Hacker News Reader

Comment by wffurr | Hacker News Reader

The Slate and Fathom are going to sell like hotcakes in the US.

I think the Fathom will outsell the Slate 10 to 1 despite costing more, because U.S. buyers have adapted to "luxury" in every trim level of vehicle. I mean, yes base level Corollas still sell quite well (but these days even those have features you dreamt about in a luxury sedan not too many decades ago.)

The Slate represents an ideology that combines the nostalgia of what trucks used to be (especially the Ford Ranger) with a modern EV powertrain, but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle, even if their eyes light up over the idea.

> The Slate represents an ideology that combines the nostalgia of what trucks used to be (especially the Ford Ranger) with a modern EV powertrain, but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle, even if their eyes light up over the idea.

I have debated this extensively with some friends. I *jumped* at the slate pre-order precisely because it doesn't have any 'luxury' trim options. I don't want to pay out the nose for a fancy infotainment system that will use the cheapest possible under powered electronics from a decade ago, run a 10 year old version of android that spies on me, gets no useful updates...etc.

I certainly have my biases but I suspect that most people only _tolerate_ most of the painpoints w/ the various 'luxury' items in their cars and if given the opportunity to start simple and upgrade they would.

> but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle

Perhaps. But if you put two options side-by-side and show people what they get at the two different price points, I'd bet that the ~30k slate compared to the ~ 50k typical new car price will get a decent chunk of people thinking about what _else_ they could do with 20k in savings.

>I'd bet that the ~30k slate compared to the ~ 50k typical new car price will get a decent chunk of people thinking about what _else_ they could do with 20k in savings.

The overwhelming majority of new car purchases is the US aren’t based on sales price, but monthly payment.

For the vast majority of buyers, an extra $50 a month for some luxury features is the easiest upsell in the world. They simply don’t think through the savings, they think “I want heated seats, better sound, etc”

I also think that the reason we see so many crew cab trucks is because people are well and over the "move front seat forward and then squeeze yourself into the back" rear passenger experience the market used to accept when coupes and extended cab trucks had significant sales. The Slate not having 4 doors is going to be a big deficiency when it's cross-shopped against the Fathom.

Everything that's cheap will sell like hotcakes, but that doesn't mean the companies selling them will make much profit from them.

There is more than one definition of "very successful". Maximizing shareholder value isn't everything.

Maximizing shareholder value is not the most important consideration. The most important consideration is don't go bankrupt. Once you have a product that sells, you can start asking, well how can I maximize shareholder value? But you have to make those sales in the first place or you're going to go bankrupt and that is far worse for shareholders than not getting maximum value.

Successful companies well understand they don't know exactly what maximizing shareholder value requires. They are always making small experiments to see what really works in the market. Many of those they know will fail and in turn cost shareholder value because of a bad investment. But you have to try bad investments in order to find one that is good.

It’s also important to remember that while some people talk like there’s a legal responsibility to maximize shareholders value which forces businesses to make decisions focused on short-term profits, those people are simply wrong. There’s an extraordinary level of deference given to executive discretion which means it’s quite rare to see successful lawsuits for anything plausibly good-faith. For example, right now there’s a fad to lay people off but any business which chooses instead to invest in their capacity is unlikely to even be threatened with a shareholder lawsuit because no court in the country is going to say that “we are investing in long-term capacity” was clearly wrong.

Constant growth is capitalism and it's so damned flawed.

I wonder if anybody wrote about this problem, like, a century and a half ago.

High volume, low margin is a completely legit strategy.

That works for foodstuffs but not the manufacturing industry. Because you know people need to eat, always. They don't need a new truck all the time.

I have a slate preorder but it's a niche vehicle. It's a small 2 door 2wd pickup that can't meaningfully tow and has a 200 mi range.

It's not going to appeal to people who want a truck as a symptom of fragile insecurities around their masculinity and that's a biiiig part of the US truck market

Reply on news.ycombinator.com