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.
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.
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’m sorry I’m confused by what you’re hinting at with this reply, you’re going to have to explain further.
To signal I’m mostly done with this conversation in any sort of productive way after hearing the absurd notion that I should reference sci-fi as some prediction or validation for at best, edge cases if not entirely made up scenarios while entirely ignoring recent backlashes and legal action over the past few years where manufacturers have been told that is explicitly not okay. Event the FTC got up off their asses and did something.
Just imagine thinking a few allegories over the years which have come true isn’t an absurd survivors bias and completely ignores the mounds of trash and shit that’s great and still got it wrong is absurd.
Sorry man, still confused, can you explain more?