3 ms·

I can't imagine growing up with cars. When I think back... I think back to sitting on top of a horse, as we make a journey together. The feel of his hair in yo

I can't imagine growing up with cars. When I think back... I think back to sitting on top of a horse, as we make a journey together. The feel of his hair in your hands as you lean forward. The fun of sitting back while he eats grass. So relaxing and with a sense of bonding. I mean... who would replace a living breathing horse, who is part of the family, with a smelly machine that breaks? There is real nostalgia around horses. And phone booths. and Sony Walkman. and CRTs. And... and... and... .. . People hate change. Just because "cars = gas/diesel" to YOU doesn't mean that a new generation of kids won't break their teeth, and learn to be engineers, with electric or hydrogen or whatever....

1123581321 12y ago
You may have intended this to be a rebuttal, but you actually made the same argument as the person you were replying to. Once the nostalgia/sensation surrounding horses were gone, the companies providing transportation had no more incumbent advantage over auto manufacturers. Likewise, once incumbent car manufacturers can't promote some of the things that people fondly associate with cars, new alternative car companies are better able to put them out of business. The best point in your comment is that alternative car companies may be able to generate some of that nostalgia early enough to use it against incumbents - I think this is possible and that for some people, they will be happy to trade petroleum good feelings for electric good feelings while petroleum-based cars are still a sizeable part of the market.
- 001sky 12y ago
  The difference is that mass production of cars is a scale game, unlike dealing with horses. Horse-breeding is best done locally, whilst the drivetrain engineering is really NBD when one is swapped out for the other. Tesla famously droped its first powertrains into 3rd part chasis, and they did quite well with it. The issue is whether or not the "crown jewels" of EVs will be worth so much (ie, via patented features or trade secrets) that this will allow companies to extract rents. The problem with this approach is that rents only come out from high prices--and this is what tesla is doing--and this won't lead to enough revenues to replicate the infrastrucure of the current (behemoth) chassis makers. So I don't think its quite cut and dry that upstarts will win out (winner take all) in the long run. It seems most likely whoever wins will M&A their way to global scale by integrating into the existing business structure of the global auto industry. Look at facebook--they are only making money by becoming the next generation of Madison Avenue. They didn't really change the world in that regards, they simply integrated into the existing circulation system of the media-industrial complex. Madison avenue doesn't care which blinking screed you stare at for four to eight hours a day, they just want to print money. Similarly, the auto industry couldn't care less about whether or not you drive a clean or petrol motor. Seriously, all they care about is that you take out a loan from them to buy a box of metal that costs 30 to 50k and make your payments on time. In other words, the business model will not really change. The issueas about fly-by wire and the inability to work on your car are already here. It costs $700 dollars to change the battery on a BMW, because its locked down by SW. But that is a superficial level of business model change. Upgrades and spare parts will always be a busienesss line, but the core sale will always revolve around ownership of a block of metal or composites that locks you into the need to maintain it. The more fururistic car companies of tomorrow are likely going to be something like uber or zip car combined with driverless cars and provided on-demand. But until you get to a system that fundamentally changes the distribution of transportation assets and the service model on that scale, the existing players will not really be obsolete.

1123581321 12y ago

You may have intended this to be a rebuttal, but you actually made the same argument as the person you were replying to. Once the nostalgia/sensation surrounding horses were gone, the companies providing transportation had no more incumbent advantage over auto manufacturers. Likewise, once incumbent car manufacturers can't promote some of the things that people fondly associate with cars, new alternative car companies are better able to put them out of business. The best point in your comment is that alternative car companies may be able to generate some of that nostalgia early enough to use it against incumbents - I think this is possible and that for some people, they will be happy to trade petroleum good feelings for electric good feelings while petroleum-based cars are still a sizeable part of the market.

001sky 12y ago
The difference is that mass production of cars is a scale game, unlike dealing with horses. Horse-breeding is best done locally, whilst the drivetrain engineering is really NBD when one is swapped out for the other. Tesla famously droped its first powertrains into 3rd part chasis, and they did quite well with it. The issue is whether or not the "crown jewels" of EVs will be worth so much (ie, via patented features or trade secrets) that this will allow companies to extract rents. The problem with this approach is that rents only come out from high prices--and this is what tesla is doing--and this won't lead to enough revenues to replicate the infrastrucure of the current (behemoth) chassis makers. So I don't think its quite cut and dry that upstarts will win out (winner take all) in the long run. It seems most likely whoever wins will M&A their way to global scale by integrating into the existing business structure of the global auto industry. Look at facebook--they are only making money by becoming the next generation of Madison Avenue. They didn't really change the world in that regards, they simply integrated into the existing circulation system of the media-industrial complex. Madison avenue doesn't care which blinking screed you stare at for four to eight hours a day, they just want to print money. Similarly, the auto industry couldn't care less about whether or not you drive a clean or petrol motor. Seriously, all they care about is that you take out a loan from them to buy a box of metal that costs 30 to 50k and make your payments on time. In other words, the business model will not really change. The issueas about fly-by wire and the inability to work on your car are already here. It costs $700 dollars to change the battery on a BMW, because its locked down by SW. But that is a superficial level of business model change. Upgrades and spare parts will always be a busienesss line, but the core sale will always revolve around ownership of a block of metal or composites that locks you into the need to maintain it. The more fururistic car companies of tomorrow are likely going to be something like uber or zip car combined with driverless cars and provided on-demand. But until you get to a system that fundamentally changes the distribution of transportation assets and the service model on that scale, the existing players will not really be obsolete.