I was thinking about Tesla while posting. It's the natural counter argument. That's why I specifically mentioned the target market (in my opinion): bikes. (One

I was thinking about Tesla while posting. It's the natural counter argument. That's why I specifically mentioned the target market (in my opinion): bikes. (One of the reponses above is critical of my target market definition. Hey, I'm Netherlands-based. Two wheels is a bike. Whether € 10 or € 10k. I can understand that theft and bike services are more of a US value proposition.) The thing is I think Tesla pulled off a near miss with their repairs, waiting times and general inavailability of spare parts. That was a very big issue for a few years. Tesla got a helping hand (in several European countries at least) in tax breaks for the electric early adopters. With the tax brakes came the premier buyer: lease companies (say NED / BEL). You know what lease companies are good at? Supply chain management on behalve of their customers. If a Tesla was out for repairs for a month, the lease company had to deliver a temporary car. The tax brakes for the consumers kept the demand up, no matter the service record. No tax incentives helping VanMoof. Second is that I think the disruption Tesla caused in the car market at that time was a lot larger than that of VanMoof. As others point out: VanMoof didn't leapfrog (e-)bike market and didn't get a temporaty moat. They were actually a late to pivot to electric. Their earliest models were based on non-electric, affordable and robust (as a buyer at that time: they weren't robust at all). Then by playing the high margin-high marketing angle they just weren't a viable option in the price range where quality starts to matter. All in all: Tesla got a temporary technological head start with some favourable tax headwind giving them just enough runway to manage the supply chain. VanMoof had no technological head start, no tax incentives and crashed and burned on the supply chain.