[mertbio]

This deal reminded me the deal that Microsoft invested into Apple in 1997. Rivian has been struggling a lot recently (similar to Apple that time) and now they are going to have enough money to become the Apple of EVs while Tesla becoming the Android.

[nox101]

Will Tesla become the Android, vs say BYD? It's starting to feel more like Tesla will be the Nokia/Blackberry of cars.

[msoad]

Americans do not comprehend how advanced BYD and others are in EV. It's no accident that their government is fighting the import of Chinese cars

[PaulWaldman]

I understand the cost to the end user is much less, but in what ways is their technology more advanced?

[JumpCrisscross]

> in what ways is their technology more advanced?

BYD's technology, not so much--they're better at manufacturing cars in degrees compared to Tesla, not an order of magnitude.

The magic is at CATL and friends. There is a Cambrian explosion of battery technology in China that doesn't get reported super well in the mainstream press.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

What's going on with battery technology?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What's going on with battery technology?

Iron [1] and now sodium [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_batte...

[2] https://www.electrive.com/2023/11/20/byd-huaihai-move-on-pla...

[mensetmanusman]

Mostly cost reductions, there isn’t much room in the physics for higher energy density. Eg it will always be less than chemical energy density.

[nox101]

Cars that change in 10 minutes?

https://ev.com/news/byd-and-catl-set-to-introduce-ev-batteri...

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

How would that even be supplied? Megawatt circuits are the domain of industrial factories, not "gas" stations.

[JumpCrisscross]

> How would that even be supplied?

Capacitors.

[andruby]

The article states that it would need 650KW to charge at 6C rates.

Huawei has already announced 600 kW DC fast chargers: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Electric-cars-in-China/Chi...

[richardw]

Just one example:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/byd-to-introduce-new-second-ge...

They’re doing a lot of licensing to western companies.

[defrost]

Adding to the other peer reasons, staggering range of design styles and price points; executive class, cheap fun young cars, utility vehicles, etc.

[cyberax]

The UI is _miles_ ahead. And they are preparing to release a 1000 km (620 mile) range vehicle.

[bpodgursky]

Tesla is competitive (sales are not dominant, but OK, in China) but the other US automakers are truly f***.

[mensetmanusman]

It actually has more to do with war and realpolitik.

[ripjaygn]

So far the story has been Tesla being the Apple of EVs(pioneer, small number of premium models, lots of mindshare), BYD being the Samsung(cheaper copy of Tesla), and GM/Ford etc. being the Nokia/Blackberry(legacy volume manufacturers that did not pivot to the new thing in time).

[wazoox]

Tesla once looked futuristic, but now they're sorely lacking : automatic windscreen wipers still don't work properly (they work perfectly well on my 2005 Ford Focus, thank you), they now lack basic ergonomic features such as a turn signal lever, their "self driving" feature is horribly lagging behind most other makers (constant phantom braking still a recurring problem after years and years, no proper automatic overtaking, inferior speed control and speed limit enforcement, etc).

[sliken]

I've not had phantom braking for a year or so, I used to have one per week. I'm happy with the speed control. I like the display of current speed limit and use the scroll wheel to control the delta against the current speed limit.

I have FSD, but don't use it, so I don't let the car dry to automatically overtake anyone.

[wazoox]

There are apparently two things that particularly trigger phantom braking : bright sun and dark shadows on the road, for instance roads lined with trees are pretty bad; also flashing yellow traffic lights (normally means that you can simply proceed prudently, but apparently the Tesla system often interprets it as a "yellow about to turn red" signal and stops abruptly instead).

[ripjaygn]

> their "self driving" feature is horribly lagging behind most other makers (constant phantom braking still a recurring problem after years and years, no proper automatic overtaking, inferior speed control and speed limit enforcement, etc)

Who are these makers that allegedly outclass Autopilot/FSD?

[wazoox]

From all the tests I've made recently, BMW, Mercedes, BYD and Renault all do better than Tesla. Push the left turn signal, the car switches lane, accelerates and overtakes by itself. In the EU at least Teslas can't seem to get this right.

Also Teslas are among the lasts (with X-Peng) in their price range lacking a capacitive steering wheel (doesn't require moving the wheel, a light touch from time to time is enough to keep cruise control on).

And none of them suffers from the dangerous "phantom braking" defect, which occurs almost certainly at least once for any one-hour long trip.

[JojoFatsani]

Haven’t used it myself but every auto journalist YouTube video I’ve seen on SuperCruise says it’s the best in the class. I had the model 3 FSD thirty day trial, it was ok, but not $7000 ok.

As for Autopilot.. almost everybody has good lane keeping/radar cruise tech now. My 18 Acura was as good as Autopilot, and maybe better than “post LiDAR” autopilot.

[blacksmith_tb]

Haven't ridden in one, but I think Mercedes' Drive Pilot is supposed to be a contender:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/27/23892154/mercedes-benz-dr...

[ripjaygn]

Drive Pilot just follows the car in front and has several limitations, it doesn't even have overtaking, so I would be surprised since the parent poster says lack of automatic overtaking is a limitation.

Drive Pilot:

Works only when behind another car, it just follows that car

Cannot change lanes

Works only under 40MPH

Works only in daylight, does not work at night

Does not work in rain

Works only in traffic jams and heavy traffic

Works only on a few pre-approved roads

How is the world is FSD "severely lagging behind" this tech when FSD has none of these limitations?

Something weird about how the Mercedes tech is hyped up in message forums.

[blacksmith_tb]

Yes, it does have a lot of limitations, though I suppose one argument would be that if Mercedes isn't willing to do autonomy without a lot of caveats that's because they're risk averse (or at least their lawyers are).

[ralfd]

Tesla is at least profitable, while Rivian is losing $30000 with every sold car.

[unshavedyak]

Was. The Gen 2's have a very different internal cost. In theory it's much better, but i don't know if it's been said how much.

[dralley]

There's also the fact that VW is far behind the competion in electric vehicles and is staring down the barrel of Chinese EVs. A technology sharing agreement is part of this deal, so VW can leverage that to catch up with their own products.

Rivian focuses on a different segment of the market from most cars sold by VW Group (trucks, SUVs, the American market in general) so from Rivian's perspective they're not likely to be cannibalized.

[thesumofall]

I don’t think there is much evidence that they are far behind their competition in anything but sales. Efficiency of their latest models is good, software has improved a lot, and they are starting to return to their previous (good enough) quality levels. I think we are quickly approaching the full commoditization of EVs. At similar price points you get the same thing across all manufacturers. Maybe a bit more quality here, some additional software gimmicks over there, and the rest is just marketing, local patriotism, and branding. Add to that a sprinkle of varying regional adaptation

[dralley]

I think the whole vehicle industry is looking at a slightly milder version of the "Kodak problem". That is, the money is oriented towards the service aspects of the industry.

Kodak wasn't a camera company, they were a chemical company. Cameras and lenses were a loss-leader for selling film and the equipment and chemicals used to develop it. You can't just swap the products and make a little less money, it changes the entire business model.

Likewise a lot of these car companies make money on the long chain of maintenance as much as or moreso than the cars themselves. Electric cars come with a whole new business model. And the core competencies that are required are much different. Less precision machining and more electrical engineering

[magnuspaaske]

I think this is right. I don't have a car but I rent cars periodically and pick based on the UX more than the "tech" features. Most EVs are fast enough and have enough range that it doesn't really make a difference to the driving experience but the UX and all the screens do make a difference.

I like the Audi E-tron because I can mostly ignore or turn off the center screen and have everything important in front of me behind the wheel. The center screen on the Polestar 2 is a bit more pronounced but can be muted when switching to the music screen. Teslas and VW EVs have way to much happening in the center screen so I avoid those. It's sad to see Volvo go down the same path but a correction should be in order.

Anyways, all the tech is commoditised so you need something else to differentiate yourself. For me that's not a big center display to show how "tech forward" you are, as it ends up suggesting you're anything but.

[audunw]

I think in some ways VW group has more experience with making/selling EVs than Tesla. They might not have the volumes of a single model, but they’ve been selling a much wider range of models than Tesla has for a fairly long time now.

They still have a few years to improve their EVs, and when people really start to switch their gas cars with EVs in large volumes they have the benefit of being well established while having a wide range of model that can replace any of their old gas car offerings.

I’m not 100% sure that Teslas strategy of superoptimizing 3-4 bland models is a winning strategy in the very long run. People like to buy cars that fit their needs and personality.

Tesla is taking way too long to develop interesting models, and the Cybertruck, while interesting, might be too weird and flawed to be a big international success in the long run.

Though if the bet on robotaxis pay off, I could see Tesla being a huge success in the future as well. I’m just not sure if that’s going to actually happen. Or if Elon will bet too much of their development efforts on it too early, and thus run out of steam before it takes off.

[dzhiurgis]

> I’m not 100% sure that Teslas strategy of superoptimizing 3-4 bland models is a winning strategy in the very long run. People like to buy cars that fit their needs and personality.

Buying mass produced car is the most environmentally friendly way - it has least manufacturing, repairs, customisation footprint. I do agree people are sick of seeing same model 3/y everywhere which is depressing thought.

[oblio]

VW and all major car makers have platforms, which basically mean you get the same car, with a different skin, and a range of different accessories.

VW basically sells the same car through 4-5 different brands.

[dzhiurgis]

What percentage is the same?

Also, even if VW has a platform they still sell 10x less cars than Tesla.

[oblio]

> What percentage is the same?

Don't ask me, ask VW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_Group_platf...

A lot, I guess, otherwise VW wouldn't have become the #1 manufacturer in the world back in 2016 and wouldn't remain #2 even now.

> Also, even if VW has a platform they still sell 10x less cars than Tesla.

Be careful with that Reality Distortion Field, it's powerful stuff. No.

VW sold 5x more <<cars>> than Tesla (2023 data).

VW sold 60% fewer <<BEV cars>> than Tesla. VW sold ~800k, Tesla sold around 1.8m (also 2023 data).

The facts say:

1. VW has been using platforms for decades, they're good at it, they think they're preferable to having 1-2-3 models.

2. Their sales numbers for vehicles based on platforms seem to back up their thinking.

3. VW is slowly ramping up regarding BEV sales, but growing quite fast (~40% per year; about the same growth rate as Tesla).

4. Long term VW almost for sure will bridge the gap, they will be a major player for BEVs. Time will tell which position, exactly.

[ffsm8]

> Or if Elon will bet too much of their development efforts on it too early, and thus run out of steam before it takes off.

According to his own admission, they'd have been insolvent around the time he went on to promise full self driving and claiming that Teslas will be able to become unstaffed taxis in early 2010. Ballooning it's valuation and solving the solvency issue by selling of some stocks.

The only surprising thing is how people still but into it, over a decade later. Wanna bet there is going to be another large sell of Tesla stock after the latest announcement?

[dogma1138]

I don’t think VWs problem is technology. It’s very much pricing, look at the ID 4 and 3 in China vs Europe it’s half the price or less.

Yes there are differences in the models however the center console airbag doesn’t justify a 50% price bump.

Chinese EVs are eating the lunch of European manufacturers has nothing to do with tech. The MG EVs that are some of the best selling cars in many EU countries for example are objectively worse than any European competitor they are just substantially cheaper.

And unlike their Euro counterparts their base models are actually available for dealerships you can’t get a VW in the UK without tacking like 8-10K worth of addons onto it unless you want to wait for months.

[constantcrying]

>Rivian focuses on a different segment of the market from most cars sold by VW Group (trucks, SUVs, the American market in general) so from Rivian's perspective they're not likely to be cannibalized.

Couldn't be more wrong. VW is building up a direct competitor to Rivian.

[jeffhwang]

The similarities and differences with the 1997 MS-Apple deal are interesting. Arguably, the $150m that Microsoft invested was less significant than: (1) the vote of confidence to customers, 3rd-party developers, and investors that Apple would survive; (2) the commitment by Microsoft to continue developing/supporting MS Office and IE at a time when Apple did not have iWork equivalents or a browser like Safari yet.

Re: (2), even if there were alternatives like ClarisWorks being able to open and share MS Office documents was critical to keeping the Mac alive at that time. Plus, the web was one of the things that helped Apple survive the platform wars (i.e., proprietary document formats, two-sided markets, etc.). And whatever its imperfections, Internet Explorer was becoming the standard as Netscape lost share and this was before Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. the Mac needed a first-class browser and Microsoft committed to providing one for 5 years.

In contrast, while the cash, additional market for EV software, and vote of confidence is no doubt very valuable to Rivian, it would be an even more valuable if VW could provide some distribution or other advantages to get Rivian out of it's current hole.

[PaulWaldman]

What is the context where Rivian is Apple and Tesla is Android in this analogy?

[oblio]

There is no context, just wishful thinking.

[tim333]

I was going to say it's easier to make the argument that Tesla is the iOS equivalent and the others Android.

[constantcrying]

So what does VW get out of it? Anything specific from Rivian that they couldn't get otherwise?

[rasz]

Microsoft didnt "invest into Apple". Jobs forced Gates to settle multiple lawsuits (including outright stealing code and shipping it in Windows as their own) that if not settled would have killed MS a year later when DOJ pounced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_...

TLDR: Microsoft was stealing with help of Intel, both companies scared by QuickTime positioning Apple as the leader in Multimedia (1991 Adobe Premiere build by ex Quicktime engineer on Mac platform, 1991 Avid ported from Apollo $workstations$ to Mac). When Jobs came back in 1996 he didnt like (or couldnt afford) all the litigation and promptly settled for $ and Microsoft support commitment (Office, IE) in exchange for letting MS save face.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company

"David Boies, attorney for the DoJ, noted that John Warden, for Microsoft, had omitted to quote part of a handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million."

"Microsoft and Intel had been shocked to find that Apple's QuickTime product made digital video on Windows seem like continuous motion, and was far in advance of anything that either of them had, even in a planning stage. The speed was achieved by bypassing Windows' Graphics Display Interface and enabling the application to write directly to the video card. The result was a significant improvement over the choppy, 'slide-show' quality of Microsoft's own efforts. Apple's intention was to establish the driver as a standard for multimedia video imaging, so that Mac developers could sell their applications on the Windows and Mac platforms. Microsoft requested a free licence from Apple for QuickTime for Windows in June 1993, and was refused. In July 1993, the San Francisco Canyon Company entered into an agreement with Intel to deliver a program (codenamed Mario) that would enable Intel to accelerate Video for Windows' processing of video images."

"Intel gave this code to Microsoft as part of a joint development program called Display Control Interface."

"Canyon admitted that it had copied to Intel code developed for and assigned to Apple. In September 1994, Apple's software was distributed by Microsoft in its developer kits, and in Microsoft's Video for Windows version 1.1d."

https://web.archive.org/web/20091006022255/http://www.firing...

"FS: What was Microsoft's philosophy or attitude regarding games when you began?

Alex St John: Oh, it was completely nonexistent! During that time, their entire focus was on multimedia video, the primary mission of DirectX wasn't to benefit and push gaming, but simply to drive Apple and Quicktime into the ground."

[cyberax]

Tesla is Apple. They both have an asshole CEO who thinks that forcing users to adapt to his vision is the best path forward. They make incomprehensibly bad decisions (butterfly keyboard and stalk removal). They both are control freaks, etc.

Rivian is also Apple, but it just doesn't have any clout.

[mint2]

Musk’s whims are far worse than Job’s. Cybertruck, gull wing doors, X, S3XY, etc - musk is like a 13 year old middle schooler combined with Apple.

[fmobus]

Hard agree. Jobs was much better at this (being a control freak with weird ideas). I don't think the butterfly keyboard would've happened on his watch.

[oblio]

Musk is Jobs circa 1980. At least Jobs had the excuse of being 25 years old back then, I think Musk is 50...