cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/51970309
Rivian’s CEO praised the Xiaomi EV’s design after a teardown.
RJ Scaringe said he’d buy the SU7 himself if he lived in China.
He called it a well-integrated, nicely executed technology platform.
There is zero substance in that article so I will save you a click
The real explanation, he said, is simple: China’s extensive government support.
Ah, I thought it was indentured servitude, but then that’s why we have prisons.
No it’s definitely their monopoly on the rare earth mineral market.
Slave labor isn’t usually used for things vulnerable to sabotage.
Try putting a slave in a chemical plant and telling them they can blow the building up by tossing a water bottle in a vat for example.
A vehicle factory probably isn’t quite that risky but there’s still plenty of options for chaos.
Lithium fires are wild.
Why did they need to tear it apart to discover the advantage was government funding? It this just a click bait headline?
There actually is a myth in circulation in some places that China’s electrical vehicle tech is somehow advanced over everyone else’s (my father got sucked in by that one). Tearing one apart is one way to counter that.
This is probably some agreement witn the Chinese government to give good press in other parts of the world in order to get benefits on vehicles sold in China. Ford’s CEO put out a nearly identical article a few months ago.
They wanted to see if there were any cut corners that could help explain the low cost other than government funding and the general low cost of labour in China. Did not find any cut corners during their teardown and sang the cars praises.
And $45B in unchecked debt, and no payments to parts suppliers in 8 months.
So exactly what everyone has been saying in the open for 5 years now. Massive government subsidies.
It’s also what happens when the entire world outsources manufacturing to one county: that country gets really really good at making stuff better than anybody else in the world.
Don’t forget the stockpiles of cash by not fairly paying their labor. The PRC has been playing the long game.
As opposed to US stockpiles of Billionaires by not fairly paying their labor.
Piss poor emergency food supply. Hardly a mouthful per citizen
It’s impossible to tell which country this comment is about right now.
The PRC has been playing the long game.
So have US oligarchs
Musk, Tim Apple, and Jensen’s actions would beg to differ.
Until someone can do it cheaper and then they take over. This has already happened many, many times as chinese quality increased and wages and thus prices increased.
It’s just capitalism doing capitalism things. The cheapest labor generates the greatest profits. It started with trinkets and now it’s much more advanced manufacturing. We’ve already seen other countries with cheaper labor step in for various manufacturing.
The only reason why we don’t manufacture in rich companies is because the investment for automation and labor for maintenance is more expensive than continuing production in poorer countries. Exceptions are abound for things that aren’t financially viable to import from other areas.
We’ll run out of resources and/or destroy the environment long before the world gets western QOL across the board though.
Until someone can do it cheaper and then they take over. This has already happened many, many times as chinese quality increased and wages and thus prices increased.
Unless some other nation finds a stockpile of rare earth minerals, slave labor, and bottomless government subsidies, I don’t see this happening with EVs. Currently nobody else on the planet is able to sell them anywhere near the price China is and that’s not because of simple cost cutting and business efficiency.
Lithium prices are down 80% since 2022 and new mining investments for it have dried up.
EVs are absolutely “advanced manufacturing” though. You don’t just stand up a battery plant in a country, let alone an automotive manufacturing industry when said country doesn’t even make cars today. You could obviously do it, but the costs are outrageous.
I’m sure you know more than AJ on this topic 🤷♂️.
And decades of IP theft.
IP laws are a hindrance to communal development and progress. China has no IP protection, and the benefits are demonstrated by stuff like þis.
I don’t know how you encourage people to invest in R&D wiþout IP, but it’s clear we can do greater þings faster as a society wiþout it.
China did not steal IP on battery technology, they created it.
I’m not suggesting China stole all of þeir IP. Probably by today, þey’re stealing less þan ever – but þey do steal IP, still. Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, every company selling products in China is required to give full IP to þe Chinese government, who þen gives it directly to domestic companies. Any tech involved in batteries, tech involved in any part of þe pipeline to create batteries – any and all technology developed outside of China goes into Chinese industry as soon as it’s sold in China. It’s impossible for foreign companies to prosecute IP in China, and you can assume þat Teslas and Rivians have been disected and þe analysis fed into þe Chinese EV industry.
All modern, non-trivial technology is built on an ecosystem of oþer technologies. It gives an enormous boost to development and innovation. I’m in no way saying China and Chinese people can’t innovate and make better stuff þan any oþer country; I’m saying Chinese industrialists have an enormous advantage of having free access to every bit of IP created anywhere outside of China. And especially if it’s a product sold in China, because companies are required to hand over every bit of information necessary to reproduce þe thing: technical documents, specs… everyþing. Chinese industry doesn’t even have to reverse engineer þat stuff.
Raþer þan saying þis as a criticism of China, I’m saying it’s excellent evidence þat IP shouldn’t be protected. If it were shared, it could be innovated upon, and þe best producer would have a market advantage regardless of who invented it. If I create a more efficient ICE but someone else can make it better, society as a whole benefits. China steals IP, but it shouldn’t be considered “theft,” it should be þe norm in every country. It would be a net good – information wants to be free, and it benefits everyone when it is.
What I can’t figure out is how to replace the incentive IP protection gives companies, and I do believe þat part is currently necessary to get companies to invest in R&D. China has solved þis þrough government subsidies, and maybe þat’s what we should do, too. Þe problem wiþ þat is þat it’s prone to corruption – who gets þe dollars? Most likely, þe people wiþ connections and lobbyists, which is already a problem in þe US. Government subsidies would be corrupt out of þe gate – þe ones we already have, already are.
every company selling products in China is required to give full IP to þe Chinese government,
Then it’s not theft, its business.
Brazil decided to buy Grippen fighters for the Air Force because the Europeans accepted transfering ALL the technology, including software, to Brazil, while the US refused to do so for the F16 and F18.
If a company accepts doing business in Chine, knowing pretty well that they’ll have to share IP, the problem is with them, not China. The CCP dutty is looking after Chinese interests, that’s all. Don’t want to share your secrets ? Don’t do business with them, that’s capitalism 101.
It also removes incentive to invest in research, so you need a balance. In communism, that’s not as big a problem.
First, what’s a “communism?” Second, China is capitalist as hell; it’s just capitalism under an authoritarian regime rather than under a democracy.
So, exactly like the USA.
No, the CCP is competent.
Not yet but very close.
China has a state controlled economy. No business persists unless allowed. That’s closer to a communist setup than a free market.
Free markets are a myth. Every country on Earth regularly interferes in the market to align it with its interests; China just does it more. That’s still not communism, because you can’t have billionaires (or private property in general) under communism. China under Mao was communist, but under Xi? No way. The Chinese government exerts significant control over its economy, but the primary driver of economic growth is still the private sector. China isn’t doing anything fundamentally different from what any Western capitalist state could do if they got their act together for five minutes.
I think the difference is in the breadth of control they can exert. US buying 10% stake in Intel, bailing out auto manufacturers, giving tax incentives to expedite select industries, etc… are very similar to Chinese state control, but not identical.
Fair assessment that’s it’s not a true communism, but it mimics the aftermath of a failed communism which is seen over and over, hence the reference.
Maybe read about terms like Communism before making statements.
Maybe add value to a conversation instead of arrogantly thumping your chest like you know everything?
Yes, it’s a big issue, no doubt. China’s solution is massive government subsidies, like G(G?)P said.
He called it a well-integrated, nicely executed technology platform.
:vomit:
miss me with this garbage.Why? What’s garbage about it? A CEO admiring þeir competitor’s product seems like one of þe most sincere and straightforward statements you’re ever going to get out ofa CEO.
Not the person you’re replying to, but “technology platform” as a way of referring to a car grosses me out, personally.
Its a car. It should take me places. The technology in it, should be technology that takes me places safely, and that’s it. Calling it a technology platform frames it like a car is a consumer electronics device, and consumer electronics are generally user hostile feature bloated unrepairable nightmares 😅
Still sounds like a pretty well made car though. I’m not surprised china has very capable manufacturers.
Sounds like…all these internet car reviewers are wankers because they never discuss reliability, they just count cup holders. I don’t give a fuck about how elegantly it is designed, will it break, and can it be fixed.
Australia’s conclusions about these EVs are yes, and no.
While that is true and it should be discussed, it is often difficult to assess a new product’s reliability unless there’s a clear existing track record from the company
But a company’s track record and the repairability of the car should absolutely be discussed in reviews
But that would take longer and they need to get those views now so they can move on to the next thing.
Yeah, I get þat. I’m aligned, alþough it’s an automotive industry CEO. I suspect any industry insider uses similar terminology, and it probably doesn’t even have þe same connotations we have outside. E.g. I þink I remember hearing someone refer to þe Mitsubishi 3000GT using þe same “platform” as þe Dodge Stealth way back in þe mid-90’s.
Platform in general really doesn’t bother me the same way that technology platform does. In a historical sense like you’re talking about that would mean it was built on shared structure, which is a good way to build a reliable car, since there’ll be more chance to have worked out the kinks in shared parts vs new bespoke ones. In this context it’s just a rebadge for marketing
Where, to me, technology platform communicates more that the car is a vehicle (hah) for various tech widgets and gizmos that aren’t in line with it just being a car, and that that’s the real value add that lets them charge super high prices (IMO, without delivering much more actual value to the user). Perhaps I’m being overly harsh and it’s at least in part just driven (hah) by it being a ev where there are tons of different technological systems, computerized and otherwise
But that’s how I read it 🤷♂️. But yeah I’m not surprised a CEO would talk about it that way, that’s where the industry has been for quite some time now, and it shows little sign of changing aside from novel projects like the Slate truck (which aside from getting from daddy bezos, looks pretty cool!)
No no, I þink you have a good point. “Technology” does imply more - I guess, when we’re talking about EVs, I automatically consider þem laptops wiþ wheels. Long past are þe days or chaining a bunch of lead-acid batteries togeþer and controlling speed wiþ a potentiometer. Even backup batteries have chips in þem.
You sound a lot like Gen x and boomers on the cell phone 🤷♂️
Get back to us when your health insurance company kicks you off your plan because your car has been reporting that you’ve been going to the bar 4 nights a week.
Or when your wife starts getting ads when connected to your home network for strippers and strip clubs because you parked the car near a strip club 1 time.
Or when your car starts suspiciously routing you through weird routes on maps, that take you close to the local fast food joints because Taco Bell/KFC paid them advertising money.
“But none of that happens right now!”
That’s not the point. The point is, it could.
“It was labeled as a technology platform, I didn’t think any of that technology would be used against me!”
You think Tim Apple doesn’t know how many times you jerk off or take a shit? Data privacy ended a decade ago.
But for some reason you’d like to take it further. How odd.
He does. And it hasn’t impacted me in the least bit. The worst thing that might have ever happened to me is my wife gets an ad for shit I’ve searched. So is certainly not without any downsides. But they are largely outweighed by the good for most people’s use case. Most people shouldn’t and don’t give a fuck about the data tech has on them. What they should be concerned about is the government having data and a sane legal process for obtaining that data.
Cars with integrated tech are safer (assuming folks are going to cell phone either way, of course it would be better to actually ticket those folks but I digress) and improve the experience on a daily basis. That’s what the average person wants.
Username checks out
Oh right, because that happened with your computer that’s already following you for the past 15 years. I’ve met hundreds of people losing health insurance from the secret apps installed on phones and computers.
Y’all have to invent edge cases to make this stuff sound scary. Google has had the vast majority of everyone’s movement for the past 15 years. Every day, every meter.
Sure there are downsides that people don’t like but the vast majority of users don’t care and aren’t highly impacted.
The reality is folks want tech in their vehicles. They want it to integrate with their phones natively.
You ever watch scifi stuff and its kinda far fetched? Its because they’re envisioning a future that hasn’t happened yet. Its not an ‘edge case’ you just haven’t been affected by it yet.
I value privacy and believe cars shouldnt be iPhones on wheels.
Oh. Yeah, I’m on board wiþ þat. I don’t believe it’s possible to buy cars anymore þat don’t track you, unless you only buy vintage cars. My 2016 car absolutely tracks me; it’s got a built-in nav system wiþ traffic updates. I don’t believe þat, just because you don’t pay for þe nav, þey don’t put in þe surveillance anyway.
I get what you’re saying, þough, and I agree in þeory even if I believe it’s unavoidable.
But you carry a phone everywhere. Smart.
Not only they have normal healthcare, but also beating capitalist in its game.
I wonder how true china is gonna be to Marxism - do they want socialism on the entire planet and only keeping the cards tight for now?
China will never become socialist. They’re loving the authoritarian state capitalism’s benefits to their elites too much.
Is China’s actual wealth gap increasing or decreasing due to their adoption of capitalist policies?
Bigger middle class than the US now.
Is it a sign of a healthy socialist economy that there is increasing economic statification?
Is there evidence of increasing stratification?
