this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
805 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

73301 readers
3569 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] einkorn@feddit.org 37 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I'd argue it is.

Just look how Amazon got where it is now: Sell way under market price, till local competition closed shop, then squeeze.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's unsustainable to keep prices lower than costs. The Amazon example didn't have low prices forever.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, I know. That's why BYD is going to then squeeze the customers once they are locked in.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think your muddying sustainable and successful. It definitely can be successful, but its not sustainable.

Its also high risk, especially if you can't crank up the prices enough later

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sustainable implies that they can keep doing it forever without changing. Switching later means what they are doing is not sustainable. It might be successful, but its not sustainable.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's sustainable practices and sustainable businesses. The latter is what others are arguing. Undercutting competition to take over a market is a sustainable practice IF you can hold out long enough. I'd wager the country of China can hold out longer than General Motors.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

But the business model has to change in order to survive. The company cannot undercut forever, it actually needs to change in order to survive. The business model of today is not sustainable. They may have a large warchest, they may be able to crush GM, but once they do, or the warchest runs out, the business model must change.

If you want to make the argument that their overall plan with the later change is sustainable, thats fine, but this current phase is not sustainable.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It might just be that, since BYD is serving such a large domestic market/population, that allows them to have cheaper cars? Something something, economies of scale. I'm no expert though.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

There is a limit to that effect, though. And most observers agree that the state is subsidizing heavily.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You forgot the part where they raised prices on everything.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

BYD is already facing scrutiny for running Evergrande like accounting, and a lot of political pressures from other Chinese manufacturers. The risk is that they collapse like Evergrande, and that they drag public debt into it. The CCP might prop them up, so it light be safe. A car is different from a book, because you need lifetime service for it. If they go under, you might lose access to parts.