Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

wardsauto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#101

Post by rsynnott »

xtiansimon wrote: post #84
echelon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in cities decided they wanted less car-centric infrastructure. People in cities demanded EVs, yet didn't show up to keep buying them. People in cities apparently know best what car companies should build, yet they don't buy the cars. Car companies build for suburbanites. Suburbanites buy cars.

> “Suburbanites buy cars” True for Long Island, NY. Can’t go to to the store 0.3 miles away without driving your cage. Kids take the bus to school in even the best weather, that is if their parents don’t drive them.

> Can’t go to to the store 0.3 miles away without driving your cage.

Is this due to a lack of footpaths? Or just a cultural thing?

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#102

Post by dumberquestions »

testing22321 wrote: post #94
autoexec wrote: post #43

> Because a single autonomous vehicle operating in a shared fleet can replace multiple privately owned cars, the widespread adoption of this technology can’t help but reduce new-car sales volumes. The idea that that a huge number of people will give up their private cars for robot-taxis in the next 20 years is laughable. They don't even exist in the vast majority of the country, and it's not even clear that they can…

> The idea that that a huge number of people will give up their private cars for robot-taxis in the next 20 years is laughable. They don't even exist in the vast majority of the country, and it's not even clear that they can function everywhere with our current technology. In just the past year we've seen how the technology we have today is still struggling with how to properly deal with basic things like red traffic…

Robot-taxis don't offer the same convenience and status gain of a private car, while a smartphone does every single thing a landline can and more, this is not a good analogy.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#103

Post by structural »

lelanthran wrote: post #56
reverius42 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of 2010 Toyotas still out there, running great, if you want one. The market has instead demanded more different-looking cars (for variety), and generally larger vehicles with a higher riding position, not to mention newer creature comforts like air conditioned seats, and safety features like beeping at you when a car is in your blind spot and you try to change lanes. The evidence that this is what th…

> There are plenty of 2010 Toyotas still out there, running great, if you want one. That's not my point. My point is that the billions poured into designing the three new generations of Toyota since 2010 did not have to be spent by Toyota. But they did spend it, to design new cars, with little to no actual improvements, and so they have had to price their new cars appropriately, to recoup the cost. What would a brand…

The improvements were for things governments (fuel/pollution efficiency) and insurers (safety) wanted, not necessarily you.

A new 2010 Toyota likely wouldn't even be legal to sell today in many jurisdictions, and this is in fact one part of the problem.

Another part of the problem is that all the big automakers need to design a new car roughly every 5 years in order to keep from losing the ability to design one at all, as people age and retire. What's really been settled on is that "minor updates every year and a major update every 5-6 years" actually does work in terms of keeping know-how to design these things, as well as handle supply chain problems.

For example, if a chip you need goes EOL and you have to redesign around that, it's much better to have that happen in the last 1-2 years of your manufacturing, you do a last time buy to get through that last year, and move on. Much harder to do on a longer lifecycle: that 2010 design, sold new in 2026, and operated until 2040+. How many suppliers go out of business over 30 years, or stop making a critical component?

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#104

Post by JKCalhoun »

usernametaken29 wrote: post #20

If your theory is true we might see an era where supply vastly exceeds demand and car manufacturers will need to offset brand new vehicles to keep cash flow going. Sounds great to me, sign me up for 20$k brand new Ford when the time’s ready.

An ad in a 1972 Race Program touts a brand new Toyota for $1200 (for a sedan, not including tax, freight and handling, etc.).

I ran an inflation calculator and… where are the $10K cars for sale today?

(To be sure, I know there are safety standards, other things that will make the Datsun sedan un-sellable today, but come on, can't we get even close to $10K?)

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#105

Post by testing22321 »

dumberquestions wrote: post #102
testing22321 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that that a huge number of people will give up their private cars for robot-taxis in the next 20 years is laughable. They don't even exist in the vast majority of the country, and it's not even clear that they can function everywhere with our current technology. In just the past year we've seen how the technology we have today is still struggling with how to properly deal with basic things like red traffic…

Robot-taxis don't offer the same convenience and status gain of a private car, while a smartphone does every single thing a landline can and more, this is not a good analogy.

Absolutely you’re right.

The question is how much less convenience will people accept for how much of a saving compared to depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, parking repairs and all the rest.

If it’s slightly less convenient and a decent saving, I’m quite sure the vast majority of car owners won’t want to own anymore.

For most, car ownership is a massive burden.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#106

Post by autoexec »

testing22321 wrote: post #105
dumberquestions wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robot-taxis don't offer the same convenience and status gain of a private car, while a smartphone does every single thing a landline can and more, this is not a good analogy.

Absolutely you’re right. The question is how much less convenience will people accept for how much of a saving compared to depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, parking repairs and all the rest. If it’s slightly less convenient and a decent saving, I’m quite sure the vast majority of car owners won’t want to own anymore. For most, car ownership is a massive burden.

Robotaxis will have to pass the costs of depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, parking repairs and all the rest onto the consumer anyway, and then also charge consumers even more because they want to stuff their pockets with cash and not just break even. If it takes $8.00 in gas to get you where you want to go, you'd better believe you're going to be paying $8.00 no matter who is driving.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#107

Post by testing22321 »

autoexec wrote: post #106
testing22321 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely you’re right. The question is how much less convenience will people accept for how much of a saving compared to depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, parking repairs and all the rest. If it’s slightly less convenient and a decent saving, I’m quite sure the vast majority of car owners won’t want to own anymore. For most, car ownership is a massive burden.

Robotaxis will have to pass the costs of depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, parking repairs and all the rest onto the consumer anyway, and then also charge consumers even more because they want to stuff their pockets with cash and not just break even. If it takes $8.00 in gas to get you where you want to go, you'd better believe you're going to be paying $8.00 no matter who is driving.

At this point we can speculate till the cows come home about how much it’s going to cost and how convenient it will be.

I’ll wait and see.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#108

Post by ExoticPearTree »

ajmurmann wrote: post #28
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction. If by flying cars you mean flying robotaxies, then all you need are landing pads. They can be easily accomodated on top of buildings. And regulation for what? We already know how to fky helicopters by autopilot, no need for innovat…

If they are supposed to replace cars we'd need so many of these landing pads. No idea how this is supposed to work. I'm the suburbs it's unclear where you'd put them. Where do I walk to fly this to Costco? Does it land on the Costco warehouse next to an entire line of these arriving instead of cars today? In proper downtown areas I suspect even if you'd cover every rooftop in these it wouldn't be enough capacity

There are two aspects to this:

- what are the dimensions of a flying car? Double than a car? Triple?

- are they autonomous or need to be flown manually?

Looking at current drone designs, you could get away with a flying car the size of large SUV. If they are autonomous, then you don't have to worry much: Car, take me to Costco.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#109

Post by danaris »

lelanthran wrote: post #77
danaris wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be unaware of all the recent safety improvements in cars: things like anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance, and traction control have saved countless lives, and they're being improved on even today. "The things cars had in them when I was first driving are all they should ever need; everything else is frivolous, planned obsolescence, or fashion" is a very tempting position to hold, but it doesn't actually h…

> You must be unaware of all the recent safety improvements in cars: things like anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance, and traction control have saved countless lives, and they're being improved on even today. First, those are almost all in the 2010 Toyota that I used as an example. Other than those things (which are in the 2010 model), what did the post-2010 models bring? Second, none of those require an entire new…

...Really? After you said

> Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, there's literally no reason for a new model to drop

now you claim it's all about the 2010 Toyota?

And this:

> an entire new model to be designed that shares no parts with the previous model.

is hopeless overexaggeration. Most new models share significant numbers of their parts with the ones around them.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#110

Post by Smoosh »

mikelitoris wrote: post #37

It was going so well until it mentioned VTOL aircraft. It's been 100 years of this sci-fi dream man... People need to understand that nobody wants drones or "flying cars" above their head or property...

Yes, it somewhat undermines the point that the auto industry is not realistic about the future.

Why consider flying cars when teleportation may be just a few more years away?

Post reply on HN