Your reading of my post as "kissing Chinese ass" suggests you have an absurdly childish view of the world. So in just three posts in this thread, you've shown your childish, unable to string coherent sentences together consistently, and aggressive to people with opinions you don't like. Time to put the internet down, take a look at yourself, and decide if this is really the best you can manage for yourself. It's not a great look.
What I was getting at was that most Chinese people aren't particularly emotionally invested in the idea of cars having to have internal combustion engines to be good cars, by contrast with most Americans, who often are. I'm sure if there had been easier access (political, financial) to private cars for the past 30 years or more, then because those cars would have been ICE vehicles, Chinese people would be more strongly emotionally invested than they are today. But because that's not true, they are on average more comfortable about skipping ahead to EV tech than most Americans.
I'm sure this was both a sequitur and coherent in your own mind, but I can't make head nor tail of it. What a shame to be missing out on the pearls of wisdom you were undoubtedly dispensing
Because you're seeing only what you went looking for. China is a complex place with more than a billion people. There's lots that's wrong about it, and some things that are right. One of the things that's right is that they are making rapid progress on EVs and renewables. Stop whatabouting, you're getting it all over your shoes.
For EVs, charge is mainly dependent on the miles driven, not hours driven. Buses are typically fairly low mileage.
For example, in Shenzen, the deputy general manager at Shenzhen Bus Group says: "Most of the buses we charge overnight for two hours and then they can run their entire service, as the range of the bus is 200km per charge"
You have to be a special kind of stupid to answer a question about "when" with an answer about "how" -- and even more stupid to get your "how" answer wrong.
I think you think I'm disagreeing with you where I'm not! There's no way that a cabin in the woods could reasonably support 5 EVs charging in parallel. I don't think that's particularly about the Canadian weather; it's about electric grids and charging patterns etc. But I agree that this is a situation EVs can't work well in.
I hope you'd agree that it's quite unusual as a use case compared to, for example. suburban family second car for kids / errands / commute with off-street parking, which is pretty common, and suits EVs very well indeed.
My parent's garage in the UK has a 7 foot hole dug in the floor with planks over it, to enable repairs for cars. It was there when they bought the house, 45 years ago.
I think it's less about Canadian weather, and more about the kinds of activities you've just described: driving 14 hours, 10 cars at a cabin in the woods, 150km there and another 150km back for an afternoon*. Norway has the weather and the isolation, but I doubt that many people do those kinds of things -- I'm going to ask my Norwegian colleagues to see if it's very different from the UK, where I certainly don't know anyone who does this kind of stuff. We just drive a lot less in Europe, is my guess.
* 300km round trip itself is probably not an issue in a Tesla, even in winter. My little Zoe could nearly manage in the summer but not the winter. Zoe 2.0 would probably be OK with both.
Out of interest, what leads you to take 14 hour trips where you're stopping just to swap drivers? Living in the UK, that kind of driving is completely inconceivable to me. London to Manchester is a long trip for me (3 hours, depending on traffic). So my question is a real one, it's not some kind of hidden dig. I'm sure there's important cultural differences at play that I'm curious about.
All I'm trying to say is that you don't know they don't work for most. You have reasons why you think they won't, but consumers may choose to pay attention to different reasoning instead -- predicting consumer behaviour is notoriously tough, after all. We'll find out whether you're right when EVs are available at scale, in four or five years.
My reasoning, which may turn out no better than yours, is that consumer behaviour will reshape significantly to adapt to the idiosyncracies of EV charging, particularly as chargers become ubiquitous in all the places where cars are parked. But a significant minority of drivers will stick with ICE cars for many years to come. At least a decade.
Those 1bn customers bought iPhones so that, among other things, they could install apps without worrying they were going to break their phones, which is what Apple promises. Spotify want access to that, understandably, and the terms chafe, understandably. But tough.
It's in Spotify's gift to set differential pricing (ie X via the web or an Android store where Spotify isn't charged a fee, if such a thing exists; X+30% via the App Store). And of course, Spotify does set differential pricing, with both a free and a pay model. But Apple isn't obliged to facilitate direct payments to Spotify with zero cut for itself via apps curated and downloaded in its Store, no matter how much this outrages your conscience.
But you want Apple to provide you with a cheaper or free way to make your app available for its hundreds of millions of users to buy, right? And those hundreds of millions of users might well buy your app, because they trust that apps on the App Store aren't going to harm their phones, steal their data, etc, right? And that's because of Apple's role. That's what your 30% pays for.
Spotify are paying for the potential to make money from more than a billion active users. It's a revenue share each time this potential is realised. Apple put a significant amount of time and money into making the platform work and building up that 1bn+ user-base. Why should Apple let Spotify have access for free?
Oh, that's very generous of you on behalf of Spotify. Now, what do you propose Spotify should pay for the access Apple provides to 1bn+ active users who all enjoy a consistent experience with Spotify's app due to the iOS platform and for Apple's provision of the ability for each of those users to instantly pay Spotify money?
My two sons have five cars that are parked in the street. How are they to be charged if they are BEVs?
From a streetlamp charger. Or an on-street charger. Or a charger at the parking lot in the shopping mall, or at work.
Not there yet, but it's coming, and fast. The wires are already everywhere. It's just a matter of fitting outlets, beefing up infrastructure, and managing demand. Tough, but completely do-able.
Well, yes. But I'd say swapping drivers every few hours so you can keep driving 14 hours straight is a compromise. Hell, I'd say driving 14 hours in a day is a compromise! And not one I'd want to make.
The People, through their elected representatives.
Which People? Apple is a US-based multinational. Spotify is a Swedish-based multinational. Customers in many other jurisdictions may use Spotify on iOS. What first principles are you using to determine which People's will should prevail, if there is a conflict between companies and the jurisdictions have different rules for how the conflicts should be resolved?
Slashdot Mirror
You can make purchases at many places online with Apple Pay, in which case you get the 2% discount. But not all, for sure.
Your reading of my post as "kissing Chinese ass" suggests you have an absurdly childish view of the world. So in just three posts in this thread, you've shown your childish, unable to string coherent sentences together consistently, and aggressive to people with opinions you don't like. Time to put the internet down, take a look at yourself, and decide if this is really the best you can manage for yourself. It's not a great look.
What I was getting at was that most Chinese people aren't particularly emotionally invested in the idea of cars having to have internal combustion engines to be good cars, by contrast with most Americans, who often are. I'm sure if there had been easier access (political, financial) to private cars for the past 30 years or more, then because those cars would have been ICE vehicles, Chinese people would be more strongly emotionally invested than they are today. But because that's not true, they are on average more comfortable about skipping ahead to EV tech than most Americans.
I'm sure this was both a sequitur and coherent in your own mind, but I can't make head nor tail of it. What a shame to be missing out on the pearls of wisdom you were undoubtedly dispensing
They're BEVs, not trolley cars.
There's also a cultural thing that most Chinese people are a lot less emotionally invested in ICE cars than Americans.
Because you're seeing only what you went looking for. China is a complex place with more than a billion people. There's lots that's wrong about it, and some things that are right. One of the things that's right is that they are making rapid progress on EVs and renewables. Stop whatabouting, you're getting it all over your shoes.
For EVs, charge is mainly dependent on the miles driven, not hours driven. Buses are typically fairly low mileage.
For example, in Shenzen, the deputy general manager at Shenzhen Bus Group says: "Most of the buses we charge overnight for two hours and then they can run their entire service, as the range of the bus is 200km per charge"
https://www.theguardian.com/ci...
You have to be a special kind of stupid to answer a question about "when" with an answer about "how" -- and even more stupid to get your "how" answer wrong.
I think you think I'm disagreeing with you where I'm not! There's no way that a cabin in the woods could reasonably support 5 EVs charging in parallel. I don't think that's particularly about the Canadian weather; it's about electric grids and charging patterns etc. But I agree that this is a situation EVs can't work well in.
I hope you'd agree that it's quite unusual as a use case compared to, for example. suburban family second car for kids / errands / commute with off-street parking, which is pretty common, and suits EVs very well indeed.
My parent's garage in the UK has a 7 foot hole dug in the floor with planks over it, to enable repairs for cars. It was there when they bought the house, 45 years ago.
I think it's less about Canadian weather, and more about the kinds of activities you've just described: driving 14 hours, 10 cars at a cabin in the woods, 150km there and another 150km back for an afternoon*. Norway has the weather and the isolation, but I doubt that many people do those kinds of things -- I'm going to ask my Norwegian colleagues to see if it's very different from the UK, where I certainly don't know anyone who does this kind of stuff. We just drive a lot less in Europe, is my guess.
* 300km round trip itself is probably not an issue in a Tesla, even in winter. My little Zoe could nearly manage in the summer but not the winter. Zoe 2.0 would probably be OK with both.
Out of interest, what leads you to take 14 hour trips where you're stopping just to swap drivers? Living in the UK, that kind of driving is completely inconceivable to me. London to Manchester is a long trip for me (3 hours, depending on traffic). So my question is a real one, it's not some kind of hidden dig. I'm sure there's important cultural differences at play that I'm curious about.
All I'm trying to say is that you don't know they don't work for most. You have reasons why you think they won't, but consumers may choose to pay attention to different reasoning instead -- predicting consumer behaviour is notoriously tough, after all. We'll find out whether you're right when EVs are available at scale, in four or five years.
My reasoning, which may turn out no better than yours, is that consumer behaviour will reshape significantly to adapt to the idiosyncracies of EV charging, particularly as chargers become ubiquitous in all the places where cars are parked. But a significant minority of drivers will stick with ICE cars for many years to come. At least a decade.
Those 1bn customers bought iPhones so that, among other things, they could install apps without worrying they were going to break their phones, which is what Apple promises. Spotify want access to that, understandably, and the terms chafe, understandably. But tough.
It's in Spotify's gift to set differential pricing (ie X via the web or an Android store where Spotify isn't charged a fee, if such a thing exists; X+30% via the App Store). And of course, Spotify does set differential pricing, with both a free and a pay model. But Apple isn't obliged to facilitate direct payments to Spotify with zero cut for itself via apps curated and downloaded in its Store, no matter how much this outrages your conscience.
But you want Apple to provide you with a cheaper or free way to make your app available for its hundreds of millions of users to buy, right? And those hundreds of millions of users might well buy your app, because they trust that apps on the App Store aren't going to harm their phones, steal their data, etc, right? And that's because of Apple's role. That's what your 30% pays for.
Spotify are paying for the potential to make money from more than a billion active users. It's a revenue share each time this potential is realised. Apple put a significant amount of time and money into making the platform work and building up that 1bn+ user-base. Why should Apple let Spotify have access for free?
Oh, that's very generous of you on behalf of Spotify. Now, what do you propose Spotify should pay for the access Apple provides to 1bn+ active users who all enjoy a consistent experience with Spotify's app due to the iOS platform and for Apple's provision of the ability for each of those users to instantly pay Spotify money?
My two sons have five cars that are parked in the street. How are they to be charged if they are BEVs?
From a streetlamp charger. Or an on-street charger. Or a charger at the parking lot in the shopping mall, or at work.
Not there yet, but it's coming, and fast. The wires are already everywhere. It's just a matter of fitting outlets, beefing up infrastructure, and managing demand. Tough, but completely do-able.
Well, yes. But I'd say swapping drivers every few hours so you can keep driving 14 hours straight is a compromise. Hell, I'd say driving 14 hours in a day is a compromise! And not one I'd want to make.
Horses for courses.
The average quoted here is the arithmetical mean. The typical US commute is quite a lot shorter than 52km round trip.
I still much prefer EVs to PHEVs.
I'm guessing you don't do NPV calculations for a living...
I'm interested in this idea that Acme was going to fit CCS tech. I thought it had never been commercialised?
That's a little abstruse. And why do you say it's all about Apple's decisions? Clearly, Spotify has the same choice.
The People, through their elected representatives.
Which People? Apple is a US-based multinational. Spotify is a Swedish-based multinational. Customers in many other jurisdictions may use Spotify on iOS. What first principles are you using to determine which People's will should prevail, if there is a conflict between companies and the jurisdictions have different rules for how the conflicts should be resolved?