7 ms·

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

48 points by avonmach 1mo ago

BLKNSLVR 1mo ago
... in the US The very first line begins: Take a look around the American automotive landscape Which seems is a prevailing mindset of the US administration (which infects those at lower, but still leadership, levels due to the short term legal and financial 'influence' of the administration): Denial of the changing world. Classic uber-conservatism, which works until it, explosively or revolutionarily, breaks. The ripples of which affect the innocent most of all. (I'm more progressive than conservative, for roughly my own definition of what those loaded terms mean, but I'm also aware of the social problems caused by uber-progressiveness, which bumps up against humanity's basic resistance to change, or too much change too quickly). The world kinda feels stuck between the 'uber' of both sides, with very little conversation covering the majority middle.
testing22321 1mo ago
All the major US OEMs are dead companies walking. Even the CEO of Ford said if Chinese automobiles are allowed into the US it will be the death of US manufacturing. Total acknowledgment US vehicles are inferior, but no desire or drive to compete, only stifle. It’s sad, and the outcome is entirely predictable.
- BLKNSLVR 1mo ago
  ... and inevitable. It's even predictable and inevitable based on that fundamental tenet of capitalism: the market. It's weird kinda knowing what the outcome is going to be, but not knowing exactly how we're going to get there and how long it's going to take. Feels like it's all in slow motion.
  - testing22321 1mo ago
    I also want to hold a short position on them, but the number of times they’ll be bailed out is essentially infinite, so that won’t work.
    - BLKNSLVR 1mo ago
      Go short soon before the next US election maybe? But you're right in terms of, if they don't get bailed out it could bring pain to certain demographics that any side of politics doesn't want to get blamed for. It's hard to see either side making the difficult decision to inflict mid-term pain for, maybe, very long term gain. Not a concept voters will accept. Need a consolidation auto-makers in the US to maybe rationalise things a bit?
- neogodless 1mo ago
  It will be interesting to watch such predictions play out. I'll guess that it's not quite like that. First, propaganda is powerful, and people buy based on what they believe. And right now, U.S. car buyers do not universally believe that EV is better than gas/hybrid, nor do they believe the cheapest car is best, or that features are the only thing that matters. In fact, they go to a dealership, probably for a brand they are already somewhat loyal to, or the marketing worked. And they buy whatever their monthly payment allows, even if it's a lot more car than they need. Second, they like big "American" cars like pickup trucks and huge SUVs. Take a look at how many full-sized pickups are sold every year in the U.S. Until the foreign-made full-sized electric trucks are palatable and competitive with what U.S. buyers are currently buying, those OEMs will continuing making and selling them.
  - testing22321 1mo ago
    > Second, they like big "American" cars like pickup trucks and huge SUVs Do they genuinely like them, or do they just not know they could have it better? Even the people that speak loudest against universal healthcare quickly turn to go fund me when life happens.
owyn 1mo ago
"Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft are on track to provide urban air transit within the next few years, targeting the high-margin commuters who traditionally buy premium vehicles." Okay. So... flying cars? Don't think so. Robotaxis make sense where taxis make sense and you can get by without a car already. The demographic decline is real.
- justaman123 1mo ago
  They are talking about unmanned drones that operate as flying taxis. They have them in China. We will never have flying cars after 9/11 showed how flying objects can damage property.
  - tyre 1mo ago
    It's not 9/11 that will kill it but people not wanting 2 tons of metal flying overhead. The occasional helicopter is one thing. Having hundreds of these flying around, when one can clip a building from a gust of wind and go plummeting into bystanders is a no-go. Not to mention the noise. Residential neighborhoods will ban these immediately (and some won't have a choice because they have, you know, trees.)
- kimixa 1mo ago
  There's the simple physics of a vtol craft when landing needing to push down a lot of a air very fast just to lift an average human - plus the weight of the craft itself. There's a reason helicopters today don't land on street corners even if there's no rotor clearance issues. And these "personal" VTOLs don't seem any lighter than a helicopter of a similar size - for example the "Air One" is twice the mass of a Robinson R22 - ~400 vs ~970 kg empty. The idea that they would be common enough to seriously disrupt "personal transport", even restricting to the "premium" market as it's known today is crazy. Imagine a fancy party where every 10 seconds everyone on the red carpet is being blown away by the backwash of someone landing - also disrupting everyone else trying to land there at the same time.
mpfh 1mo ago
[dead]
mg 1mo ago
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 old "Thing will become more useful so we'll make less of it" argument. No mention of Jevons Paradox? If we can travel and send stuff around from point A to point B cheaply and instantly by dropping ourselves or an item into an ocean of cars roaming our streets autonomously, there is a lot more demand for rides. Also comfortably traveling longer distances might alter where we live. If we can walk out the door, sit down in a comfortable robotaxi right away and exit in the city center 10 minutes later, we might not have to live right in the city center anymore. Another driver for more demand.
- croes 1mo ago
  Where do the cheap cars come from? Fuel and electricity aren’t free
- margalabargala 1mo ago
  I doubt that here. Cars are already near saturation, at least in the US. Essentially everyone has a car. The car is mostly idle. If car availability starts to approach instant then people don't need personal vehicles that are idle 95% of the time. Car quantity overall goes down unless you can 20x current utilization, which is a lot of trips and fuel. Not to mention that if anything resembling current quantity of extant cars becomes the current quantity of cars using roadways at a given moment, most cities will gridlock. If the thesis is "cars will approach 50% or greater utilization" then car numbers must drop barring a massive increase in road capacity for which the land does not exist.
  - ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
    > If the thesis is "cars will approach 50% or greater utilization" then car numbers must drop barring a massive increase in road capacity for which the land does not exist. You can build stacked roads a few levels up. Capacity doubles or triples without any significant land use.
magic_hamster 1mo ago
A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. 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. Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so. The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily. The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there. The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines. Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.
- ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
  > 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 innovation stiffling with more regulation.
  - ajmurmann 1mo ago
    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
quijoteuniv 1mo ago
« Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft are on track to provide urban air transit within the next few years»
- swarnie 1mo ago
  Just a couple thousand years of ground/wheel based infrastructure to rework in that few years. Better get to it.
usernametaken29 1mo ago
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$k brand new Ford when the time’s ready.
- lelanthran 1mo ago
  > If your theory is true we might see an era where supply vastly exceeds demand and car manufacturers will need to offset brand new vehicles to keep cash flow going. Sounds great to me, sign me up for 20$k brand new Ford when the time’s ready. The car manufacturers could have staved this off - they keep developing new models with little to no marginal improvement. Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, there's literally no reason for a new model to drop, but here we are with new models dropping every 5 years, using parts that don't fit the old model! Maybe if they were dropping only new types of cars (say, EVs), I could see a need, but there's no reason a 2010 Toyota has to be replaced by a 2024 - you have the jigs, the factory, the supply chain for parts already. Just keep making it and charge less.
  - reverius42 1mo ago
    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 the market demands is that Toyota is selling tons of new vehicles, despite the 2010 Toyotas still being available (used) for a lot less money.
    - lelanthran 1mo ago
      > 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 new Toyota cost today if billions of dollars were not spent in designing a whole new car, with all new incompatible parts, and all-new jigs? Would we still be looking at $40k for a brand new car?
pmontra 1mo ago
You sell less to people living in the cities but maybe you sell more to the operators of fleets of rental cars, even self driving if that really becomes mainstream. Not enough to match the decrease of sales. You keep selling to people living in countryside, where you don't go anywhere without a car and where fleets of cars would have to be very large to be able to cover the territory in a meaningful way. There will be less and less people living there but it could affect the kind of cars that are manufactured. By the way, a self driving car would be very useful to elderly people living in their house far away from the nearest town. In any case, less cars.
- echelon 1mo ago
  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.
  - lopis 1mo ago
    > People in cities demanded EVs, yet didn't show up to keep buying them. That's only natural, because two kinds of people want EVs in cities (with some overlap). The first kind wants less noise, less pollution and fewer gas stations inside the city - they want other people to buy EVs, but don't want a car themselves. The second wants to own an EV because it's green and efficient.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 1mo ago
      > The second wants to own an EV because it's green and efficient For suburbanites with off-street parking, overnight charging and few road-trips or long distance commutes, an EV is these days simply more convenient to operate, and has cheaper total cost of ownership. For many people, the case for an EV is simply pragmatic - better convenience and cost.
  - King-Aaron 1mo ago
    > Car companies build for suburbanites. And for $100, where are the majority of consumers often located
jmward01 1mo ago
Technology is a fickle thing. The first production passenger car was created in 1886. The model t came out in 1908. We have had cars for 150 years, but that doesn't mean that they will be the standard for the next 150 years. In my life I have seen the land line telephone and radio go from core fixtures in a house to rare techno-memorabilia. (My house actually has a telephone nook. How many houses have tv nooks built for old CRT displays that will never be needed?) If you told me 25 years ago I wouldn't have a land line in the future I would have been shocked. Now it is ridiculous to even consider getting one and I haven't had one for a decade. Can you even buy a land line phone anymore? Transportation is going through many massive changes right now. I haven't driven to the office in a decade. Huge segments of the workforce are migrating to exoburbs because they don't need to drive to work anymore. My son hasn't mentioned wanting to drive. My neighbor's kid flat out says she doesn't want to learn (both will be able to soon) and many of their friends don't want to learn either. There is a generation growing up far less invested in the car than the generation before them. Some of the points in this article may not be perfect, predicting the future is a fools bet, but it sure feels like the trend they are bringing up is real.
gmerc 1mo ago
Capitalism. Once you Acknowledge the problem, you're gonna get punished
- Rover222 1mo ago
  This anti-capitalism mind virus is concerning.
win311fwg 1mo ago
Some car companies are purposefully positioning themselves to have fewer customers as they've learned that they are much more profitable selling a small number of high margin vehicles to a few people instead of a large number of low margin vehicles to a lot of people.
- tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
  It used to be that they were happy to sell small cheap cars to new buyers because it would build brand loyalty. I'm not sure people are so wedded to car companies now though, especially so when so many brands are owned by a handful of companies. Small cheap cars have been disappearing from the ranges of most manufacturers.
  - win311fwg 1mo ago
    Manufacturers were also in competition with the used market. A small, cheap car was there to try and attract budget-conscious buyers towards something new instead of something used. But then COVID shutdowns interrupted the supply of cars. At one point, used cars were selling for more than equivalent new models. That allowed manufacturers to crank up the price of new vehicles, which has had the knock-on effect of reducing how many vehicles make it onto the used market even now that production capacity is back to normal, which continues to allow these escalated prices. Lather, rinse, repeat. Auto executives have not been shy about proclaiming that they have no interest in returning to a volume-based business. They eventually might have no choice, especially with Chinese manufacturers starting to make inroads, but for now they do believe they are better off with higher margins and fewer customers. As long as the USA remains the car bread and butter with a political climate that keeps out the competition they can hold out for a while. The risk of not offering a small, cheap car now is not buyers going to another brand, but buyers giving up on the idea of car ownership entirely and finding an alternative. Once they've become accustomed to other modes of transportation, they aren't apt to come back to owning a car. That is going to be a harsh realization when manufacturers are forced to compete on volume again. But, hey, current executives will have moved on by that point and the next guy can take the blame.
artisinal 1mo ago
Happy to live in a place where I can get anywhere without a car.
mikelitoris 1mo ago
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...
- Smoosh 1mo ago
  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?
RealityVoid 1mo ago
> The traditional, reliable cycle of a new wave of teenagers getting their driver’s licenses and buying cars is shrinking. Are these teenagers buying new cars in the room with us now?
- lopis 1mo ago
  It's about time they stop blaming us millennials for everything wrong.
- rapidaneurism 1mo ago
  The parents buy the new car and keep the older one for the teenager.
xyst 1mo ago
Maybe if companies actually cared for their employees, paid them more, provided excellent security, worked with unions. Maybe it won’t all come crashing down. Maybe if the venture capitalists private equity, and their billionaire handlers didn’t fuck around with every industry that working people depend on. Then maybe the flow of goods would continue. Maybe if C-level idiots invested profits into the companies rather than in short term gains (ie, stock buybacks). Then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation where a collective <1% of people own a majority of the capital. If we had a government that actually cared about the welfare of its citizens, we wouldn’t have to depend on companies that enshittify their products and betray their founding principles. Imagine an ecosystem where you didn’t have to force yourself to go to a shitty job you hate because you depend on it for healthcare (fuck private health insurance), an income, and other needs. America is the richest country in the world yet a majority of citizens are pushed to the brink of poverty despite working 40+ hrs.
autoexec 1mo ago
> 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 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 lights and school buses. They haven't even come close to replacing the private cars in the few areas where they do operate. Most people like to be able to go wherever they want whenever they want without begging someone else to come and get them then waiting around for the ride to show up. They like to keep stuff in their cars. They like not having to worry about availability or surge pricing/price gouging or that a lost phone or dead battery or broken app will leave them stranded. If anything will keep Americans from buying new cars it will be because they can't afford them. You can bet it won't be the sudden popularity of "Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft"! One reason I'm starting to see turn people away from new cars are the anti-features. My next new car will already be an old car because I don't want a camera recording my face the entire time I drive, or microphones recording my conversations, or basic controls buried in touchscreen menus, or features that cause my car to brake unexpectedly or jerk the wheel suddenly from under my hands, or make me pay a monthly subscription fee for anything. I don't want a car that gets software updates over the air. I don't want it internet connected at all. I want my car to work for me and do what I tell it to do.
- bryanlarsen 1mo ago
  The article isn't talking about total number of cars in America, which likely won't go down substantially. It's taking about new car sales. If people start using robotaxis more, the car in their driveway gets used less and replaced less often. Old people own as many cars as young people, but drive less so replace less frequently.
- testing22321 1mo ago
  > 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 lights and school buses (2007) The idea that smartphones will replace landlines in the next 20 years is laughable. The CEO of the biggest competitor even wrote it off as too expensive. Same identical story with reusable rockets, right down to the competition saying it will never happen. Same identical story with other industries and products. My point is, When it happens, it will happen fast. Also cars are even more likely to do this because you have to Keep in mind that outside enthusiasts, nobody wants the expense and hassle of private car ownership. They want the convenience of personal transport, but they’re stupidly expensive. The first company that gives the mass market what they want at scale will be massive.
whatever1 1mo ago
Regular people have less real disposable income than before, and risky financial products can only conceal the truth for a certain period. Eventually, the truth will emerge, possibly with the collapse of the auto subprime loans and the car financing industry.
mlhpdx 1mo ago
Fewer people means fewer cars, and I’m confident the auto company leaders know this very well. But what to do? Don’t build factory capacity and manifest decline? Not likely. They’re betting success will find a way and those factories will be needed. It’s all they can really do.
sohrob 1mo ago
Cars have become obscenely expensive and auto makers seem to be incorporating more and more planned obsolescence into their designs, so I've decided I'm just going to keep driving my aging car for as long as I can and maybe just get an e-bike for short trips to the market. It really feels like the auto industry is made up of dinosaurs who don't see the asteroid coming their way.
- quantified 1mo ago
  Cargo e-bikes seem like the ideal platform for fair-weather suburbia.
bryanlarsen 1mo ago
Will robotaxis actually reduce demand? A taxi that does 10X as many passenger miles a day as a normal car may theoretically replace 10 cars but because of dead heading might be traveling more than 10X as many miles. Cars today have an approximate lifespan of 200,000 miles. It might take a set of conventional owners 20 years to hit that, or a taxi company 2, but either way it's getting replaced after 200,000 miles. The taxi might be in slightly better shape, but taxi customers have higher expectations than buyers of 15 year old cars. Replacing 1/10 the number of cars 10x as often is the same demand. With EV technology it should be possible to design a million mile car. Electric motors can easily do that, and LFP batteries can get close. But interiors and suspensions still cannot do a million. When we see interiors made out of the same materials as subway cars, that might be a sign of future lowered demand.
HardwareLust 1mo ago
They don't care because they know Uncle Sam will bail them out with billions of tax dollars because they're "too big to fail".

48 points by avonmach 1mo ago

... in the US The very first line begins: Take a look around the American automotive landscape Which seems is a prevailing mindset of the US administration (which infects those at lower, but still leadership, levels due to the short term legal and financial 'influence' of the administration): Denial of the changing world. Classic uber-conservatism, which works until it, explosively or revolutionarily, breaks. The ripples of which affect the innocent most of all. (I'm more progressive than conservative, for roughly my own definition of what those loaded terms mean, but I'm also aware of the social problems caused by uber-progressiveness, which bumps up against humanity's basic resistance to change, or too much change too quickly). The world kinda feels stuck between the 'uber' of both sides, with very little conversation covering the majority middle.

testing22321 1mo ago

All the major US OEMs are dead companies walking. Even the CEO of Ford said if Chinese automobiles are allowed into the US it will be the death of US manufacturing. Total acknowledgment US vehicles are inferior, but no desire or drive to compete, only stifle. It’s sad, and the outcome is entirely predictable.

BLKNSLVR 1mo ago
... and inevitable. It's even predictable and inevitable based on that fundamental tenet of capitalism: the market. It's weird kinda knowing what the outcome is going to be, but not knowing exactly how we're going to get there and how long it's going to take. Feels like it's all in slow motion.
- testing22321 1mo ago
  I also want to hold a short position on them, but the number of times they’ll be bailed out is essentially infinite, so that won’t work.
  - BLKNSLVR 1mo ago
    Go short soon before the next US election maybe? But you're right in terms of, if they don't get bailed out it could bring pain to certain demographics that any side of politics doesn't want to get blamed for. It's hard to see either side making the difficult decision to inflict mid-term pain for, maybe, very long term gain. Not a concept voters will accept. Need a consolidation auto-makers in the US to maybe rationalise things a bit?
neogodless 1mo ago
It will be interesting to watch such predictions play out. I'll guess that it's not quite like that. First, propaganda is powerful, and people buy based on what they believe. And right now, U.S. car buyers do not universally believe that EV is better than gas/hybrid, nor do they believe the cheapest car is best, or that features are the only thing that matters. In fact, they go to a dealership, probably for a brand they are already somewhat loyal to, or the marketing worked. And they buy whatever their monthly payment allows, even if it's a lot more car than they need. Second, they like big "American" cars like pickup trucks and huge SUVs. Take a look at how many full-sized pickups are sold every year in the U.S. Until the foreign-made full-sized electric trucks are palatable and competitive with what U.S. buyers are currently buying, those OEMs will continuing making and selling them.
- testing22321 1mo ago
  > Second, they like big "American" cars like pickup trucks and huge SUVs Do they genuinely like them, or do they just not know they could have it better? Even the people that speak loudest against universal healthcare quickly turn to go fund me when life happens.

owyn 1mo ago

"Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft are on track to provide urban air transit within the next few years, targeting the high-margin commuters who traditionally buy premium vehicles." Okay. So... flying cars? Don't think so. Robotaxis make sense where taxis make sense and you can get by without a car already. The demographic decline is real.

justaman123 1mo ago
They are talking about unmanned drones that operate as flying taxis. They have them in China. We will never have flying cars after 9/11 showed how flying objects can damage property.
- tyre 1mo ago
  It's not 9/11 that will kill it but people not wanting 2 tons of metal flying overhead. The occasional helicopter is one thing. Having hundreds of these flying around, when one can clip a building from a gust of wind and go plummeting into bystanders is a no-go. Not to mention the noise. Residential neighborhoods will ban these immediately (and some won't have a choice because they have, you know, trees.)
kimixa 1mo ago
There's the simple physics of a vtol craft when landing needing to push down a lot of a air very fast just to lift an average human - plus the weight of the craft itself. There's a reason helicopters today don't land on street corners even if there's no rotor clearance issues. And these "personal" VTOLs don't seem any lighter than a helicopter of a similar size - for example the "Air One" is twice the mass of a Robinson R22 - ~400 vs ~970 kg empty. The idea that they would be common enough to seriously disrupt "personal transport", even restricting to the "premium" market as it's known today is crazy. Imagine a fancy party where every 10 seconds everyone on the red carpet is being blown away by the backwash of someone landing - also disrupting everyone else trying to land there at the same time.

mpfh 1mo ago

[dead]

mg 1mo ago

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 old "Thing will become more useful so we'll make less of it" argument. No mention of Jevons Paradox? If we can travel and send stuff around from point A to point B cheaply and instantly by dropping ourselves or an item into an ocean of cars roaming our streets autonomously, there is a lot more demand for rides. Also comfortably traveling longer distances might alter where we live. If we can walk out the door, sit down in a comfortable robotaxi right away and exit in the city center 10 minutes later, we might not have to live right in the city center anymore. Another driver for more demand.

croes 1mo ago
Where do the cheap cars come from? Fuel and electricity aren’t free
margalabargala 1mo ago
I doubt that here. Cars are already near saturation, at least in the US. Essentially everyone has a car. The car is mostly idle. If car availability starts to approach instant then people don't need personal vehicles that are idle 95% of the time. Car quantity overall goes down unless you can 20x current utilization, which is a lot of trips and fuel. Not to mention that if anything resembling current quantity of extant cars becomes the current quantity of cars using roadways at a given moment, most cities will gridlock. If the thesis is "cars will approach 50% or greater utilization" then car numbers must drop barring a massive increase in road capacity for which the land does not exist.
- ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
  > If the thesis is "cars will approach 50% or greater utilization" then car numbers must drop barring a massive increase in road capacity for which the land does not exist. You can build stacked roads a few levels up. Capacity doubles or triples without any significant land use.

magic_hamster 1mo ago

A few points worth contending. First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. 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. Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so. The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily. The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there. The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines. Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.

ExoticPearTree 1mo ago
> 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 innovation stiffling with more regulation.
- ajmurmann 1mo ago
  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

quijoteuniv 1mo ago

« Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft are on track to provide urban air transit within the next few years»

swarnie 1mo ago
Just a couple thousand years of ground/wheel based infrastructure to rework in that few years. Better get to it.

usernametaken29 1mo ago

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.

lelanthran 1mo ago
> 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. The car manufacturers could have staved this off - they keep developing new models with little to no marginal improvement. Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, there's literally no reason for a new model to drop, but here we are with new models dropping every 5 years, using parts that don't fit the old model! Maybe if they were dropping only new types of cars (say, EVs), I could see a need, but there's no reason a 2010 Toyota has to be replaced by a 2024 - you have the jigs, the factory, the supply chain for parts already. Just keep making it and charge less.
- reverius42 1mo ago
  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 the market demands is that Toyota is selling tons of new vehicles, despite the 2010 Toyotas still being available (used) for a lot less money.
  - lelanthran 1mo ago
    > 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 new Toyota cost today if billions of dollars were not spent in designing a whole new car, with all new incompatible parts, and all-new jigs? Would we still be looking at $40k for a brand new car?

pmontra 1mo ago

You sell less to people living in the cities but maybe you sell more to the operators of fleets of rental cars, even self driving if that really becomes mainstream. Not enough to match the decrease of sales. You keep selling to people living in countryside, where you don't go anywhere without a car and where fleets of cars would have to be very large to be able to cover the territory in a meaningful way. There will be less and less people living there but it could affect the kind of cars that are manufactured. By the way, a self driving car would be very useful to elderly people living in their house far away from the nearest town. In any case, less cars.

echelon 1mo ago
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.
- lopis 1mo ago
  > People in cities demanded EVs, yet didn't show up to keep buying them. That's only natural, because two kinds of people want EVs in cities (with some overlap). The first kind wants less noise, less pollution and fewer gas stations inside the city - they want other people to buy EVs, but don't want a car themselves. The second wants to own an EV because it's green and efficient.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 1mo ago
    > The second wants to own an EV because it's green and efficient For suburbanites with off-street parking, overnight charging and few road-trips or long distance commutes, an EV is these days simply more convenient to operate, and has cheaper total cost of ownership. For many people, the case for an EV is simply pragmatic - better convenience and cost.
- King-Aaron 1mo ago
  > Car companies build for suburbanites. And for $100, where are the majority of consumers often located

jmward01 1mo ago

Technology is a fickle thing. The first production passenger car was created in 1886. The model t came out in 1908. We have had cars for 150 years, but that doesn't mean that they will be the standard for the next 150 years. In my life I have seen the land line telephone and radio go from core fixtures in a house to rare techno-memorabilia. (My house actually has a telephone nook. How many houses have tv nooks built for old CRT displays that will never be needed?) If you told me 25 years ago I wouldn't have a land line in the future I would have been shocked. Now it is ridiculous to even consider getting one and I haven't had one for a decade. Can you even buy a land line phone anymore? Transportation is going through many massive changes right now. I haven't driven to the office in a decade. Huge segments of the workforce are migrating to exoburbs because they don't need to drive to work anymore. My son hasn't mentioned wanting to drive. My neighbor's kid flat out says she doesn't want to learn (both will be able to soon) and many of their friends don't want to learn either. There is a generation growing up far less invested in the car than the generation before them. Some of the points in this article may not be perfect, predicting the future is a fools bet, but it sure feels like the trend they are bringing up is real.

gmerc 1mo ago

Capitalism. Once you Acknowledge the problem, you're gonna get punished

Rover222 1mo ago
This anti-capitalism mind virus is concerning.

win311fwg 1mo ago

Some car companies are purposefully positioning themselves to have fewer customers as they've learned that they are much more profitable selling a small number of high margin vehicles to a few people instead of a large number of low margin vehicles to a lot of people.

tonyedgecombe 1mo ago
It used to be that they were happy to sell small cheap cars to new buyers because it would build brand loyalty. I'm not sure people are so wedded to car companies now though, especially so when so many brands are owned by a handful of companies. Small cheap cars have been disappearing from the ranges of most manufacturers.
- win311fwg 1mo ago
  Manufacturers were also in competition with the used market. A small, cheap car was there to try and attract budget-conscious buyers towards something new instead of something used. But then COVID shutdowns interrupted the supply of cars. At one point, used cars were selling for more than equivalent new models. That allowed manufacturers to crank up the price of new vehicles, which has had the knock-on effect of reducing how many vehicles make it onto the used market even now that production capacity is back to normal, which continues to allow these escalated prices. Lather, rinse, repeat. Auto executives have not been shy about proclaiming that they have no interest in returning to a volume-based business. They eventually might have no choice, especially with Chinese manufacturers starting to make inroads, but for now they do believe they are better off with higher margins and fewer customers. As long as the USA remains the car bread and butter with a political climate that keeps out the competition they can hold out for a while. The risk of not offering a small, cheap car now is not buyers going to another brand, but buyers giving up on the idea of car ownership entirely and finding an alternative. Once they've become accustomed to other modes of transportation, they aren't apt to come back to owning a car. That is going to be a harsh realization when manufacturers are forced to compete on volume again. But, hey, current executives will have moved on by that point and the next guy can take the blame.

artisinal 1mo ago

Happy to live in a place where I can get anywhere without a car.

mikelitoris 1mo ago

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...

Smoosh 1mo ago
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?

RealityVoid 1mo ago

> The traditional, reliable cycle of a new wave of teenagers getting their driver’s licenses and buying cars is shrinking. Are these teenagers buying new cars in the room with us now?

lopis 1mo ago
It's about time they stop blaming us millennials for everything wrong.
rapidaneurism 1mo ago
The parents buy the new car and keep the older one for the teenager.

xyst 1mo ago

Maybe if companies actually cared for their employees, paid them more, provided excellent security, worked with unions. Maybe it won’t all come crashing down. Maybe if the venture capitalists private equity, and their billionaire handlers didn’t fuck around with every industry that working people depend on. Then maybe the flow of goods would continue. Maybe if C-level idiots invested profits into the companies rather than in short term gains (ie, stock buybacks). Then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation where a collective <1% of people own a majority of the capital. If we had a government that actually cared about the welfare of its citizens, we wouldn’t have to depend on companies that enshittify their products and betray their founding principles. Imagine an ecosystem where you didn’t have to force yourself to go to a shitty job you hate because you depend on it for healthcare (fuck private health insurance), an income, and other needs. America is the richest country in the world yet a majority of citizens are pushed to the brink of poverty despite working 40+ hrs.

autoexec 1mo ago

> 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 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 lights and school buses. They haven't even come close to replacing the private cars in the few areas where they do operate. Most people like to be able to go wherever they want whenever they want without begging someone else to come and get them then waiting around for the ride to show up. They like to keep stuff in their cars. They like not having to worry about availability or surge pricing/price gouging or that a lost phone or dead battery or broken app will leave them stranded. If anything will keep Americans from buying new cars it will be because they can't afford them. You can bet it won't be the sudden popularity of "Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft"! One reason I'm starting to see turn people away from new cars are the anti-features. My next new car will already be an old car because I don't want a camera recording my face the entire time I drive, or microphones recording my conversations, or basic controls buried in touchscreen menus, or features that cause my car to brake unexpectedly or jerk the wheel suddenly from under my hands, or make me pay a monthly subscription fee for anything. I don't want a car that gets software updates over the air. I don't want it internet connected at all. I want my car to work for me and do what I tell it to do.

bryanlarsen 1mo ago
The article isn't talking about total number of cars in America, which likely won't go down substantially. It's taking about new car sales. If people start using robotaxis more, the car in their driveway gets used less and replaced less often. Old people own as many cars as young people, but drive less so replace less frequently.
testing22321 1mo ago
> 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 lights and school buses (2007) The idea that smartphones will replace landlines in the next 20 years is laughable. The CEO of the biggest competitor even wrote it off as too expensive. Same identical story with reusable rockets, right down to the competition saying it will never happen. Same identical story with other industries and products. My point is, When it happens, it will happen fast. Also cars are even more likely to do this because you have to Keep in mind that outside enthusiasts, nobody wants the expense and hassle of private car ownership. They want the convenience of personal transport, but they’re stupidly expensive. The first company that gives the mass market what they want at scale will be massive.

whatever1 1mo ago

Regular people have less real disposable income than before, and risky financial products can only conceal the truth for a certain period. Eventually, the truth will emerge, possibly with the collapse of the auto subprime loans and the car financing industry.

mlhpdx 1mo ago

Fewer people means fewer cars, and I’m confident the auto company leaders know this very well. But what to do? Don’t build factory capacity and manifest decline? Not likely. They’re betting success will find a way and those factories will be needed. It’s all they can really do.

sohrob 1mo ago

Cars have become obscenely expensive and auto makers seem to be incorporating more and more planned obsolescence into their designs, so I've decided I'm just going to keep driving my aging car for as long as I can and maybe just get an e-bike for short trips to the market. It really feels like the auto industry is made up of dinosaurs who don't see the asteroid coming their way.

quantified 1mo ago
Cargo e-bikes seem like the ideal platform for fair-weather suburbia.

bryanlarsen 1mo ago

Will robotaxis actually reduce demand? A taxi that does 10X as many passenger miles a day as a normal car may theoretically replace 10 cars but because of dead heading might be traveling more than 10X as many miles. Cars today have an approximate lifespan of 200,000 miles. It might take a set of conventional owners 20 years to hit that, or a taxi company 2, but either way it's getting replaced after 200,000 miles. The taxi might be in slightly better shape, but taxi customers have higher expectations than buyers of 15 year old cars. Replacing 1/10 the number of cars 10x as often is the same demand. With EV technology it should be possible to design a million mile car. Electric motors can easily do that, and LFP batteries can get close. But interiors and suspensions still cannot do a million. When we see interiors made out of the same materials as subway cars, that might be a sign of future lowered demand.

HardwareLust 1mo ago

They don't care because they know Uncle Sam will bail them out with billions of tax dollars because they're "too big to fail".