5 ms·
> I wonder how differently cars would be built, if instead of maximizing for value extraction and crap nobody needs, they instead were optimized for utility and
by Aurornis 10mo ago
> I wonder how differently cars would be built, if instead of maximizing for value extraction and crap nobody needs, they instead were optimized for utility and maintenance (and sure, fuel economy, aerodynamics and some sane environmental stuff).
Auto manufacturers already have stripped-down base models of their entry-level vehicles. Many have commercial versions of their vehicles, especially trucks and vans, that are stripped down.
The stripped down base models don't sell well.
Remember how the internet was clamoring for an iPhone Mini? Whenever there were complaints about modern cell phones, you could find what looked like unanimous agreement that a smaller iPhone would be the golden ticket. Then Apple made an iPhone Mini, and it did not sell well.
The same happens with vehicles. Whenever you find threads complaining about modern vehicles it seems unanimous that modern vehicles have too many things consumers don't want and we'd be better off with simple base models. Yet simple base models do exist already and they don't sell well. Real consumers look at their $20,000 Nissan Versa and realize that spending an extra $1-2K on amenities isn't going to change their monthly payment much.
There is a lot of precedent for this. The Tata Nano was an Indian micro car that was small, low-power, and had bare minimum amenities. It was under $5K USD in inflation-adjusted dollars.
It was discontinued due to low demand because sales declined steadily year over year. Nobody wanted it.
- soared 10mo agoAgreed - check out for example a Toyota rav4 le. This is the base model with effectively zero modern “subscription-esque” fancy features. It’s got a touchscreen and power windows, but otherwise it’s all the reliability/etc of Toyota and that’s it. About half the price of what most rav4s are listed at and $20k+ cheaper than a 4Runner.
- hedgehog 10mo agoOh no, across the line Toyota still tries to sell you a subscription service that's required for things like remote start.
- Aurornis 10mo agoSo? Why would people buying the cheapest possible model care? Remote start is a luxury feature. Just ignore the subscription offer like a luxury trim option.
- nottorp 10mo agoIt depends. What else is included in that subscription? Mirror and seat heating by any chance? Can you buy a Toyota that isn't always online? Because having remote start available, subscription or not, sounds like you can't.
- soared 10mo agoMy point was you can buy a car that is primarily safety+capability and not luxury+subscription. My rav4 has a touchscreen and power windows but that’s literally it as far as convenience/luxury. ~28k a couple years ago, no subscription. Anything heated, remote, touch to start, etc is in the luxury category what gp was asking about avoiding.
- nottorp 10mo agoDepending on the weather, heated mirrors may be a safety feature. I'd very much like that for rain/foggy days for example.
- Aurornis 10mo agoThis comment section went from “I don’t understand why car makers don’t sell a cheap stripped down car without luxuries” to “Heated mirrors and seats are very important” very quickly. HN comments discovering in real time why the stripped-down base model vehicles don’t actually sell. People like those luxury features and they choose to pay extra for them.
- formerly_proven 10mo ago
- jacobbudin 10mo agoIn the United States (USD, MSRP): * 2026 Toyota RAV4 LE (base trim) - $31,900 * 2026 Toyota RAV4 Limited (top trim) - $43,300 * 2026 Toyota 4Runner SR5 (base trim) - $41,570
- M95D 10mo agoIt has a Data Communication Module - it spies on you. If you try to remove that, you lose audio in the front right speaker.
- jfengel 10mo agoI wonder how much of that is due to dealers, who want to upsell. Do they even keep the base model in stock, or does it have to be special ordered (or today, we can give you a "discount" on the fancy model that still has a higher profit margin for us). I'm just speculating; the same reasoning wouldn't apply to the iPhone mini. But car dealers have a lot of incentive to skew the results. It takes a fair bit of willpower to say "I am buying this specific car I want and will go elsewhere if I can't have it."
- Aurornis 10mo agoAnecdotally: I helped someone look for a cheap car recently and the base models are everywhere on my local lots. YMMV and I'm sure someone will respond that their area doesn't have any, but in my recent experience it wasn't hard to find a base model at all. It's driven by consumer demand: If you can pay $30/month on your 5-year loan and get heated seats and a nicer navigation system, that's $1/day for 5 years and then you own it. It's easy to talk yourself into stepping up to something nicer that you're going to use every day.
- graemep 10mo agoI suspect you are right that this is linked to how much time people spend in their cars. I am quite happy with a cheap car because I do not use it everyday, and even when I do the majority of my journeys are short ones (15 to 20 min).
- jfengel 10mo agoI really wish there were an even cheaper car for that use case. Perhaps billed as a second car for families, where one is used just for commuting and errands, and the other is the general purpose one with a longer range. Say, with an 80 mile battery, two seats, and under $10k. I gather that they exist in China and might be allowed into the US. I'd buy one.
- nandomrumber 10mo ago
- MobiusHorizons 10mo agoAnd yet I personally know more people who own iPhone minis (myself included) now in 2026 than that own pixel phones of any model. I think the data is distorted by the fact that most people who want things like that also don’t typically buy new (especially with cars). I did buy my iPhone 13 mini from Apple directly, but I bought it after the 14 line had already been released.
- Aurornis 10mo agoHN commenters and their friends are an extremely biased sample set. The sales numbers don’t lie about the global demand though.
- nandomrumber 10mo agoI loved the iPhone 4 format factor, but prefer more recent and larger editions for battery life and battery longevity. My only gripe with the 6.7 inch form factor would be solved if someone would just sell me a bigger hand. I can’t hold it one handed and reach the far corner of the screen without some obnoxious accessory like a Popsocket bolted to the back thereby making it impossible to use on a flat surface or fit in a pocket. Come to think of it, Zaphod might have been on to something with that third arm.
- MobiusHorizons 10mo agoI am aware. My point was basically that the people who wanted them weren’t lying, they really love them, and are willing to keep them for years even though they are getting slightly old now. I’m imagining this doesn’t show up in first year sales numbers in a similar way to how the things people say they want in cars typically drive used market buying not new market purchases. I’ve tried to validate this hypothesis, but run into problems finding the data. Do you know where to find currently active numbers by model? I’m think something like browser market share charts. I’ve only been able to find numbers from the year they were released, and even that was as a percentage of total sales, not raw numbers. My hypothesis is that minis (13 mini and 12 mini) are over represented in active phones compared to other models of that generation.
- formerly_proven 10mo agoEcono shitboxes also have very stiff competition from used low-end cars. The economics of them are often rather dubious.