Why Platform Partnerships (Grab, Gojek) Don’t Mean You’ve Cracked the Rider Market

A Reality Check from the Ground in Southeast Asia

Over the last year, I’ve lost count of how many electric motorcycle teams have told me the same story.

“We’re working with Grab.”“We’re in discussions with Gojek.”“Our bikes are already being used by riders.”

It’s usually said with confidence, sometimes even relief — as if one major uncertainty has already been solved.

I understand why this sounds convincing.I also understand why so many teams build their Southeast Asia entry strategy around it.

But from what I’ve seen on the ground, platform partnerships do not mean you’ve cracked the rider market.More often, they mean something else entirely.

Why almost every EV motorcycle brand chases Grab and Gojek

Let’s start with the obvious question: why does every new electric motorcycle brand want a platform partnership?

The short answer is not “sales.”

It’s risk containment.

For a new brand entering Southeast Asia, Grab and Gojek offer three things that are extremely hard to obtain elsewhere:

1. High-intensity, real-world usageLong hours, poor roads, unpredictable traffic, weather, and rider behavior.If something fails, it fails quickly — and visibly.

2. Operational legitimacySaying “our bikes are being used in a Grab or Gojek pilot” carries weight with dealers, financiers, and regulators — far more than spec sheets or lab tests.

3. A buffer between failure and reputationEarly issues happen inside a controlled system, not directly in the open consumer market.

From a brand perspective, this makes complete sense. But this is where the misunderstanding begins.

Platform riders are not buyers — they are a controlled usage scenario

When people hear “riders are using the bikes,” they often assume demand has been validated.

In reality, platform riders are not making a purchase decision at all.

In most platform programs:

• the bike is owned or leased by the platform (or a partner)

• maintenance and replacement are centrally managed

• the rider does not carry asset risk

This matters more than most teams realize.

The same motorcycle can feel completely acceptable in a platform context and completely unacceptable as a personal purchase — even to the same rider.

Why?

Because the risk sits somewhere else.

Why “riders using the bike” doesn’t equal “riders willing to buy”

I’ve spoken with many riders who were perfectly happy using an electric motorcycle provided by a platform — and had zero interest in buying one themselves.

That’s not a contradiction. It’s rational behavior.

When a rider uses a platform bike:

• downtime is inconvenient, but survivable

• breakdowns trigger replacement, not financial loss

• resale value is irrelevant

When the same rider considers buying:

• downtime means lost income

• repairs are personal responsibility

• resale risk sits entirely on them

In Southeast Asia, riders don’t evaluate vehicles based on efficiency curves or total cost of ownership models.

They evaluate one question first:

“If this bike stops working tomorrow, what happens to my income?” Until that question has a reassuring answer, “electric is cheaper” doesn’t close the gap.

Delivery riders and motorcycle taxi drivers face the same hidden pressure

This isn’t limited to food delivery riders.

Motorcycle taxi drivers — whether it’s boda-style transport or app-based passenger services — operate under the same logic, sometimes with even higher stakes.

They are not just managing their own income, but passenger safety and social trust.

For them:

• unpredictable braking behavior

• unfamiliar power delivery

• unclear failure modes

aren’t “features to get used to.”

They’re risks to be avoided. That’s why professional riders, despite being the most visible users, are often the most conservative adopters.

What platform pilots actually validate (and what they don’t)

From my experience, platform pilots are excellent at validating certain things — and terrible at validating others.

They do validate:

• mechanical durability

• maintenance cycles

• battery performance under stress

• operational costs at scale

They do not validate:

• individual purchase intent

• willingness to carry asset risk

• acceptance of resale uncertainty

Confusing these two leads teams to overestimate how “ready” the market actually is.

Why platform success rarely converts into organic demand

Another pattern I see repeatedly:

A platform pilot goes well.The brand assumes rider demand will follow. It doesn’t.

What happens instead is quieter:

• riders continue using platform bikes

• personal purchases remain flat

• dealers hesitate

• financing terms tighten

From the outside, it looks like weak execution. From the inside, the system is behaving exactly as designed:risk hasn’t moved far enough downstream yet.

Platform pilots are allowed to fail — consumer launches are not

This distinction is critical.

Inside a platform system:

• limited failures are acceptable

• learning is expected

• losses can be absorbed centrally

In the open market:

• failures are public

• word spreads fast

• dealers and financiers reprice risk immediately

This is why platform pilots are attractive — and also why they should not be mistaken for demand proof.

They are protected environments, not market verdicts.

Where platform partnerships actually belong in a healthy strategy

From what I’ve seen work, platform partnerships make sense in the middle, not at the beginning or the end.

A more realistic sequence looks like this:

1. Lower-risk users absorb early uncertaintyUrban commuters, second-vehicle households, controlled use cases.

2. Platform pilots stress-test the systemReliability, maintenance, and operational data become visible.

3. Dealers and financiers reassess riskApproval rates improve, terms soften.

4. Professional riders self-select inNot because they’re targeted — but because risk perception has shifted.

When riders start asking questions on their own, that’s usually the signal the system is finally ready.

The question brands should ask — but often don’t

Instead of asking:“Are riders using our bikes?”

A better question is:“Who is absorbing the risk while the system is still imperfect?”

If the answer is:

• the rider’s income

• the dealer’s reputation

• or a financier’s balance sheet

then resistance is not emotional. It’s structural.

Closing reflection

I don’t think platform partnerships are a mistake. Most serious EV motorcycle brands should pursue them.

But they need to be understood for what they are:

a way to contain early risk — not proof that the rider market is solved.

Until electric motorcycles become assets that riders, dealers, and financiers are comfortable carrying — not just using — platform success will remain a signal, not a solution.

What comes next

If platform partnerships don’t unlock the rider market, the next question becomes unavoidable:

Who actually decides whether a motorcycle gets sold?

In the next piece, I’ll look at why dealers in Southeast Asia are not distribution channels at all —they’re risk filters.

Want to discuss this more deeply?

If you’re building or advising an electric motorcycle business in Southeast Asia — and want a grounded conversation about risk, systems, and realistic entry paths, you can find more of my thinking here: https://www.thekaiassociates.com

Or reach out directly.I’m always more interested in challenging assumptions than repeating optimistic stories.