4 ms·
> but at the end of the day it needs to get you from A to B You really don't understand cars if you believe this. Cars are second only to property in terms of
by threeseed 6y ago
> but at the end of the day it needs to get you from A to B
You really don't understand cars if you believe this.
Cars are second only to property in terms of the biggest investments someone will make in their lifetime. As such people decide what to buy based on a number of factors including "how it feels to drive" and "what this car says about me". Because in most cases they are sticking with that decision for a decade.
If it was based purely on the cheapest way from A to B then there would be no brands like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin etc because they are based on desire rather than value. And if there's one company that understands desire it is Apple.
- aetherson 6y agoCars aren't investments.
- Hamuko 6y agoWell, most cars. Some definitely are, but we're talking about rare, low-production ones.
- jhoechtl 6y ago> If it was based purely on the cheapest way from A to B then there would be no brands like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin Those brands account only for a tiny fraction of the car market though. For the rest the cost of buying and maintaining a car is certainly a bigger fraction of the acquisition decision.
- XorNot 6y ago"what this car feels like to drive" is part of the A to B part though. It's engine, suspension, transmission, steering linkages. Passenger seating. It's not a software interface.