At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in.
Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...
I speak from experience...
The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)
More wrong information. 60hz 4k panels are out now, and they don't have poor viewing angle or color. You simply need DisplayPort to get 60hz (which anyone buying such a monitor today should have).
Good post... $400 to $450 depending on what connections you want on it, much nicer panels than the cheap 27" 1080p TN panels being sold for half the price.
No worries if lack of money is the reason... we have all been there at one time or another...
The issue is when someone says, "oh, that isn't needed and is "faddish", the current ones are fine.
Yea, they are fine because they really want the good stuff, but have no money, so instead of just admitting that, they claim they don't want the new stuff to feel better about themselves.:)
It might be just you, but are you basing that on the "idea of 4k", or actual experience using it?
I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"
So why don't I own one now? The source material from most media isn't 4k, so what's the point? For TV use, it will be a few years. For computer use, that time would be now if a good IPS 4K display wasn't crazy priced.
But when the prices come down, it will make total sense.
I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".
I use a trio of Dell 30" monitors at 2560x1600, I can most assure you that it makes a difference. I've had to, from time to time, use another computer with a pair of older Dell 27" monitors at 1920x1200 and it is horrible to go back.
The idea that 4k is "faddish? Really? Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?
If you are saying that autopilots can fly aircraft better than you can, well, that may be true. I'd like to see one handle the Gimli Glider or Sully's Water Landing better than the pilots involved. Or the the Sioux City DC9.
You are quite right...
However, if you add up all the accidents caused by human pilots and add up all the "saves" caused by human pilots, you're not ahead.
If you went ahead and allowed everyone to die who otherwise would have been saved by a human pilot, yet saved everyone who was killed by a human pilot, you would be net ahead of the game.
---------
Example... Airbags in cars have saved thousands of lives... they have also killed a few dozen people... do you remove them because of even one death, or do you accept that is the price of saving thousands of others?
Autodriving cars will, sooner or later, kill someone. What about the thousands who didn't die because of them?
Autonomous vehicles are being promoted for exactly their ability to allow the driver to do non-driving functions (like read, eat, nap, or other things).
Ahh, fair enough... I think we're further away from *that* than we are autodriving cars where you still have to pay attention.
The car you describe, I could put my kids into and it would take them to school, without my even being there. I think we're more than a few years away from THAT.:)
But they are not intended to allow flight in close formation
Actually, you might be surprised, there are such autopilots... First, the autopilot on most modern airliners can do a Cat III autoland in zero/zero conditions. You don't touch the controls until you're doing a go around. The autopilot controls the airplane all the way to landing and roll out, usually to below 80 kts, then you can take over.
The Navy's airplanes have autoland to the carriers, which is even harder than to a fixed airport (since the runway is moving in three dimensions).
And finally, some Air Force autopilots have master/slave modes, you can link them to fly in formation long distances together. The master has the plan and the slaves simply hold position on the master.
And they will quite happily fly you into the ground when they fail. Or fly you to the point you stall and then fall to the ground.
Some will, others will not. The example in the small airplane with the Garmin G1000 will because it lacks FADEC and autothrottles. An Airbus A320 won't let you do that, it will prevent you from pitching over 33 degrees up or down and rolling more than 67 degrees left or right. It will also prevent a stall by overriding your throttle setting and applying more power, then lowering the nose if you continue to try to pull back the stick and full throttle has been reached.
You can manually override that in an emergency (that was added after the Paris Airshow crash many years ago of the A300, that was pretty stupid on the pilot's part) so that you can roll it upside down if you really need to, but normally the plane won't let you do that.
As for flying into the ground, modern airliners won't let you do that anymore either, besides having GPWS (ground proxomity warning system) among other things, the new ones will override the controls and avoid a collision with the ground unless in landing mode and facing an airport. Check out the G550 and G650 some time, they have amazing computer systems in the cockpit, including FLIR and CCIP, along with verbal callouts.
http://youtu.be/DR9lyAM2YNE This one shows taxing on the ground and other shots of the enhanced vision system.
If you watch the first one, you'll see a small circle with a line coming out of the sides and top, that is the CCIP (continuously computed impact point), that shows where the airplane will go if you do nothing else, so long as it is on the end of the runway, that is where you'll end up. If it is showing lower or off to the side or in the trees, you better do something else.
----------------
Side note: Yes, I'm aware that at the end, you pointed out that the autopilot in a C172 and a G1000 is not a great example because that system is stupid. Yes it is, because of the cost of development in small airplane aviation is just sad and behind the times, that is what you get. Because of the large number of cars built, billions can be spend on development, I would expect anything put out by Ford, Nissan, etc. would have the type of autodrive that a Gulfstream or Airbus has...
Humans can adapt to situations they have no prior experience with, usually after failing the first few times. Watch a 1 year old try and walk, for example.
As for computers, they are stunningly good at doing things they have been programmed for.
Airplanes can take off, fly, and land better than you or I can, far, far better... Airplanes have had autoland for almost 40 years now, people can't do that without being able to see something (even if it is using thermal or other enhanced technologies).
In the big picture, computer driven cars will be much safer than human driven ones...
But if I have to pay attention even if under automatic control, then I don't see the point. If I have to pay attention, then I might as well do the driving myself.
Understandable reaction, but you're wrong.
Autopilots in airplanes do not remove the pilot's requirement to pay attention to what is going on. In fact, by NOT having to physically fly the plane, the pilot has a better idea of what is going on around him/her.
I can tell you from much experience that autopilots are wonderful things, you'll see more and be aware of so much more once the car does the driving.
The key is the price, if this were not so expensive, I'd be a customer... but $1,299 for the model that I really would want, plus $130 for the type cover...
Yea, no thanks...
If it were half that price, I'm a customer. It is MS's job to figure out how to deliver that for the price customers want to pay.
The minute most people realize they don't need Microsoft-specific tools to do what they do, Microsoft is sunk.
Umm... I like Windows, it works well, does its job, provides me an open environment to run my software in on almost any hardware I care to install.
What is my other option, Apple? Closed expensive hardware? Linux? A mess of drivers, no native support for most games?
And why the "hate" towards MS? I get the feeling that many people believe that once "free" of MS, everyone is happy to run away from them and throw them out the door.
Why? What benefit does ditching Windows get me? Saving me $50-100 every 3 to 5 years? Yea, that isn't it. What else?
Linux is free, I'm still not interested. For my basic desktop use, I see no benefit whatsoever to moving to Linux.
OS X? What if Apple tomorrow said, "it is free, install it on any computer you like, we give it to the world!". Yea, so... what benefit does it give me? It doesn't run my programs, it is another desktop environment.
Nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't do anything useful to me that Windows does.
It's reasonable to argue the opposite, that people should be able to vote for whomever they want and they should be able to reward representatives who do a good job with another term.
Yes, that is reasonable, in theory... the challenge is that the system in actual practice hasn't worked out that way...
Congress has approval ratings so low it should be criminal, yet the majority of them keep getting reelected over and over...
I know this... If you're that big time coal company executive and you gave millions to my campaign, after I'm elected and you call me, I'll answer your call personally, everyone else can leave voicemail.
That's just how things work, and the problem with allowing the rich to have a larger say in things. And I say that as being, if not "rich", more well off than most.
When the country was formed, the idea was to have citizen leaders who would go and make policy for a time, then go back to private life. It wasn't meant to be a career.
My point is there are several reasons why manufacturers would put a low priority on an SUV type vehicle and why consumers looking for an SUV wouldn't want an electric one.
Yes, if they did they would cost so much as to clearly point out how far costs have yet to come down. Make a Suburban an EV and you'll probably add $40K to the price tag.
As for why consumers wouldn't want one, that's not true, I'd love one, if the price were more reasonable.
If someone wants a fashion statement of a fake offroad vehicle
That statement tells me you have some bias against trucks and SUVs, that you don't see any value in them. They have their place. Not for everyone, but cars don't have their place either for everyone.
A 4 or 5 passenger car doesn't meet my needs, I have 5 in my family, plus we often have 1 or 2 more kids we're taking along as well (kids have friends).
Plus we're active, my kids are at swimming right now, they have soccer tomorrow, those events have gear that has to be taken.
We could have gotten a minivan, except those don't tow as much and don't have as much room inside them as a Yukon XL (or Suburban, same thing) does. They also don't have up to date technology, so if you want a loaded vehicle that can carry 7 plus stuff, an SUV is your only option.
The Toyota Sienna comes the closest, but it is still missing a lot that my new Yukon XL has, including auto emergency braking, air cooled seats, cross traffic alert, lane departure warning, etc...
So to call them "fashion statements" and "fake off-road vehicles" isn't really a reasonable thing to say, when neither is true all the time. Yes, some people buy them for those reasons, but not everyone does.
I suspect they'll fit into the urban niche well enough that soon we'll be seeing fleets of electric taxis, although for that to happen they'll probably have to be 20% cheaper than whatever the dinosaurs of Detroit are trying to push on people.
There is indeed a market for them, I don't doubt that one bit. I think it is a niche market to be sure, double that because of the current price, but that may come down over time.
It will be awhile before we see electric taxis however, cost and range will be issues there.
At the end of the day, sales don't lie. We can talk all day long about what people "want" or even what people "should want", whatever that is. What really matters, the only thing that matters, is what is selling.
EVs aren't selling in numbers that move the needle any distance. That is the only real fact in this entire debate.
To get them to sell, you need to solve the price problem and the range problem. Offer a 300 mile range EV for $25K and you'd have a hit on your hands and sell a ton of them.
I'm not really sure how to read your reply or what your point is.
A Chevy Silverado or a Chevy Tahoe are actually quite able to be driven off road, they are designed for just that task.
Those are full size trucks and SUVs.
Then you have crossovers such as the Ford Explorer which is really a car, but marketed as a SUV because people like them. Few people know that the modern Ford Explorer is really a tall Ford Taurus station wagon, if they did, no one would buy them.
We might be talking past each other, since my point is that families who need space for 7 people aren't going to buy any of the small cars being talked about, these larger vehicles, be it a Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer, Chevy Traverse, Chevy Tahoe, etc. all burn far more gas than a Chevy Spark or Honda Civic.
Two posts ago you seemed to suggest that pollution produced by SUVs wasn't as much of an issue because it was outside of cities and spread out, my point is that is nice in principle, but not true in reality. Most trucks and SUVs are sold inside cities to your average consumer. You might be trying to debate if that is a "good thing" or not, but that is a separate conversation from the EV vs. gas one.
My new SUV is 4 wheel drive, and quite well equipped at that with a low range mode, a locking differential, and it can easily be taken into all sorts of rough ground if you wished to. The front air dam is removable to give better ground clearance (it just unscrews and then goes back on when you're done). The primary downside to trying to drive it in really rough terrain is that it is over 19ft long, so it will be limited in where it can go. But it does have the ability. If you wanted to take it mudding, you just need proper tires put on it, it has the power and the low range gearing to do it.
Of course, when GM builds it, they know that almost no one is going to do that with it, very few of them will ever do more than drive on grass, assuming they ever leave the concrete. It was built more for having lots of room inside, lots of power, and being able to tow a very large trailer. All tasks that electric would do very well, if you have a nice sized battery and good motors.
Slashdot Mirror
1080p is "good enough" right now simply because the content isn't ready.
When Netflix and Amazon Prime start streaming the majority of their content in 4k, it will be time...
As it stands, there just isn't enough to watch on one, which is why they aren't selling.
At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in.
Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...
I speak from experience...
The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)
More wrong information. 60hz 4k panels are out now, and they don't have poor viewing angle or color. You simply need DisplayPort to get 60hz (which anyone buying such a monitor today should have).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
60hz, IPS viewing angels, just crazy expensive at $3,500 (actually below $3K now, give it a few years to get cheap).
Good post... $400 to $450 depending on what connections you want on it, much nicer panels than the cheap 27" 1080p TN panels being sold for half the price.
No worries if lack of money is the reason... we have all been there at one time or another...
The issue is when someone says, "oh, that isn't needed and is "faddish", the current ones are fine.
Yea, they are fine because they really want the good stuff, but have no money, so instead of just admitting that, they claim they don't want the new stuff to feel better about themselves. :)
Harsh perhaps, but true...
It might be just you, but are you basing that on the "idea of 4k", or actual experience using it?
I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"
So why don't I own one now? The source material from most media isn't 4k, so what's the point? For TV use, it will be a few years. For computer use, that time would be now if a good IPS 4K display wasn't crazy priced.
But when the prices come down, it will make total sense.
I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".
I use a trio of Dell 30" monitors at 2560x1600, I can most assure you that it makes a difference. I've had to, from time to time, use another computer with a pair of older Dell 27" monitors at 1920x1200 and it is horrible to go back.
The idea that 4k is "faddish? Really? Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?
You simply don't know what you're missing.
Actually, no... I would reverse that...
For every terrorist bomb found, millions of people were needlessly hassled every day by the TSA.
Imagine if airplane hijackings were not reported on the news? No terrorist would bother, what would be the point.
Yes, but they shouldn't be...
If you are saying that autopilots can fly aircraft better than you can, well, that may be true. I'd like to see one handle the Gimli Glider or Sully's Water Landing better than the pilots involved. Or the the Sioux City DC9.
You are quite right...
However, if you add up all the accidents caused by human pilots and add up all the "saves" caused by human pilots, you're not ahead.
If you went ahead and allowed everyone to die who otherwise would have been saved by a human pilot, yet saved everyone who was killed by a human pilot, you would be net ahead of the game.
---------
Example... Airbags in cars have saved thousands of lives... they have also killed a few dozen people... do you remove them because of even one death, or do you accept that is the price of saving thousands of others?
Autodriving cars will, sooner or later, kill someone. What about the thousands who didn't die because of them?
Autonomous vehicles are being promoted for exactly their ability to allow the driver to do non-driving functions (like read, eat, nap, or other things).
Ahh, fair enough... I think we're further away from *that* than we are autodriving cars where you still have to pay attention.
The car you describe, I could put my kids into and it would take them to school, without my even being there. I think we're more than a few years away from THAT. :)
But they are not intended to allow flight in close formation
Actually, you might be surprised, there are such autopilots... First, the autopilot on most modern airliners can do a Cat III autoland in zero/zero conditions. You don't touch the controls until you're doing a go around. The autopilot controls the airplane all the way to landing and roll out, usually to below 80 kts, then you can take over.
The Navy's airplanes have autoland to the carriers, which is even harder than to a fixed airport (since the runway is moving in three dimensions).
And finally, some Air Force autopilots have master/slave modes, you can link them to fly in formation long distances together. The master has the plan and the slaves simply hold position on the master.
And they will quite happily fly you into the ground when they fail. Or fly you to the point you stall and then fall to the ground.
Some will, others will not. The example in the small airplane with the Garmin G1000 will because it lacks FADEC and autothrottles. An Airbus A320 won't let you do that, it will prevent you from pitching over 33 degrees up or down and rolling more than 67 degrees left or right. It will also prevent a stall by overriding your throttle setting and applying more power, then lowering the nose if you continue to try to pull back the stick and full throttle has been reached.
You can manually override that in an emergency (that was added after the Paris Airshow crash many years ago of the A300, that was pretty stupid on the pilot's part) so that you can roll it upside down if you really need to, but normally the plane won't let you do that.
As for flying into the ground, modern airliners won't let you do that anymore either, besides having GPWS (ground proxomity warning system) among other things, the new ones will override the controls and avoid a collision with the ground unless in landing mode and facing an airport. Check out the G550 and G650 some time, they have amazing computer systems in the cockpit, including FLIR and CCIP, along with verbal callouts.
http://youtu.be/lJIvsI9AtIs
This one is a Gulfstream G450 landing at Aspen
http://youtu.be/DR9lyAM2YNE
This one shows taxing on the ground and other shots of the enhanced vision system.
If you watch the first one, you'll see a small circle with a line coming out of the sides and top, that is the CCIP (continuously computed impact point), that shows where the airplane will go if you do nothing else, so long as it is on the end of the runway, that is where you'll end up. If it is showing lower or off to the side or in the trees, you better do something else.
----------------
Side note: Yes, I'm aware that at the end, you pointed out that the autopilot in a C172 and a G1000 is not a great example because that system is stupid. Yes it is, because of the cost of development in small airplane aviation is just sad and behind the times, that is what you get. Because of the large number of cars built, billions can be spend on development, I would expect anything put out by Ford, Nissan, etc. would have the type of autodrive that a Gulfstream or Airbus has...
You make a good point, fair enough, if the OP doesn't want one because of his personal views, then he is not "wrong" in his opinion.
I of course was referring to the point that just because you have to pay attention doesn't make an autopilot useless, it actually enhances safety.
Humans can adapt to situations they have no prior experience with, usually after failing the first few times. Watch a 1 year old try and walk, for example.
As for computers, they are stunningly good at doing things they have been programmed for.
Airplanes can take off, fly, and land better than you or I can, far, far better... Airplanes have had autoland for almost 40 years now, people can't do that without being able to see something (even if it is using thermal or other enhanced technologies).
In the big picture, computer driven cars will be much safer than human driven ones...
But if I have to pay attention even if under automatic control, then I don't see the point. If I have to pay attention, then I might as well do the driving myself.
Understandable reaction, but you're wrong.
Autopilots in airplanes do not remove the pilot's requirement to pay attention to what is going on. In fact, by NOT having to physically fly the plane, the pilot has a better idea of what is going on around him/her.
I can tell you from much experience that autopilots are wonderful things, you'll see more and be aware of so much more once the car does the driving.
Yea, all that you said is true...
The key is the price, if this were not so expensive, I'd be a customer... but $1,299 for the model that I really would want, plus $130 for the type cover...
Yea, no thanks...
If it were half that price, I'm a customer. It is MS's job to figure out how to deliver that for the price customers want to pay.
The minute most people realize they don't need Microsoft-specific tools to do what they do, Microsoft is sunk.
Umm... I like Windows, it works well, does its job, provides me an open environment to run my software in on almost any hardware I care to install.
What is my other option, Apple? Closed expensive hardware? Linux? A mess of drivers, no native support for most games?
And why the "hate" towards MS? I get the feeling that many people believe that once "free" of MS, everyone is happy to run away from them and throw them out the door.
Why? What benefit does ditching Windows get me? Saving me $50-100 every 3 to 5 years? Yea, that isn't it. What else?
Linux is free, I'm still not interested. For my basic desktop use, I see no benefit whatsoever to moving to Linux.
OS X? What if Apple tomorrow said, "it is free, install it on any computer you like, we give it to the world!". Yea, so... what benefit does it give me? It doesn't run my programs, it is another desktop environment.
Nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't do anything useful to me that Windows does.
See, my ISP gives me a 60GB/month cap, and $10/GB over that every month. Netflix was never an option for me.
60GB a month? Umm, what do you do on the web, email?
A single game download these days can chew up most of that, but of course you probably don't do that. :)
A few apps, some wifi in your house... 60GB wouldn't last me very long... that sucks...
We all know this, but no one cares enough to actually do anything about it...
A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have...
That isn't something taught in public schools of course, but it should be...
It's reasonable to argue the opposite, that people should be able to vote for whomever they want and they should be able to reward representatives who do a good job with another term.
Yes, that is reasonable, in theory... the challenge is that the system in actual practice hasn't worked out that way...
Congress has approval ratings so low it should be criminal, yet the majority of them keep getting reelected over and over...
Why is that?
I know this... If you're that big time coal company executive and you gave millions to my campaign, after I'm elected and you call me, I'll answer your call personally, everyone else can leave voicemail.
That's just how things work, and the problem with allowing the rich to have a larger say in things. And I say that as being, if not "rich", more well off than most.
It's the greed messing everything up, as usual
Yes, and since you can't remove the greed part... :)
Hence the reason for term limits...
When the country was formed, the idea was to have citizen leaders who would go and make policy for a time, then go back to private life. It wasn't meant to be a career.
Yes, what is amazing is how CHEAP they are to buy.
For $50,000 can I buy my own Congressman on an issue?
If I have a few million dollars to toss around, it seems that I can buy all kinds of public policy, without any real debate.
Sad, isn't it?
While that sounds nice, the problem with it is what happens when *I*, Joe Consumer, wants to lobby my own Congressman on an issue that concerns me?
Am I not allowed to tell him/her what I want done on by behalf?
My point is there are several reasons why manufacturers would put a low priority on an SUV type vehicle and why consumers looking for an SUV wouldn't want an electric one.
Yes, if they did they would cost so much as to clearly point out how far costs have yet to come down. Make a Suburban an EV and you'll probably add $40K to the price tag.
As for why consumers wouldn't want one, that's not true, I'd love one, if the price were more reasonable.
If someone wants a fashion statement of a fake offroad vehicle
That statement tells me you have some bias against trucks and SUVs, that you don't see any value in them. They have their place. Not for everyone, but cars don't have their place either for everyone.
A 4 or 5 passenger car doesn't meet my needs, I have 5 in my family, plus we often have 1 or 2 more kids we're taking along as well (kids have friends).
Plus we're active, my kids are at swimming right now, they have soccer tomorrow, those events have gear that has to be taken.
We could have gotten a minivan, except those don't tow as much and don't have as much room inside them as a Yukon XL (or Suburban, same thing) does. They also don't have up to date technology, so if you want a loaded vehicle that can carry 7 plus stuff, an SUV is your only option.
The Toyota Sienna comes the closest, but it is still missing a lot that my new Yukon XL has, including auto emergency braking, air cooled seats, cross traffic alert, lane departure warning, etc...
So to call them "fashion statements" and "fake off-road vehicles" isn't really a reasonable thing to say, when neither is true all the time. Yes, some people buy them for those reasons, but not everyone does.
I suspect they'll fit into the urban niche well enough that soon we'll be seeing fleets of electric taxis, although for that to happen they'll probably have to be 20% cheaper than whatever the dinosaurs of Detroit are trying to push on people.
There is indeed a market for them, I don't doubt that one bit. I think it is a niche market to be sure, double that because of the current price, but that may come down over time.
It will be awhile before we see electric taxis however, cost and range will be issues there.
At the end of the day, sales don't lie. We can talk all day long about what people "want" or even what people "should want", whatever that is. What really matters, the only thing that matters, is what is selling.
EVs aren't selling in numbers that move the needle any distance. That is the only real fact in this entire debate.
To get them to sell, you need to solve the price problem and the range problem. Offer a 300 mile range EV for $25K and you'd have a hit on your hands and sell a ton of them.
I'm not really sure how to read your reply or what your point is.
A Chevy Silverado or a Chevy Tahoe are actually quite able to be driven off road, they are designed for just that task.
Those are full size trucks and SUVs.
Then you have crossovers such as the Ford Explorer which is really a car, but marketed as a SUV because people like them. Few people know that the modern Ford Explorer is really a tall Ford Taurus station wagon, if they did, no one would buy them.
We might be talking past each other, since my point is that families who need space for 7 people aren't going to buy any of the small cars being talked about, these larger vehicles, be it a Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer, Chevy Traverse, Chevy Tahoe, etc. all burn far more gas than a Chevy Spark or Honda Civic.
Two posts ago you seemed to suggest that pollution produced by SUVs wasn't as much of an issue because it was outside of cities and spread out, my point is that is nice in principle, but not true in reality. Most trucks and SUVs are sold inside cities to your average consumer. You might be trying to debate if that is a "good thing" or not, but that is a separate conversation from the EV vs. gas one.
My new SUV is 4 wheel drive, and quite well equipped at that with a low range mode, a locking differential, and it can easily be taken into all sorts of rough ground if you wished to. The front air dam is removable to give better ground clearance (it just unscrews and then goes back on when you're done). The primary downside to trying to drive it in really rough terrain is that it is over 19ft long, so it will be limited in where it can go. But it does have the ability. If you wanted to take it mudding, you just need proper tires put on it, it has the power and the low range gearing to do it.
Of course, when GM builds it, they know that almost no one is going to do that with it, very few of them will ever do more than drive on grass, assuming they ever leave the concrete. It was built more for having lots of room inside, lots of power, and being able to tow a very large trailer. All tasks that electric would do very well, if you have a nice sized battery and good motors.