4 ms·

One of the more interesting parts to me: > "...but [Vogt] added that these are destined for deployment in fleets, rather than as individually owned consumer ve

One of the more interesting parts to me: > "...but [Vogt] added that these are destined for deployment in fleets, rather than as individually owned consumer vehicles." I think this really clarifies the direction that GM (and I believe other auto manufacturers) see as the way forward: moving from an individual-ownership model to an on-demand rent model.

sulam 9y ago
Strategically this gets really obvious when you look at the financial model. A rapidly depreciating asset that has utilization of <10% is kind of insane, but Americans have managed to pull it off. Many families even have 2 of them! You need wide open spaces, no public transit, and cheap power for them to even be financially feasible/desirable, and the automotive industry has had to work really hard to kill public transit, the country has had to go to war several times for cheap power, and as people migrate from rural to urban settings the wide open spaces have been replaced with commutes from hell. Cars are probably going the way of planes in the future -- hobbyists will operate them, wealthy people will have luxury models, and most people will just buy time in one. Self-driving technology is the nail in the coffin but it's probably happening without that.
- bkeroack 9y ago
  Insane for whom? Regardless of rate of depreciation it's still an asset. The relentless drive to push everything to rental transfers value from individuals (as equity) to industry/corporations in the form of operating profit. There's a reason why much of the economy is moving this way and it isn't beneficial to the vast majority of us.
tachyonbeam 9y ago
Cars intended for fleets might also mean they can afford to put expensive LIDARs on them. Fleets can afford to pay 100K+ per car whereas most individuals can't.

4 ms·

One of the more interesting parts to me: > "...but [Vogt] added that these are destined for deployment in fleets, rather than as individually owned consumer ve

by ljoshua 9y ago

sulam 9y ago
Strategically this gets really obvious when you look at the financial model. A rapidly depreciating asset that has utilization of <10% is kind of insane, but Americans have managed to pull it off. Many families even have 2 of them! You need wide open spaces, no public transit, and cheap power for them to even be financially feasible/desirable, and the automotive industry has had to work really hard to kill public transit, the country has had to go to war several times for cheap power, and as people migrate from rural to urban settings the wide open spaces have been replaced with commutes from hell. Cars are probably going the way of planes in the future -- hobbyists will operate them, wealthy people will have luxury models, and most people will just buy time in one. Self-driving technology is the nail in the coffin but it's probably happening without that.
- bkeroack 9y ago
  Insane for whom? Regardless of rate of depreciation it's still an asset. The relentless drive to push everything to rental transfers value from individuals (as equity) to industry/corporations in the form of operating profit. There's a reason why much of the economy is moving this way and it isn't beneficial to the vast majority of us.
tachyonbeam 9y ago
Cars intended for fleets might also mean they can afford to put expensive LIDARs on them. Fleets can afford to pay 100K+ per car whereas most individuals can't.