alc4pwned

t1_j02feuy wrote

..because most games don’t support it. In the ones that do, it’s usually pretty impressive. Raytracing looks really nice in Cyberpunk. Elden Ring is supposed to be getting an RT update soon, I bet that’ll look amazing.

2

t1_iyebtxz wrote

I'm talking about affordability within the same product category. The Bolt is clearly not in that category. Your argument here is akin to complaining that the Mercedes S Class is overpriced because the Toyota Corolla is cheaper.

I think I responded to your argument, I didn't ignore it. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as ignoring you.

1

t1_iye4onq wrote

Tesla still represents a larger portion of the EV market than all their competitors combined though. They built their charging network first. I don’t think they should be expected to abandon the existing connector, that’s insane. It looks like Tesla will be allowing other EVs to use their charging network via adapters anyway so it’s hardly an issue.

I also think you’re wrong - I’m pretty sure it was very early on that Tesla offered to allow others to use their charging connector.

1

t1_iydv7w6 wrote

That’s kinda an insane stance to take considering a) Tesla began building their charging network long before anyone else and b) they offered to allow other manufacturers to use their connector. I can see why other manufacturers didn’t take them up on it, but calling Tesla “anti-competitive” over this situation is beyond delusional.

2

t1_iydr6j5 wrote

Most EVs are definitely not going for MSRP. Yes you can find dealerships that will allow you to order for MSRP, but you’re going to be waiting for a very very long time for that car to arrive if it’s a desirable model like the Ioniq 5. As in, a year or more.

Yes, I am talking about affordability specifically for vehicles comparable to the Model 3. The Bolt is in a different category. It’s much smaller, is pretty low performance, and has a spartan interior. Say what you want about Tesla QC, but their interior is obviously more upscale.

The Bolt was also much easier to find around the timeframe you’re talking about because of all the battery fire issues. So, that’s a thing.

> I care about what comes out of my wallet. That's what most consumers care about.

It’s what some consumers care about. If all consumers were like you, the average new car value wouldn’t be $46k. The Bolt is not a new car, it’s been around for a while now. Tesla has massively outsold it despite being more expensive. Cost is definitely not the top priority of a good chunk of consumers.

> Companies like Chevrolet will start having more vehicles in that just under 30k market space trying to work their way down to the subcompact market eventually

Have you seen their pricing on the Silverado EV and the Hummer EV? GM makes a cheap EV yes, but I don’t think that’s where their focus will be moving forward. Their whole business is centered around selling huge expensive vehicles currently.

0

t1_iyd22r4 wrote

> I'm not aware of Ford selling direct to consumer in any state. Where do you see that happening?

I already said they're not yet but that they intend to. Again - the point there was really that they have marked up the F150 Lightning significantly themselves.

> And I didn't dispute that Tesla does it

Yet you responded to me with "Where in the US do you think manufacturers are selling directly to consumers, exactly?"

> Tesla's prices are just needlessly high.

Except, they're not. The current MSRP of the Model 3 compares pretty favorably with the MSRP + dealer markup you pay for similar EVs.

> When and if the dealership lobby gets put in its place and manufacturers can start selling DTC, do you really think they're going to jack up their prices so they stay the same as at dealerships?

In normal times? No. When there are extreme shortages? Yes. Tesla and Ford have significantly increased the prices of their EVs in response to shortages.

>But the point is that Ford could have easily set the base at $25k, or $30k, and still gotten plenty of orders.

I mean, I'd imagine that most Maverick orders are spec'ed to $30k+. I think on some level, the positive press generated by the $20k starting price is selling more expensive versions of the maverick.

Worth noting that the $20k Maverick is pretty stripped down inside and isn't AWD.

> Yeah, the manufacturers are in it for money. That's how business works. But they're not trying to completely screw the consumers like the dealerships do.

Agreed. But clearly they're not above jacking up prices when there are extreme shortages.

2

t1_iycx3l5 wrote

>Where in the US do you think manufacturers are selling directly to consumers, exactly? Even Tesla barely gets away with that in many states.

I already said it's Tesla and Ford. Clearly you're aware that Tesla sells all their cars this way. As for Ford, I guess they don't yet. But they've said they intend to sell all their EVs direct to consumers in the near future as well. There is an article posted in this exact comment thread discussing that. Regardless, they have significantly marked up the F150 lightning themselves, like I've pointed out several times.

>Dealer markups aren’t MSRP markups

Yes, that is my entire point. I'm saying you can't compare Tesla's MSRP with other cars' MSRPs because Tesla has a markup built in whereas others don't and instead get a markup added at the dealer.

>Ford could have sold the Maverick with a base of 30k, easily, but went with a MSRP of 20.

This is a discussion about EVs. But also yeah, affordability is a big selling point of the Maverick. I think having the base model hit the $20k price point was important for them.

1

t1_iycm76n wrote

Oh. Well yes, I’m still saying that. Because it definitely is happening in the cases where manufacturers are doing direct sales. So Ford and Tesla. Look at the F150 lightning configurator, those are not the prices it launched at. Cars not being sold directly are getting dealer markups. I’ve been saying that one or the other is happening.

−1

t1_iycivvw wrote

They've taken a similar approach to Tesla, the MSRP of the F150 Lightning is massively up. So sure, technically no dealer markup but instead a markup directly from the manufacturer.

Also, the dealer markups aren't just arbitrary right. They can get away with those because there are shortages. Meaning that even if Ford sells cars online without markups, that doesn't mean you just get to buy a car at MSRP. You'll be waiting a very long time. They had to stop taking Mustang Mach E orders recently.

0

t1_iycgbeb wrote

Misleading since you need to pay massive dealer markups on top of MSRP to actually get any of those other vehicles. Whereas Tesla instead built that into their MSRP. The Model 3 started at $38k just a year ago.

Also, the Bolt is a much lower tier vehicle than the base Model 3 in every way other than range (which is still slightly worse). Especially if you go for the base $26k version of the car.

Edit: Do the people downvoting this think that yes, you can buy the listed EVs at MSRP? No dealer markups required? Good luck with that.

−4

t1_iy3ge4z wrote

I was under the impression that for tech jobs, the rank of your school usually didn't matter that much? Also, a bunch of ivy leagues aren't even top ranked schools in CS, engineering, etc. I would think your GPA, internships, and what specific area you're trying to go into would matter much more. I got a job in a tech adjacent field after 2 applications.

9