609
submitted 1 year ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MrSilkworm@lemmy.world 218 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fear of cheap Chinese EVs spurs automaker dash for affordable cars

fear of competition spurs automakers to make competitive products. FTFY

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Fake4000@lemmy.world 183 points 1 year ago

Honestly, just take a basic normal car, and replace its engine with an electric one. No on screen entertainment, no cameras, no AI bull shit, no self driving. Just as basic as it gets.

[-] netburnr@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago

Backup cameras are required on all 2018 or newer vehicles in the US and Canada, so you will need at least one in the back and a small screen for that, maybe hide that screen in the review.

This imaginary basic car should also come with a double-din radio so it can be upgraded like the old days.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Yes, the absolute basic required technology to make it road legal, physical switches and either physical gauges or a non-touch screen for gauges if that's cheaper.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

Physical switches > screens. It's much harder to develop the muscle memory for a screen. I don't have to look away from the road with switches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] evranch@lemmy.ca 43 points 1 year ago

The reason everything is on a touch screen now is that it's cheaper than physical switches, as ridiculous as that seems. And yes, I greatly prefer physical switches.

Buy and wire multiple switches on every car, requiring wiring harnesses, ECM IO pins etc. or pay an intern a minimal sum once so he can put "designed Chevrolet in-dash console" on his resume. Then never update it even though it supports OTA updates and is a glitchy mess, Chevy

This is the same reason so many products come with a stupid Bluetooth app now rather than more than one button. Pay once rather than pay on every unit.

[-] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Hmm. In that case, physical buttons is the one luxury I'd pay a premium for.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 1 year ago

They don't know how to market something that doesn't have a bunch of gimmicky bullshit.

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago

"Get your cheap, reliable EVs here!" Done. You can pay me that $100k marketing salary whenever it's convenient.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem is you can’t efficiently electrify a vehicle designed for fossil fuels. The requirements differ too much.

Actually EV conversions were common before we got intentionally designed EVs and the original Tesla roadster was built on a standard Lotus body and frame, but luckily we’re beyond that now.

You can still choose to electrify a vehicle now but you get poor performance and range, unbalanced handling, and pay way too much for a mediocre vehicle. It’s bot worth it

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

They mean at the design/manufacturing level, not retrofitting.

They mean just creat a simple ev car with only the needed designs to house the battery, controller and electric motor(s).

They mean discard all ideas of "futuristic" interiors, techs, or anything. Just build a modest car with an electric powerplant and battery storage. Then stop.

Fire any designer who tells you AI could improve the product.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] DrunkenPirate@feddit.de 96 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There‘s a word for that „Greedflation.“ This is what western car makers do. Luckily, the Cinese car makers grasp their chance and disrupt the market

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

While that is part of it, the other, bigger part is that Western countries actually do have higher labour costs: better salaries and conditions for our workers.

When China was outcompeting us on undesirable, low productivity, jobs, we accepted that. It was better to raise a billion Chinese out of poverty than to protect our lowest productivity factory workers. And those workers mostly transitioned to other jobs with higher productivity.

But now China is richer and their labour force is shrinking, so they will compete with highly productive factory jobs.

Politically, it is unlikely that car workers will accept unemployment. Nor will other highly paid workers.

So a trade war is brewing, you better brace yourself for it.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago

China wasn't "outcompeting us on undesirable, low productivity, jobs". Corporations were shipping jobs to China to undercut highly productive factory jobs back then, too, so they could save on labor costs. It's only now that China is undercutting corporate profits that these same corporations come crying and shitting their pants. That's also why you see a ramping up of negative media pieces on China. It was never about charitably raising people out of poverty. It was always about corporations undercutting labor to gain greater profits. Fuck 'em, bring on the cheap cars.

[-] Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hate it when corpos use the "oh we can't lower prices because our staff is getting paid too much"-narrative. What about the CEO who takes half the profits for himself?
It's the workers who create value for a company, they don't take it away by getting paid for their work.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] DrunkenPirate@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don’t think labor costs is a big factor. Car production is the sector that is most automated. Just think of this endless bands of hanging cars with robot arms working on it. Tesla even topped this.

It’s mainly the unwillingness to design and sell cheap cars due to less profits. In Germany we had electric cars for 20k€ or even combustion cars under 15k€. But they stopped building it. Although it was sold out in weeks.

In my region there was a Startup by the Aachen University RWTH (which is an elite university in Germany) bulding small EVs for around 20k€. They simply bought all parts from suppliers and just assembled it. And engineered and designed it first. Unionized and still competitive. Unfortunately, they didn’t fly.

EV building is rather simple. The software is key. And this is the missing part at car makers capabilities.

I second your thoughts on trade war. However, I guess it will be much simpler with high taxes, high quality regulations, and may be less support by car workshops. We will see…

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Chinese manufacturers are being heavily subsidised and even making a loss on their cars.

They're trying to kill off our domestic car industries.

[-] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

No reason why western countries also can't subsidize EV car companies to remain competitive.

Like...what are we supposed to do? Be content with ridiculously priced EVs and be willing to pay a small fortune for them? Fuck off with that noise.

Western corporations have had no problems fucking over the average consumer for decades or laying off thousands of employees at the first sign of trouble. Let them adapt or die I say. Competition is always good. Western corporations have the smarts and the resources to compete, they just need to be forced to.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Controversial take: the problem isn't car prices. They haven't increased that much when compared to inflation, and you're getting far more and far better cars for your money when adjusted for inflation.

The problem is wages haven't risen and housing prices have risen too much, meaning people have less to spend on a car.

E: I googled. In the US the cost of a median house was 18k in 1953. An average car cost 3.5k.

Now, the median house costs 400k.

400k/18k x 3.5k = If car prices had risen as much as house prices, the median car would cost 77k.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Selling at a loss to enter a market or gain market share is a time honored tradition at this point.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago

If you see that European car makers sell the same car in China for less than half than they charge at home, you know they are basically milking us just for extra profit.

[-] Daiken@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Not true. Most products aren't the cost of the materials. There are a lot of included expenses in the price of a product like the cost of labor. They're also not the same cars.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 88 points 1 year ago

Nooooo anything but more environmentally friendly vehicles that people can actually afford. Won't somebody think of the profits?

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

not sure about environmentally friendly,friendlier sure, but a well developed public transit system and biking infrastructure beats any kind of car based infrastructure

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You said the Lemmy catchphrase good job

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Complements. The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure. Let’s apply this more intelligently this time - recognize that some areas are more built up than others and different solutions scale differently . In general that can be a good thing, but we need interconnected services for everyone. That does include cars in many areas, although I agree a worthwhile goal for cities/town centers is that people not need a car

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 85 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Chinese EVs are being sold at a loss of up to 35k per car:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/business/nio-china-electric-vehicles.html

The Chinese government is subsidising their car industry, so they can engage in dumping, and decimate our car industries. When our domestic car industries are dead, they'll raise prices. It's like Amazon or any other scummy megacorp that kills local businesses.

This being said, it's hard to feel sorry for companies who also receive plenty of government subsidies and tax breaks, broke the law on emissions testing and likely killed a lot of people because of it, and refused to innovate or lower prices out of sheer greed.

[-] zurohki@aussie.zone 52 points 1 year ago

Selling at a loss is how you build volume and reach the economies of scale that drive down costs.

If you fiddle around half-heartedly putting out small numbers of EVs, you'll never come close to competing with a company that puts out over a million a year. A lot of automakers still aren't willing to commit, and they're whining about the position they chose to put themselves in.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

China is using subsidies to accelerate the green transition, exactly like the US is doing with the "Inflation Reduction Act" and other initiatives.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

I truly don't care if China destroy the car industry, it's fucking ridiculous how expensive some basic shit is. In my opinion if you introduce a feature into your cars, you have ten years before it should become standard.

[-] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

a comment in the article you linked says this better than I ever could:

This whole narrative about alleged “subsidies” to Chinese EV makers and them “losing $35,000 per vehicle” is pure propaganda. Firstly, that company - Nio - is a relatively new one and it is still ramping up its production. A year ago when they were not selling EVs yet but invested a lot in R&D it could be said that they were losing infinite amount of money per vehicle - because infinity is what you get from dividing by zero. Both this logic and this math are erroneous. Tesla was losing money for years even after it started making and selling its cars.It kept going by taking money from investors in exchange for shares. That is exactly what the Chinese EV companies do. So secondly, those are not “subsidies” but investments, even if the money comes from Chinese government entities. This article states itself that local governments take stock in companies in exchange for investment - exactly the same thing Tesla investors did.

The article also talks about BYD, a more established manufacturer than Nio, that is making profits selling electric cars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago

My God the Chinese are at it again beating the United States at capitalism

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not on, it really isn't, the Chinese shouldn't be allowed to engage in the free market. They're supposed to be the enemy.

They should be sanctioned so that Western car makers can continue to put out vehicles for ludicrous prices, the way God intends.

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

I get your sarcasm, but Chinese products are life savers in 3rd world countries like mine. My brother bought a Chinese pickup truck for $3500 brand new. American trucks are at least 10 times that. People there work a whole month for $500 - $900. No one can and will never afford that shit. Same goes for other products like cellphones, computers.... Etc. an iPhone there costs $1200 - $1400 and a Chinese one costs $300 max and it does the job no problem. People in those countries love China.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Ardiente@ttrpg.network 16 points 1 year ago

I know someone is going to read that and not get the implied /s

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] silencioso@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hear me out: a bare minimum electronics car extremely reliable, no screens no bells and whistles and with the smallest possible engine battery that costs less than $5.000 💥

[-] SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Citroën Ami is available. Closer to $8000 and technically a quadricycle. All bare minimum to make it street legal.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago

gee the market has been clamoring for a decade while the auto industry said "BIG TRUCKS AND SUV'S!"

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

"We can't lower the prices, it's impossible so soon"

[-] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 year ago

Yeah but where can I get these cheap Chinese EVs? I've never seen any for sale in the States

[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://electrek.co/2021/06/16/i-bought-an-inexpensive-electric-pickup-truck-from-china-and-you-can-too/

The $2,000 price was legit, but that didn’t include batteries. It was another $300 or so for heavy lead acid batteries, $500 if I wanted a lithium-ion battery pack (3 kWh), $710 for a bigger lithium pack (5 kWh), and $1,050 if I wanted a giant lithium battery (6 kWh).

The article goes on to say that shipping is a big deal, too. It requires thousands for a space in a container. But the total clocked under $9K IIRC

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago

So they CAN make cars cheaper. I bet they still post profit while claiming they're losing money.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
609 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

60115 readers
1222 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS