It’s not just demand. I was told by a Mercedes dealer that since each car is a loss for the company, it’s literally disincetivised; it’s a negative $ quota for the managers. They’re dropping the program because they need to sell a certain amount of negative earning cars, and balance the loss out with more gas cars.
This is one of those technically true, but incredibly misleading stats meant to sway an opinion.
Most new technology in human history has had to be sold at a loss at the start. It takes time to recover your R&D, build large enough scale factories, smooth out your supply chain, etc.
For example, Tesla was founded in 2003. The very first year it turned a profit was 18 years late in 2020.
Companies are fighting for future marker share right now.
By 2035 pure ICE vehicles won’t even be allowed to be sold in Europe, Canada, California, and a handful of other US states and developed countries.
If you don’t sell at a loss now, you won’t sell at all in 2035.
I don’t fully disagree, but IMO it’ll be region dependant. I’m a Canadian living in the U.S. and I just can’t see either of our governments reaching that deadline. Mainly because of trucks but also because we never meet targets we commit to lol.
I think most of Europe will meet it though. Norway is already at 84% new cars fully battery electric. Another 7% are plug in. Europe as a whole is 14.2% battery, 8.4% plug in, and growing FAST.
Even if there’s only 90% adoption by 2035, it’s not going to be profitable to sell high volumes of gas cars.
The issue is economies of scale. Batteries are pretty expensive but EVs are also just low volume products right now compared to ICE. So anything unique to them just flat costs more.
Plus (like Tesla showed) there will be a point where you are past the development costs and are making money. Pretty safe bet that once the “skateboard” basic foundation is determined for the competing companies individual models and variations will cost much less going forward. Not sure what the at number or date is, but smart companies and their investors know this.
It’s not just demand. I was told by a Mercedes dealer that since each car is a loss for the company, it’s literally disincetivised; it’s a negative $ quota for the managers. They’re dropping the program because they need to sell a certain amount of negative earning cars, and balance the loss out with more gas cars.
Really? Gonna be honest that doesn’t sound true. Anyone else friends with a Ford salesperson who can confirm?
This is one of those technically true, but incredibly misleading stats meant to sway an opinion.
Most new technology in human history has had to be sold at a loss at the start. It takes time to recover your R&D, build large enough scale factories, smooth out your supply chain, etc.
For example, Tesla was founded in 2003. The very first year it turned a profit was 18 years late in 2020.
Companies are fighting for future marker share right now.
By 2035 pure ICE vehicles won’t even be allowed to be sold in Europe, Canada, California, and a handful of other US states and developed countries.
If you don’t sell at a loss now, you won’t sell at all in 2035.
1,000% this will all be overturned in the next 3 years.
I don’t fully disagree, but IMO it’ll be region dependant. I’m a Canadian living in the U.S. and I just can’t see either of our governments reaching that deadline. Mainly because of trucks but also because we never meet targets we commit to lol.
I think most of Europe will meet it though. Norway is already at 84% new cars fully battery electric. Another 7% are plug in. Europe as a whole is 14.2% battery, 8.4% plug in, and growing FAST.
Even if there’s only 90% adoption by 2035, it’s not going to be profitable to sell high volumes of gas cars.
https://www.acea.auto/pc-registrations/new-car-registrations-14-6-in-october-battery-electric-14-2-market-share/
Wait what? EVs are selling at a loss?
EVs are already pretty expensive, how much are they supposed to be selling for?
The issue is economies of scale. Batteries are pretty expensive but EVs are also just low volume products right now compared to ICE. So anything unique to them just flat costs more.
Rivian losses like 70 grand per truck. This is normal for new tech
Plus (like Tesla showed) there will be a point where you are past the development costs and are making money. Pretty safe bet that once the “skateboard” basic foundation is determined for the competing companies individual models and variations will cost much less going forward. Not sure what the at number or date is, but smart companies and their investors know this.
There is one company making a profit on them. That also has the lowest prices on them.