Audience.  I immediately knew it would be futile expecting anything constructive to come from replying to this conclusion: "...a sad showing for their first attempt, especially given how much better all the current and upcoming competition is."  That assessment came from over a decade of dealing with Volt antagonists.  All that time taught me some people simply don't care about actually changing the status quo.  All they were interested in was backing something that made them feel better about the future.  The fact that GM was targeting conquest sales, doing nothing to move their dealerships forward, was of no concern.  I was befuddled, at first.  Are they really that blinded by engineering?  Turns out, they were indeed.  That's why talk of who & what falls on deaf ears.  Nonetheless, it is still worthwhile to reply.  Their rhetoric is an invitation for you to provide exposition for lurkers, which is exactly what I do:  Know your audience.  What enthusiasts identify as "better" is not what mainstream consumers identify.  Think about what "competition" represents at this stage too.  It is not other automakers.  Showroom shoppers will be comparing ICE to HV to PHEV to BEV all from the same automaker.  Since Toyota already has a rock-solid reputation for delivering reliable EV drive, whether that comes from a PHEV or a BEV doesn't matter to that ordinary person... someone quite unlike those who post comments here.  Again, know your audience.

3 Months.  The evaluation & logistics of committing to a fix is complicated.  Yet, this is what we see people asserting: "While analysts said it was a simple and inexpensive problem to fix, it took Toyota more than three months to find a remedy."  That attitude of quick & easy is common online.  You just post what you want to be a reality and move on.  If someone says it, that must then be true.  Reading that nonsense is frustrating.  We have endorsed a society unwilling to use critical thinking.  You hear things so stupid sometimes, it makes you wonder.  Within a month of mid-term elections, believe it or not, I'm seeing posts about abortions being performed in the 9th month of pregnancy.  Are people really that gullible to believe such nonsense?  Apparently, they are.  Scary, eh?  What's so difficult about understanding what it takes to verify & implement a fix?  Things don't happen overnight.  Unfortunately, people don't think.  It's like the sudden rise to fame from an singer with a hit song that took them decades to achieve.  A lot of work goes into getting everything just right.  Anywho, I posted this for those still in dismay about the timing:  An expectation of anything faster 90 days was quite unrealistic.  There is far more to the process than just finding a solution.  Each suggested fix requires considering implementation & support need.  Also, they want something to address both existing vehicles and future production spread across multiple markets.  It may also require retooling and supply acquisition.  None of that is fast.

Toyota Says.  That antagonist who is profiting from producing videos attacking Toyota, it at it again: "Toyota Says Car Buyers Don't Really Want EVs".  That was the spin he put on the statement made recently by Toyota's CEO about how the market won't be ready to go all-electric for quite awhile still.  It's the same old story.  No one wants to take responsibility, so blame Toyota.  Ugh.  Expecting apartment renter to somehow keep their BEV charged when they have a landlord totally unwilling to spend a penny on providing a means to do that is nuts.  Yet, somehow Toyota is at fault for not going all in.  I was on my townhome's association board for a number of years.  I know even just an upgrade to your service-panel for more power could stir all kinds of pushback.  If you're in a condo with shared parking, the situation is considerably more difficult despite you actually being an owner rather than a renter.  Yet, we should blame Toyota... even though all they actually say is we're not ready.  Being constructive by pointing out why is unacceptable.  If you say anything negative and don't make an empty "all in" promise, you are supposedly against EVs.  Ugh.

No Glovebox.  Ironically, we heard in many reviews of bZ4X that the ride would be rather familiar to what Toyota currently offers, making this rather telling of those who are just posting commentary online: "If mass adoption is the point, then why not make cars that look and feel like ICE cars..?"  It went on to highlight this standout difference: "In Toyota's case, this car has no GLOVEBOX!"  I always find comments like that quite telling.  There was no attempt to find a reason why.  It was just a complaint hoping you'd make an assumption that Toyota simply didn't bother, building upon the narrative of the automaker not actually wanting to produce a BEV.  Of course, that doesn't make any sense to invest in an entirely new platform and not explore new opportunity.  That's why people should wonder why it is missing.  Why was that decision made?  After all, that would eliminate very little from cost & weight and be perceived as a negative... unless there is good reason for differing from ICE cars.  Turns out, there is... which I am all too happy to point out:  That delete of a glovebox was to make room for what's missing in other EVs.  Toyota is introducing a new means of warming, one more efficient than others... an infrared heater.  It is a radiant type of warming that transfers energy rather than wasting it to warm air in between source & destination.  Put another way, it sends heat directly to your legs & feet using less electricity.

The Fix.  It's official!  The recall now has a fix available.  Just 2 days ago, I struggled to refrain from responding to this: "The start of October brings with it plenty of Q3 sales figures for automakers, but one of the most fascinating tidbits from Toyota's release today is the fact that it sold no bZ4X models in September.  None.  Nada.  Zero.  That's because Toyota still hasn't found a way to fix the bZ4X’s runaway tires."  You don't find a fix and immediately it is magically applied.  Once you find a potential solution, you have to prove it really does fulfill all requirements.  That takes time.  Of course, when antagonists spin the buyback opportunity as a sign of giving up, you know that whatever fix is provided will be heavily scrutinized.  Think about how much worse other automaker recalls have been, ones actually related to the EV system.  This was just the wheels and only directly impacted 232 owners here.  We're not talking 10's of 1000's spread over multiple years.  No vehicle ever burst into flames, resulting in 100% of all battery-packs being replaced.  Remember how GM was originally just going to replace suspect cells in select models of Bolt?  That's exactly why Toyota kept quiet and offered buybacks up front.  No spin.  No hassle.  Nada.  Anywho, there is indeed a fix now.  Here's the short & sweet heads up we got that information was on the way:  According to a Reuters report quoting two sources, Toyota will now submit a set of measures to fix the issue with Japan's transport ministry.

Price Hikes.  We're seeing it everywhere.  That's not a good thing when trying to promote change.  Loss of tax-credits is difficult enough.  $5,000 added to the base price of F-150 Lightning hurts.  Not much can be done about it though.  Of course, Toyota knew this was coming.  They said bZ4X would be expensive and didn't bother making the price competitive... foreseeing others having to raise prices.  The playing field is more level now.  Sustainable business is very difficult.  New products make it especially challenging.  But then again, we are also seeing orders paused.  Controlling demand by sticking to quotas will help contain cost.  Speeding up production requires paying employees overtime and more for supply contracts.  That puts everyone in the waiting game.  All the nonsense about Toyota being "late" and suddenly subsided... since there is nothing to be late for.  In fact, we are all beginning to view this period as a calm before anything meaningful takes place.  It's a paradigm-shift we about basically preparing for, but cannot do anything to accelerate.  Initial demand is causing costs to climb... which result in price hikes.  Blah.

Halo Vehicles.  When a vehicle is a "halo", that means it presents a positive image of the automaker to attract buyers who end up purchasing some other vehicle from them.  That's what GM called Prius, even though customers ended up buying a Prius.  Ironically, that is indeed what Volt did.  Customers saw GM as green and purchased a guzzler.  That's happening again.  We're seeing advertisements for the 2024 Equinox, 2024 Blazer and 2024 Silverado now.  Why advertise an entire year before rollout begins?  With that in play, the spotlight still gets shined on Toyota with: "Prius Prime was supposed to be their technology halo car, but it is looking a bit underwhelming these days."  Ugh.  What do you say to that nonsense?  Think about where the market was back in 2016 when rollout began.  That was 6 years ago.  A lot has happened since then, namely Toyota moving on to deliver RAV4 Prime.  GM never did move on; instead, the automaker stuck with its halo vehicle.  Imagine if that tech from Volt was actually spread to a SUV, like Equinox.  Again, ugh.  Since they now want to make it about Toyota, this is what I have to say:  There was never any halo intent.  Toyota doesn't do that.  They just quietly rollout tech to refine it.  That's how they achieved such a robust EV drive long before bZ4X.  In fact, that all-electric system in Prius Prime worked so well, it was an easy decision to invest in RAV4 Prime... which has also be quiet... because they were working on spreading PHEV options to Crown and Harrier/Venza.  It's the way Toyota likes to operate.  They don't thrive on hype like other automakers.  They don't cater to enthusiasts like other automakers.  They just deliver vehicles their own customers will want.  For example, bZ4X AWD ground-clearance is higher than ID.4 AWD (its closest competition) by 1.4 inches and it weighs 370 pounds less.  No attention has been brought to those traits, yet owners will enjoy the benefit.  The next-gen PHEV system for Prius Prime will undoubtedly deliver increased range and more power, but don't expect much in terms of promotion from Toyota.  That simply isn't their approach.

No Plan.  I got nothing from him.  It's the same pattern of vague I dealt with for years.  Antagonists provide a response without substance to downplay the importance of the point you brought up.  There is a very real problem for renters he is clearly trying to avoid.  Here's a snippet what I got: "Where I am there are quite a lot of slow chargers on lamp posts where cars have no off street parking.  There's plenty of slow(ish) chargers at such as supermarkets.  It's perfectly possible to charge at non-fast chargers at places where the car will be parked anyway - even if not as convenient as at home."  That use of "slow" and "slow(ish)" and "non-fast" was awesome, especially when combined with the obvious evade about landlord responsibility.  So, I asked again: What should the plan be to ensure apartment renters will have a place to routinely recharge?  Toyota doesn't see responsibility being taken.  Who is going to build & maintain that infrastructure?  Notice how when asked what "suitable" was, that question was evaded.  No detail.  No plan.  No progress.

Suitable.  Here come the vague arguments, again.  Most of his long-winded post was a whole lot of nothing.  I was just a ramble without substance.  Ugh.  This is the part I decided to focus on: "Point is that California (and a lot of other places) don't want them sold there after the next 10 years or so.  That's giving Toyota more than enough time to produce products suitable for California, Europe and probably the rest of the US."  It was an easy reference to ask for detail about:  What does "suitable for California" actually mean?  Many here conveniently avoid answering that by diverting discussion elsewhere.  There are very real barriers, of which Toyota is trying to get attention for... important detail missing entirely.  Notice the assumption that all new vehicle purchases 10 years from now will have a convenient & reliable location to recharge?  That would be awesome to see each apartment complex with clear & consistent plans of how all renters will be accommodated.  What percentage of parking spots would offer charging and how will timing for sharing be handled?   Currently, many landlords have no intention of paying to upgrade their lots.  Dumping expectation of support on public DC fast-charging for those living in high-volume housing is both irresponsible & expensive.  Yet, that's exactly what will happen... which Toyota is trying to raise attention for.   Notice how long it has already taken with DC fast-charging to even just come up with a standard for plug-type, charge-speed, station-capacity and billing?  It is very much the wild west still.

Chicken & Egg.  They are at it again: "But it's chicken and egg.  Increase the demand and expect the supply to follow."  It doesn't matter.  Approach doesn't have to be a specific way for a successful outcome.  It's the end, not the means.  The promise of "all in" seems to be a good idea.  Automakers get praise for making that commitment, even though there is no consequence whatsoever for not delivering.  Heck, there isn't even a means to measure progress.  There's just an arbitrary date in the future with a 100% expectation set.  When has it ever been a good idea to put all your eggs into a single basket, especially when in a hurry.  If time is limited, what's wrong with trying to reach a wide audience with an substantial step forward rather than only reaching a partial audience with a full solution?  What about those left behind?  It's reckless to assume all will go well.  Heck, even with best of intentions we know there is always a risk of something unforeseen consequence.  But in this case, what do you do if there simply isn't enough battery material/production to cover the need?  Then what?  You can build 4 PHEV or just 1 BEV.  Think about the other 3 left behind.  When you still have to sell 4 vehicles, what will they be?  Needless to say, Toyota has addressed this already.  They have a plan that is well underway:  Again, this is a narrative to portray Toyota as something else.  Toyota is already selling two PHEV (Prius & RAV4) and will be adding two more (Crown & Harrier/Venza).  We see the strong potential for Corolla Cross joining that list too.  7 models of dedicated-platform BEV are on the way as well, within the next 3 years.  The EV converted model of CH-R will be getting next-gen upgrade as well.  All those models of vehicle with a plug will help promote infrastructure investment.  What part of chicken/egg isn't Toyota addressing already?

Backward Looking.  I got a kick out of reading this: "...even the industry's most backward-looking brand, Toyota, is quietly building battery capacity and planning new models."  It is exactly what you would expect from a click-bait article.  It went on to say: "As the more forward-looking companies (Ford, GM, VW, Hyundai) understand, going electric isn't just a matter of launching new cars - it's going to require a complete restructuring of their companies."  It comes from lazy writing that results in a lot of posts.  Some article providers are only writers, not journalists.  That's sad, but understandable.  Change is difficult and doesn't often draw interest.  In fact, when you do it well, no one notices.  That's the point of a technology transitioning from early-adopter to mainstream buyer.  The criteria is to not notice it anymore, where there's enough deployed to make the expectation of becoming ubiquitous a given.  That's why portrayal of the situation depends upon audience.  This is why I call most of those online seeking the latest & greatest "enthusiasts".  There's nothing wrong with being that, but you must acknowledge not sharing the same priorities as mainstream consumers.  That is also why a different approach can be successful.  Not everyone needs to travel the same road to get to the same destination.  I stated that observation as:  The use of "backward" and "forward" is more of the narrative used to portray some type of struggle.  In reality, Toyota has been following a BOTTOM-UP approach... which enthusiasts absolutely despise... because it isn't exciting and reveals there is more than one path to success.  Focusing on TOP-DOWN exclusively, pretending there is no other means to change available, is why barriers to growth are discovered the hard way.

So Long.  They are many early-adopters frustrated with Toyota's approach, especially when it comes to pointing out challenges we still face.  Infrastructure in particular is a very real problem not being taken seriously.  Instead, they are writing obituaries for Toyota: "The standards will be tough to meet...for Toyota.  Tesla doesn't seem to have much trouble.  GM is all in as is Volkswagen.  This type of thinking may leave a major car manufacturer at the post.  So long Toyota.  It was nice knowing you."  They don't want to blame the 100's of 1000's of nameless landlords.  They want someone to blame, a scapegoat.  Ugh.  This is why know-your-audience is so important.  Those seeking someone to blame are too busy to seek a solution.  What a waste.  They don't listen.  I keep posting reality-checks anyway:  This isn't specific to any automaker.  Pay attention: "The CEO once again warned that governments should be careful not to limit the type of vehicles people are able to buy."  This is a low-hanging fruit problem. Being able to support a single vehicle is realistic for most households.  We've seen that with early-adopters.  Adding a second vehicle is much more of a challenge.  Enthusiasts are conveniently avoiding that topic.  How to support multiple vehicles charging at the same time won't be cheap or quick.  There is also the bitter reality of what it will take for condo & apartment dwellers.  They have serious barriers created by landlords to overcome still.  Heck, even townhouse associations stand in the way of widespread adoption.  It's a brazen act of denial portraying those infrastructure issues as a only a problem for Toyota.  To be "all in" there must be acknowledgement and a plan to address how owners will recharge.  I'm not seeing that from Tesla, GM or Volkswagen.