would allow for unlocking mechanisms," said Tran-Quan Luong, the head of mobile at the multi-modal app Transit. In Transit's perfect future, the standard would let you unlock a scooter, a bike, a rental car, and any other transit option right from the Transit app. Even unlocking isn't the end of the story, said David Block-Schachter, Transit's chief business officer. "Going to step three is really about sign-in, account creation, payment and unlocking. That's really what opens up the layer that we think adds a tremendous amount of value to the customer."

There's no question people want an all-in-one transit app. "We've heard this a lot," said Pauletta Tonilas, an executive at RTD, the transit agency for the city of Denver. "If there was one app that integrated everything, you know, wouldn't that be great?"

The holy grail version of that app, for proponents of GBFS, is platform agnostic: It integrates data from every transportation company and organization, large or small, public or private, and recommends route options based on distance, time, price, and allows people to pay for everything right there.

Get in touch with us: Share information securely with Protocol via encrypted Signal or WhatsApp message, at 415-214-4715 or through our anonymous SecureDrop.

That holy grail is also a nightmare scenario for the private companies who have spent years and raised billions on the promise that they'd make a fortune one day by dominating all other transportation options and becoming the one, very platform-specific, transit app to rule them all. If an app like Transit were able to own the whole customer experience, operators like Lyft and Lime and all the rest risk becoming simple hardware providers — which could be their death knell. Or, at least, that is the fear of the four-letter tech companies.

There may very well be a way for open-data-sharing and integration to win without destroying the companies who actually provide the transit. McHugh said history may simply be repeating itself — she sees lots of parallels to the last time she tried to standardize transportation data.

"Initially, there was a lot of reluctance," she said, "and I think Google Transit was the perfect showpiece for GTFS."

Once cities and operators saw it work, and once people understood how much real-time information could change the way they got around, there was simply no going back. And now that people are getting a taste of things like Transit, Scooter Map and other truly multi-modal transportation tools, relying on a single company for getting around may become a thing of the past.

It's all out there, ready to be put together, McHugh said. She can see it now: "You have your calendar alert you and say you have to leave now to catch this bus, and you're going to take it downtown, to this meeting, and after this meeting you need to get across town to your office, and you need to take a scooter. You plan your trip, and you pay for it all at once, and you go."

That's where we're headed. The billion-dollar question is, who gets there first?

Image: Yuanxin

Yuanxin Technology doesn't hide its ambition. In the first line of its prospectus, the company says its mission is to be the "first choice for patients' healthcare and medication needs in China." But the road to winning the crowded China health tech race is a long one for this Tencent- and Sequoia-backed startup, even with a recent valuation of $4 billion, according to Chinese publication Lieyunwang. Here's everything you need to know about Yuanxin Technology's forthcoming IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

What does Yuanxin do?

There are many ways startups can crack open the health care market in China, and Yuanxin has focused on one: prescription drugs. According to its prospectus, sales of prescription drugs outside hospitals account for only 23% of the total healthcare market in China, whereas that number is 70.2% in the United States.

Yuanxin started with physical stores. Since 2015, it has opened 217 pharmacies immediately outside Chinese hospitals. "A pharmacy has to be on the main road where a patient exits the hospital. It needs to be highly accessible," Yuanxin founder He Tao told Chinese media in August. Then, patients are encouraged to refill their prescriptions on Yuanxin's online platforms and to follow up with telehealth services instead of returning to a hospital.

From there, Yuanxin has built a large product portfolio that offers online doctor visits, pharmacies and private insurance plans. It also works with enterprise clients, designing office automation and prescription management systems for hospitals and selling digital ads for big pharma.

Yuanxin's Financials

Yuanxin's annual revenues have been steadily growing from $127 million in 2018 to $365 million in 2019 and $561 million in 2020. In each of those three years, over 97% of revenue came from "out-of-hospital comprehensive patient services," which include the company's physical pharmacies and telehealth services. More specifically, approximately 83% of its retail sales derived from prescription drugs.

But the company hasn't made a profit. Yuanxin's annual losses grew from $17 million in 2018 to $26 million in 2019 and $48 million in 2020. The losses are moderate considering the ever-growing revenues, but cast doubt on whether the company can become profitable any time soon. Apart from the cost of drug supplies, the biggest spend is marketing and sales.

What's next for Yuanxin

There are still abundant opportunities in the prescription drug market. In 2020, China's National Medical Products Administration started to explore lifting the ban on selling prescription drugs online. Although it's unclear when the change will take place, it looks like more purely-online platforms will be able to write prescriptions in the future. With its established market presence, Yuanxin is likely one of the players that can benefit greatly from such a policy change.

The enterprise and health insurance businesses of Yuanxin are still fairly small (accounting for less than 3% of annual revenue), but this is where the company sees an opportunity for future growth. Yuanxin is particularly hoping to power its growth with data and artificial intelligence. It boasts a database of 14 million prescriptions accumulated over years, and the company says the data can be used in many ways: designing private insurance plans, training doctors and offering chronic disease management services. The company says it currently employs 509 people on its R&D team, including 437 software engineers and 22 data engineers and scientists.

What Could Go Wrong?

The COVID-19 pandemic has helped sell the story of digital health care, but Yuanxin isn't the only company benefiting from this opportunity. 2020 has seen a slew of Chinese health tech companies rise. They either completed their IPO process before Yuanxin (like JD, Alibaba and Ping An's healthcare subsidiaries) or are close to it (WeDoctor and DXY). In this crowded sector, Yuanxin faces competition from both companies with Big Tech parent companies behind them and startups that have their own specialized advantages.

Like each of its competitors, Yuanxin needs to be careful with how it processes patient data — some of the most sensitive personal data online. Recent Chinese legislation around personal data has made it clear that it will be increasingly difficult to monetize user data. In the prospectus, Yuanxin elaborately explained how it anonymizes data and prevents data from being leaked or hacked, but it also admitted that it cannot foresee what future policies will be introduced.

Who Gets Rich

  • Yuanxin's founder and CEO He Tao and SVP He Weizhuang own 29.82% of the company's shares through a jointly controlled company. (It's unclear whether He Tao and He Weizhuang are related.)
  • Tencent owns 19.55% of the shares.
  • Sequoia owns 16.21% of the shares.
  • Other major investors include Qiming, Starquest Capital and Kunling, which respectively own 7.12%, 6.51% and 5.32% of the shares.

What People Are Saying

  • "The demands of patients, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies are all different. How to meet each individual demand and find a core profit model is the key to Yuanxin Technology's future growth." — Xu Yuchen, insurance industry analyst and member of China Association of Actuaries, in Chinese publication Lanjinger.
  • "The window of opportunity caused by the pandemic, as well as the high valuations of those companies that have gone public, brings hope to other medical services companies…[But] the window of opportunity is closing and the potential of Internet healthcare is yet to be explored with new ideas. Therefore, traditional, asset-heavy healthcare companies need to take this opportunity and go public as soon as possible." —Wang Hang, founder and CEO of online healthcare platform Haodf, in state media China.com.

Zeyi Yang
Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China. Previously, he worked as a reporting fellow for the digital magazine Rest of World, covering the intersection of technology and culture in China and neighboring countries. He has also contributed to the South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. In his spare time, Zeyi co-founded a Mandarin podcast that tells LGBTQ stories in China. He has been playing Pokemon for 14 years and has a weird favorite pick.

The way we work has fundamentally changed. COVID-19 upended business dealings and office work processes, putting into hyperdrive a move towards digital collaboration platforms that allow teams to streamline processes and communicate from anywhere. According to the International Data Corporation, the revenue for worldwide collaboration applications increased 32.9 percent from 2019 to 2020, reaching $22.6 billion; it's expected to become a $50.7 billion industry by 2025.

"While consumers and early adopter businesses had widely embraced collaborative applications prior to the pandemic, the market saw five years' worth of new users in the first six months of 2020," said Wayne Kurtzman, research director of social and collaboration at IDC. "This has cemented collaboration, at least to some extent, for every business, large and small."

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Silver

Kate Silver is an award-winning reporter and editor with 15-plus years of journalism experience. Based in Chicago, she specializes in feature and business reporting. Kate's reporting has appeared in the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic's CityLab, Atlas Obscura, The Telegraph and many other outlets.

Protocol | Workplace

How to make remote work work

Hofy made an early bet that COVID-19 would have a long-term impact on workplaces. The company recently raised $15.2 million for its remote workforce equipment management solution.

Hofy recently raised $15.2 million for its remote workforce equipment management service.

Photo: Jannis Brandt/Unsplash

It's your new employee's first day of remote work, but their laptop hasn't shown up yet. Not a good look.

This very 2021 persistent problem is part of why Hofy, a remote workplace management tool, recently raised $15.2 million to help companies deploy laptops, chairs, desks and other physical equipment to their remote employees. The idea for Hofy, which is launching out of stealth today, emerged in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic — before lockdowns went into effect in the U.S. and the U.K. Hofy's co-founders, Sami Bouremoum and Michael Ginzo, had a feeling that COVID-19 would have a long-term effect on society.

Keep Reading Show less
Megan Rose Dickey

Megan Rose Dickey is a senior reporter at Protocol covering labor and diversity in tech. Prior to joining Protocol, she was a senior reporter at TechCrunch and a reporter at Business Insider.

Protocol | Policy

Tech giants want to hire Afghan refugees. The system’s in the way.

Amazon, Facebook and Uber have all committed to hiring and training Afghan evacuees. But executing on that promise is another story.

"They're authorized to work, but their authorization has an expiration date."

Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Late last month, Amazon, Facebook and Uber joined dozens of other companies in publicly committing to hire and train some of the 95,000 Afghan refugees who are expected to be resettled in the United States over the next year, about half of whom are already here.

But nearly two months since U.S. evacuations from Kabul ended and one month since the companies' public commitments, efforts to follow through with those promised jobs remain stalled. That, experts say, is partly to do with the fact that the vast majority of Afghan arrivals are still being held at military bases, partly to do with their legal classification and partly to do with a refugee resettlement system that was systematically dismantled by the Trump administration.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Fintech

How European fintech startup N26 is preparing for U.S. regulations

"There's a lot more scrutiny being placed on fintech. We are definitely mindful of it."

In an interview with Protocol, Stephanie Balint, N26's U.S. general manager, discussed the company's approach to regulations in the U.S.

Photo: N26

N26's monster $900 million funding round announced Monday underlined the German startup's momentum in the digital banking market.

Stephanie Balint, N26's U.S. general manager, said the funding will be used for expansion and also to improve "our core offering to make this the most reliable bank that our customers can trust," she told Protocol.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories