https://www.arm.com/markets/automotive/zonal-microcontroller....

The software that runs on these microcontrollers is not bug free. At the very minimum, having an OTA update fix a bug reduces the number of journeys with the bug by one vs driving to the service centre and wasting your own time.

Also, I realise it’s a common hn trope to want a technology-free car, but having a coffee at lunch time and watching Netflix on the big screen is one of the few times I get to myself in a post-child world. All of the infotainment technology is great to be honest, from the charging experience to the Apple Music integration.

Waiting for parts seems to be an industry wide problem at the moment, and my anecdotal evidence supports this with many people I know waiting for parts for their non-EV vehicles. My colleague was without his Ford Puma for 2 weeks due to waiting on a part.

Those people would have the choice of driving to the garage and waiting if they wished to. I chose for the home visit then cycled to work and came home to a fixed car.

The outcome of that investigation was predetermined.

The French government began pushing for tariffs. The Germans opposed the idea, but France turned out to have more political support on this issue. The EU needs a technical justification for tariffs, so the Commission launched an investigation. That investigation came to the conclusion it needed to in order to justify the policy that had already been decided on at the political level.

The conclusions of the report are petty ridiculous. China has a much more competitive EV market than the EU does, and Chinese manufacturers are much lower cost as a consequence. When Chinese companies export EVs to Europe, they sell them at a very substantial markup, which is the exact opposite of dumping.

The types of subsidies the EU is complaining about are the exact same types of subsidies that EU countries themselves (and US states) give. They're things like government funding for charging infrastructure and sales-tax exemptions.

What damaged the EU cae makers was that they had a very good market in China, and Chinese EV makers could step up and make cars that were more desirable/affordable for their domestic market. The loss of profits in China is what hurt everyone, because that country alone is a very large market.

The car industry that closed factories all over Europe and sold expensive cars made in poor countries?

"Too big to fail" is not a product statement.

This is a disingenuous framing based on the mere fact that China continues to do business with Russia. China also continues to do business with Europe and Ukraine, so one can just as easily argue that China is helping Europe destroy Russia. Have you seen the number of Chinese-made commercial-grade drones used by Ukraine?

China is "destroying European carmakers" as much as your local supermarket A "destroying" supermarket B. It's called competition. As someone else said, Chinese subsidies have already declined, way way before the EU tarriffs went into effect, and the EU and US can also decide to subsidize their carmakers.

China was very late to the EV battery game and LFP was more or less their only choice, which was deemed inferior for EVs due to its low energy density, but whose core patents were all about to expire -- ie, great for exports. They are effectively patent-free now.

In short, the Chinese gov't essentially forced all key EV battery industry leaders to waive their IPR to access China's local market; then effectively banned them and forced their customers, EV OEMs, to switch to local Chinese battery suppliers, who were still learning to make batteries under MIIT's Regulation on Power Standard since 2015/2016 (announced/enforced). That's essentially how China came to corner the battery supply-chain and scale up/commoditize their production at the expensive of everyone else past 10 years.

1. Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buying local, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, the Wall Street Journal

  ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.

  ... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions.  That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.

  ... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”

3. The Key to Electric Cars Is Batteries. One Chinese Firm Dominates the Industry. Beijing built the world’s largest EV market, then pressured foreign car makers to use its batteries, Trefor Moss, Nov. 3, 2019, WSJ

  ... China is by far the biggest EV market, and to boost its standing in the fast-growing industry, China began pressuring foreign auto makers to use locally-made batteries

  ... Auto makers weren’t pleased, but they fell in line. During a visit to CATL headquarters in 2017, three Daimler AG executives displayed their irritation shortly after the meeting started, recalled Jiang Lingfeng, then a CATL project manager who prepared a technical briefing for the visitors. One Daimler executive cut off his briefing, said Mr. Jiang. “We’re not interested,” the executive said, according to Mr. Jiang. “The only reason we’re here is that we have no choice, so let’s just talk about the price.”

  ... Still, auto makers bridled at CATL’s dominance, according to Mr. Tsao, the former supply-chain manager there. CATL’s batteries also cost 25% more than those of leading rivals because the company was still learning to mass-produce cost-effectively, he said. “The price is high, and the service is slow,” he said, summing up CATL’s proposition to auto maker clients.

  ... “What the government did was a good thing for China,” said Mr. Jiang, the former CATL project manager. “Without its restrictions, I don’t think CATL would ever have been successful.”

All that to support cheap energy and overcapacity.

Europe is a very different story, the private capital is very conservative. They are not willing to gamble as US counterparts, and the states are not moving fast enough.

exactly. And i don't see how it is possible, since that's a leap, rather than small incremental gains.

This doesn’t take more than about 30 seconds of review. The CCP is making long term bets and demanding the private sector do as they’re told. It’s been obvious for a decade that renewable energy is the future. It’s been obvious that electrification of cars is happening whether legacy manufacturers like it or not.

The west can’t see past their next quarterly earnings result, and doesn’t have the stomach to make the long term investments the CCP has demanded of their own manufacturers.

Even Ford, who by all accounts is fully invested in electrification and is all in, has started to pull back because investors aren’t ok with an investment that might take a decade to pay off.

- karl marx, capital volume 1, chapter 25

you should read capital my guy

why is the assumption that all control must be equally shared? I question the premise competely. If you made it, or invested in it, you own it. It just means that the US made, invested or invented the value that the market deems to be 40-50% of the global marketcap.

Except now you are limited to your local market, while the much larger and more dynamic global market will grow and evolve without you.

Let's say, if USD/CNY drops by 20%, the advantage of Chinese products will be erased, if USD/CNY drops by 50%, Chinese industry will be destroyed

Basically, this is the most important method the US used to counter the challenge of Japan in the 1980s.

https://www.theverge.com/23030465/foxconn-lcd-factory-wiscon...

Is there a real appetite from the population for these jobs?

But neither are Hummers, yes they appeal to some people but you really don't see a lot of them out on the road.

Why are you changing the subject? I replied to your idea of nationalization.

> China has built arguably the most expansive HSR network basically from scratch in 10 years

The US is not China. We cannot do what they have done. There are dozens of reasons for this.

Again, go study the California high speed rail project, stop and think.

>> and bicycles <snip>.

> Not exactly what I would call a compelling argument.

The idea is ridiculous. Even countries that are known for bike rarely get to even 10% bike utilization. Do your research and do a little analysis. In the US, the idea is just plain ridiculous. Our town and cities are not built for bikes or mass transport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/m1vonk/how_many_pe...

>>> This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.

>> Given reality, this is irrelevant.

> Yikes.

Well, I am glad you learned something there. You have a lot more to understand yet. I mean, we can't even maintain our existing roads and you are talking about building entire new rail-based mass transportation systems. Again, while commendable in isolation, reality makes this either impossible or nonsensical.

I think a reasonably large fleet of self driving EV's is something that is within the realm of attainable reality in the US. If a robotic Uber-like service were to be available at a low enough cost, people might start to question owning cars or driving them all the time. That is also well within the practical reality of life in the US in most towns and cities. And that's within the realm of something that is attainable without having to rip-up and re-engineer every town and city in this country.

More importantly, this would not require a full electrification of our ground transportation system at a 1:1 scale; meaning, we will not need to replace 300+ million existing vehicles with 300+ million EV's. I have no clue what the right number might be. I could see a scenario where we end-up with 100 million EV's and 50 to 100 million IC vehicles in, say, 30 years. Most of the EV's might be robotic ride-share vehicles and the IC vehicles might serve special purposes.

That's the difference between ideas. What I am talking about is attainable and likely sensible. The energy, resource and ecological benefits are plain to see. Behavioral changes are not massive and align well with existing patterns. It might even save people money by making car ownership (and the insurance and maintenance that goes with them) less necessary. Etc. Trains and bikes will not ever work here. Nice dream. Not real.

Yes, I did work with high power electronics. However, I do not have any experience in grid-scale electrical components (large transformers, transmission lines, etc.). I would not be surprised to learn that a significant portion of this is sourced from China. This is certainly true of a large percentage of residential, commercial and industrial electrical components. Walk around Home Depot and see how many US made electrical components you can find.

I am not trying to be negative. Sometimes reality just sucks, and ignoring it does not lead to solutions.

Down to the chip internals level? And how about software qualification and threat analysis?

Remember what VW did with diesel cars?

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

In that case, eleven million cars were sold worldwide between 2009 and 2015. This makes me believe that automotive hardware and software don't really get scrutinized at a level necessary to prevent their use with nefarious intent. Perhaps the new potential reality will change this?

Imagine buying a bunch of Chinese humanoids to work at your factory. Now imagine how much you'd have to trust them. Do you? I am not sure I would.

Way back when the first Bamboo Lab 3D printer came out, I supported their project on Kickstarter and got a few of them. When delivered, we learned they had to connect to the Bamboo (Chinese) cloud service for everything, from printing to software updates and more. Returning them was not possible. We sold them all and got rid of the potential exposure.

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sVVbtEd64g

I come from an ex-communist country myself and I can tell you that what the political class was doing back then was definitely not "for the people". If you were part of the political elite (or a boot-licker) you had access to fancy things like cheese and chocolate, got to travel outside of the country, could occupy a good job, and other benefits.

I've seen corporations & billionaires run out of control like in the US where political bribery is legal and the government ends up catering to the 0.1% and not the majority of their constituents, and I'm not a fan of this, though I don't think the problem is democracy.

It's entirely different, since this doesn't happen in the West. When did a billionaire get disappeared for re-education in the West last time? When was one forced to stop an IPO or sell their shares?

I would agree that Vietnam is probably less communist than China. That doesn't really impact my point.

You can split hairs about marxist-leninist communism and politburos and some sort of pure economic communism, but that mostly seems like pedantry.