Tesla announced it had quit the FCAI on Thursday and Polestar followed it up on Friday, saying the FCAI campaign – driven largely by Japanese car makers led by Toyota – is intolerable.

Tesla and now Polestar’s announcement that they intend to leave the FCAI adds to mounting pressure on CEO Tony Webber who last month came under fire for threatening to run a 2010 anti mining tax style fear campaign against the government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.

The fossil car lobby group CEO claimed that the NVES would cost the entire car-buying public $38 billion in the first five years, which led to the AFR running a story titled “Labor’s new EV-boosting rules will cost $38b, auto group says” followed by Coalition leader Peter Dutton and Nationals Senator Matt Canavan parroting claims that the NVES would see the price of popular vehicles increase by up to $25,000. Claims that have been widely rejected including by the Electric Vehicle Council.

  • zurohki@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 months ago

    Nokia phones and Kodak cameras were huge once. Then technology advanced and they didn’t.

    • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      @zurohki @notgold In some ways, it’s also a tech standards war, a bit like VHS vs Betamax. Or HD-DVD vs BluRay. Or Windows Phone vs Android.

      Right now, it looks like most of the auto industry is going in the direction of BEVs, just like most of the home electronics industry went with VHS in the '80s.

      Meanwhile, Toyota is sticking with hydrogen.

      The best technology doesn’t always win a standards war. There are some benefits to green hydrogen cars over BEVs, just like Beta had some benefits over VHS.

      The problem with one company supporting one standard when the rest of the industry goes the other way is that it can get expensive.

      You have most of the economies of scale with the industry-leading technology. That tends to make it cheaper for consumers.

      You have a bigger ecosystem of companies and more infrastructure supporting the industry standard.

      That means a company that uses the non-standard technology typically has to do more work (and has more costs) to support it.

      At this point, Tesla doesn’t have to spend a lot of money to roll out its own EV charging stations, because there’s a growing ecosystem.of companies doing it.

      However, if hydrogen doesn’t become the industry standard fuel for cars and Toyota wants to stick with it, then it might need to cover some of the costs of rolling out hydrogen refueling itself.

      A company like Apple, which has a large and loyal customer base, can get away with charging customers more to use its own standards.

      I’m not sure Toyota does.

      None of that in itself means Toyota will go out of business. But it will be a lot more challenging.

      • zurohki@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The best technology doesn’t always win a standards war. There are some benefits to green hydrogen cars over BEVs, just like Beta had some benefits over VHS.

        As far as I can tell, the only benefit is green hydrogen can be faster to fill as long as the filling station has had a rest between cars.

        The disadvantages include some killers: the woeful energy efficiency ensures the cost of driving a FCEV can never be less than three times the cost of driving the same distance in a BEV, and that’s even if someone just waves a magic wand and a trillion dollars worth of hydrogen infrastructure appears out of thin air.

        Fuel cell EVs kind of make sense as plug-in hybrids, where you have around 80km of battery range for daily use and use hydrogen for longer trips. You need a lot less filling stations and spend a lot less time using expensive hydrogen that way, but that’s not Toyota’s vision.

        Comparing charging infrastructure and hydrogen infrastructure isn’t really an apples-to-apples comparison, because charging reuses a lot of pre-existing infrastructure. You can buy and drive a BEV with zero charging stations, just plugging it in to an outlet in your garage overnight. In the early days there was a lot of charging from caravan parks and the like. I’ve got a portable charger that plugs in to the three phase outlets you find in parks and showgrounds. There’s no hydrogen equivalent to any of that, 100% of your energy needs to come from a FCEV filling station.

        • No1@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Fuel cell EVs kind of make sense as plug-in hybrids, where you have around 80km of battery range for daily use and use hydrogen for longer trips.

          I get this. But my brain just can’t wrap itself around that you have the complexity and disadvantages of both systems in the one vehicle.too.

          I’m in the city. Apparently having batteries means you couldn’t drive far enough and would catch on fire lol. I was asking someone the other day how often they drove more than 50km from their home, and they looked at me like I was an alien. Full on tilt.

          • zurohki@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well, fuel cell EVs already need a battery because the fuel cell can’t do regen. So it’s already a hybrid, you’re just making the battery a bit bigger and adding a plug.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Microsoft are the main reason Nokia aren’t what they used to be, Kodak have nobody to blame but themselves.

      • lordriffington@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nokia dragged their feet on smart phones and paid the price. The fact that they went with Microsoft when they did start making smart phones almost certainly didn’t help matters, but they were already way behind at that point.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Eh, even today there’s a market for borderline indestructible phones with buttons, I don’t think they had entirely lost the plot.

          I do think they’d have caught up fast if it wasn’t for Microsoft.

          • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            @Ilovethebomb @lordriffington There’s a guy on the Fediverse named @tomiahonen who’s a former Nokia executive.

            The short version goes something like this: the first iPhone launched in the US as of 2007, the first Android by 2008.

            Nokia responded by making its Symbian operating system touch enabled, and working longer-term on a next generation operating system called MeeGo.

            By mid-2011, Nokia launched its first MeeGo phone, called the N9.

            Nokia was actually outselling Apple in smartphones, and it had a faster growth rate.

            It had great relations with most telcos around the world.

            All it had to do was persuade existing Nokia featurephone owners to upgrade to a MeeGo phone and it was set.

            Then Nokia hired an ex-Microsoft executive named Stephen Elop. He immediately signed Nokia up to go Windows Phone exclusive and called MeeGo a burning platform.

            He openly said that even if N9 was a massive success, there’d be no more MeeGo phones ever.

            The first Nokia Windows Phones came at the end of 2011, running Windows Phone 7. It was basically just Windows CE with a touch interface.

            Microsoft’s true response to iOS and Android was Windows Phone 8, and that didn’t come until right at the end of 2012, nearly 2013.

            (At this point, the iPhone had been on the market for five years, and Android for four years.)

            Why Windows Phone screwed up is a whole 'nother story, but Nokia went all in on what turned out to be a sinking ship, and the rest is history.

      • Bezier@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nokia’s phone division was very poorly led for a long time before Windows Phone happened.