311–312 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all why Apple gave up on the EV, it was profitability. They even gave up on building AI cloud infra because it was cheaper to rent. Finance can veto Tim Cook there.
Part of doing the hard thing is to become profitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> of course they are relevant and are built on tech transfer. The small amount of technology transfer that happened in 2011 for internal combustion engines is not relevant to the EV industry in 2025. It wasn't even enough back then to make China competitive in internal combustion engines. > Again, this was illegal then and China was taken to the WTO in 2018 No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It…
> The small amount of technology transfer that happened in 2011.. Sure, China's tech transfer in BEV/hybrid/battery tech had been going on since 2011 and continued until fairly recently, not just in 2011 (read NYT article cited in example #1). > No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It's actually encouraged for developing countries. Wrong. That only applies to LDC, or Least Developed Countries und…
No, it's strongly encouraged for least developed countries.
> Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.
There is no "forced tech transfer," and we're not discussing IP theft, which is not allowed by China's IP laws. Companies are making decisions to enter into IP sharing agreements with joint-venture partners, out of their own economic calculus. They're free to refuse.
> again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.
Not true. You need to update take a refresher on this issue. Toyota is setting up its own wholly owned operations in China, for example: [0].
> BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s.
This is a tiny niche in the US market. Meanwhile, US auto manufacturers have had large market shares in China for decades.
> Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.
So you're admitting that Chinese companies are respecting foreign IP and responding by innovating in areas not covered by that IP.
> Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.
No, tax rebates to customers in China do not reduce the cost of cars exported to Europe. China "hands [tax rebates to customers] out like Halloween candies" because it wants to rapidly transition to EVs (and has been incredibly successful in doing so).
> China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.
Yet somehow, EVs are way cheaper in China than in the EU and US, and all the local companies are engaged in continuous price wars.
> Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies.
Those "illegal subsidies" (a loaded term) are overwhelmingly tax rebates to consumers - the exact same mechanism that the US and many EU countries use.
> Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.
This is just completely out of touch with reality. I'll just say two words: BYD, CATL. It's getting to the point that European countries are talking about encouraging battery technology transfer from China.
0. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...