[Stomachbuzz]

Originally Posted by Th3rdSun

Yes,you can compare them,but they aren't the same.

Which is why you would do a comparison...

Originally Posted by Th3rdSun

One still requires gasoline,the other one doesn't.It really is that simple. Sure,they are marketing to the (somewhat) same customers,but one company is still in cahoots with "big oil" while the other isn't.

And what is it you think electricity is made from...?

Originally Posted by Th3rdSun

Why wouldn't automakers share in this behavior? There's absolutely no way they want to leave money on the table. here's an article that talks about it.

https://hbr.org/2006/05/winning-in-the-aftermarket
After-sales services are a high-margin business, and they account for a large chunk of corporate profits. According to a 1999 AMR Research report, businesses earn 45% of gross profits from the aftermarket, although it accounts for only 24% of revenues. An Accenture study, for instance, reveals that GM earned relatively more profits from $9 billion in after-sales revenues in 2001 than it did from $150 billion of income from car sales.

Even though the article talks about how some companies feel like aftermarket parts and services are a pain in the ass,There's no way they want to turn their nose up at extra money. That's just the way big (successful) corporations work.

Here's where you're being short sighted.
First of all, having a shitty product doesn't magically produce more profits. What you just said is "the more the car breaks down, the more profit GM makes"
Well...not quite... Kinda like saying Harley-Davidson is somehow ahead of the curve by selling junk 1980s tech to beat out Honda's ultra-reliable modern machines.
What actually happens is people catch on and say "wtf?" and start buying more Toyotas. Which is exactly what happened to the domestic auto market from 1970 onward...
Did you know there is still a 25% tariff on imported pick up trucks? The chicken tax.
Whoever can make the most reliable, lowest cost of ownership product, will likely eventually win. Obviously there are other factors, but that's generally how consumer habits trend.

Secondly, and more importantly... the "auto" industry is becoming obsolete. Look very carefully. Pay close attention at advertising, marketing, trends, etc. Look how "auto" companies are beginning to position themselves. They are moving away from "car makers" and starting to call themselves "mobility companies"
GM has a ridesharing program, to compete with Lyft and Uber, called Maven. Tesla is rapidly pioneering the "autonomous car", which several other "mobility companies" are following. GM also sells a heavily autonomous vehicle, the CT6. See that here: https://www.cadillac.com/ownership/v...y/super-cruise

I am not familiar with what I assume to be a plethora of technologies from other companies, but I do have some experience with late model Toyotas. Really, just in the past few years, Toyota has put "lane departure awareness", "blind spot awareness", adaptive cruise control, and other features into their cars. Even low tier cars such as the Corolla.

These technologies are currently referred to as safety features, but they will eventually improve enough to 'stitch' themselves together as a fully autonomous vehicle.

Some time in the future, car ownership will become awkward. I have been in both GM and Toyota corporate presentations that speak heavily on this topic. They say things like "the automobile is the 2nd largest purchase most people will make in their lifetimes, but yet they only use it 6% of the time. It spends 95% of its life parked. How does that make sense?"
And their solution is to have communal car ownership, aka ridesharing. You rent the car, drive it to work, and park it. Then it's available for someone else to rent.

So this talk of intentionally dwelling on overpriced machines with intentionally short, or maintenance-intensive, lifespans for the sake of short-term profit is quite problematic.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

What Tesla did that mattered was commit to infrastructure. Had they not done the charging network, they would still be a niche product for " the see we care" people that first bought the Prius.

The big three didn't do this because they don't consider themselves in the fuel business and it probably never even got to the "what if" stage. Tesla had no choice because that was the only way they were going to sell their cars in any volume

Of course, if Tesla really wanted to change the world instead of sell vehicles (as they claim) they would open their chargers up to any electric vehicle, at a higher cost of course which is fair.

Again, hitting the nail on the head. Tesla rapidly fast-forwarded the landscape of long distance BEVs. Even though the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf both debuted in 2009 (before Tesla was hot), they were seen as silly cars that were chained to their low range batteries, and you needed to plug in at home every night.
I don't quite remember any other automaker even presenting the idea of a vast network of charging stations to make that huge barrier become a minor inconvenience.