I think it's interesting to look at this through the lens of Christensen's disruptive innovation idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma

I think it's interesting to look at this through the lens of Christensen's disruptive innovation idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma The move by Ford offers strong evidence that electric vehicles at this point have become a sustaining, not disruptive innovation. Incumbents like Ford can now compete using existing business models and possibly manufacturing practices/equipment. EV companies like Tesla are now positioned very poorly. They've burned capital chasing the top end of the market during the disruptive phase. Rather than servicing unserved low-end markets that companies like Ford couldn't touch for business reasons, Tesla went after the very top end of the market. Piles of evidence say that this approach will fail, not necessarily for technical reasons but for business reasons. Successful marketplace disruptors attack the market from the bottom by offering objectively inferior technologies with steeply improving performance. That tech trajectory eventually allows the disruptor to gobble the market from the bottom up, with incumbents only too happy to leave low-end, low-margin customers behind. Think microcomputers vs. minicomputers. Rather than running this playbook, Tesla chose the alternative: attack the very top end of the market. It never went through the phase where its products were mistaken for toys. Now that EV production costs and technologies allow easier transitions, Tesla's business model is upside-down. If Tesla couldn't consistently turn profits during the phase it held the advantage, it is going to become almost impossible now that the playing field has leveled and the incumbents can just run the playbook.