I don't get what this article is trying to say. “In India,” he said, “you cannot look or be strange. Choosing a new entrant is a risk. You have to be careful w

I don't get what this article is trying to say. “In India,” he said, “you cannot look or be strange. Choosing a new entrant is a risk. You have to be careful with your money. A new product must be different.” Isn't this contradicting itself? What I understood from this article is (1) Renault are selling the cheapest possible standard looking car and (2) They do localized, ritualistic sales & delivery which appeals to their buyers. Seems to me that this is a story about a car that isn't trying to disrupt anything or be any more radical than absolutely necessary to meet its price/cost goals. It is trying to bring standard low cost Renaults to India. The article mentions the Tata Nano, a more radical low cost concept. It could also have mentioned the Twizy, Renault's current attempt at a tiny lower cost car radically different from other models. Both of these stretch the standard definition of "car" and you might call them disruption attempts. The Kwid is explicitley trying to do the opposite. The current suite of car types (budget hatchback, family sedan, SUV..) is fairly stable. This is probably because use cases have remained the same, the technology has remained similar & underlying economic factors of production haven't changed much. Two things could change that: EV technology & AV technology, especially AV. For example, if most passenger cars are autonomous taxis, we might see more specialized designs. Slow, single seaters for urban travel. Larger comfort vehicles for longer distance travel.. etc. That would be disruptive.