Seemingly Objective.  Without context, it is difficult to tell: "From the start they were expecting that solid-state battery were the future and delayed their transition to that.  All those BEV maker will have to adapt if that times come and Toyota, in that case, will not have been wrong with its strategy.  They would actually be in the right position for a major share of the market.  Otherwise..."  I liked how it dropped off to nothing after the otherwise.  That was my clue as to intent.  Reading through the posts leading up to that, it was easier to see it was a bet-the-farm claim setting an expectation for failure.  That was annoying, but I did like acknowledgement of risk taking.  It wasn't what has actually played out though.  That disconnect makes it another narrative in the making.  So, I jumped in to intercept with asking:  Portraying the situation as a delay is a blatant effort to dismiss what has already taken place.  Don't be distracted by that nonsense.  Toyota invested heavily in EV drive systems that could be shared across platforms.  What is used in their PHEV to deliver all-electric propulsion is also used in their BEV.  That hardware & software is interchangeable. It's a dual benefit gain, from traction-motor to liquid-cooling.  That knowledge & experience is undeniable.   Of course, there is wisdom in not rushing to market.  Note how enthusiasts dismiss the reality of premature lock-in?  Committing to a battery chemistry that is unable to compete later can be quite detrimental.  The hypocrisy is remarkable.  Notice how naysayers claim Toyota is unwilling to take risk, but then at the same time criticize them gambling their future on a future opportunity.  It's all about looking at the bigger picture.  The talking-points we hear constantly don't tell us the whole story.  What else is needed for a strategy to be successful?

Renewed Attacks.  Antagonists were provided with trolling bait, an article highlighting how Toyota could overtake Tesla.  That's like throwing red meat into a cage filled with hungry carnivores.  Ugh.  This was one of the first standout comments posting in response to that opportunity for renewed attacks: "For a long time Toyota have been able to ignore the "emperors not wearing any clothes" muttering - that's over now.  They are having to face reality.  And I do genuinely suspect they are making substantial moves to electrification.  But these things take time."  It was something worthwhile to reply to, rather than just feeding the frenzy directly.  I posted:  Ironically, it's what the other automakers are doing that creates such a narrative.  Anyone taking the time to look at the bigger picture should notice that them don't have any type of transition strategy.  They produce a BEV that garners much attention, then hope for the best with sales.  In the meantime, they go on selling lots of ICE guzzlers hoping no one notices.  It's a classic setup for the Osborne Effect which those criticizing Toyota turn a blind-eye too, instead posting distractions to draw attention elsewhere... doing everything they can to prevent their own "having to face reality" moment.  Also, keep in mind how taking time usually pays off well in the long run... hence the marathon analogy.  While others are sprinting and enjoying cheers from enthusiasts, Toyota is ignoring that praise and pacing themselves to more competitive later when the others have exhausted their resources on short-term gain.

Competitive?  That mindset of "EV market" continues to blind some enthusiasts still.  They get so hung up what is immediately available and what appeals most to them, they forget about everything else.  That has been a major problem for over 15 years now.  Not much has changed since those early days.  That is why hype still emanates from hope.  They don't want to be realistic about time, cost and complexity.  It is why audience is just brushed aside as unimportant and we get comments like this: "Can they just make the bZ4X that they sell now remotely competitive first?"  They want Toyota in the here & now... hence the top-down perspective.  Sorry, reality is that bottom-up is a viable option.  Looking at the bigger picture, being competitive within the early-adopter market really doesn't mean much with regard to being competitive in the mainstream market.  In fact, it could be detrimental if not carefully considered... hence Innovator's Dilemma.  Anywho, I asked:  Since when is being competitive the best strategy?  Right now, we see a market catering to enthusiasts seeking niche traits.  There's no sense about what is actually beneficial for the masses.  In fact, it's much like nonsense of the best where want gets far more attention than need.  Notice how range gets so much emphasis and actual efficiency rarely ever mentioned?

Tesla Brand.  This was an interesting observation sighted in an article today: "The novelty and relevance of the Tesla brand may also be fading.  The price of Tesla's used Model 3 in the U.S. fell by 20% in half a year as of this spring, underscoring a shift in consumer sentiment."  That's clear evidence of market saturation becoming a problem.  While Tesla celebrates their triumph of conquering Corolla with record sales last quarter, there's an undeniable fact that dramatic price-cuts were related to that outcome.  True, those price-cuts can likely be maintained without consequence.  But continuous sales of a popular vehicle come with consequence... a reality Toyota has extensive experience with and Tesla has none.  This is why we see next-gen rollouts every 5 to 6 years.  Expecting to sell the same vehicle indefinitely doesn't work.  Look at how much Prius transformed over the decades.  Seeing Model 3 and Model Y basically unchanged since inception, combined with significantly lower prices now, sets up the used market for disaster.  The new market is even more of a mess, since other automakers offer choices Tesla has literally nothing to compete with.  It's a very real problem... an obvious sign of the Tesla appeal losing its appeal.  After all, what unique draw is there with Supercharger access being opened to Ford and GM soon?  Don't forget about "Magic Dock" stations either; that approach is how Tesla hopes to qualify for NEVI funding.  Needless to say, the brand is in need of a refresh.  How will this new audience only now researching a BEV purchase being draw to the brand?

Beyond Desperate.  This comment posted about an article of how the tables are starting to turn for Tesla as Toyota rejoins the BEV scene really attempts to distort reality: "New Toyota CEO says NO to EVs".  It is such a blatant effort to undermine, I call it out as desperation.  There's no excuse.  I try to avoid shooting the messenger though, excluding any type of personal reference.  Instead, I reply to that nonsense with a comment like this:  Who's trying to be convinced of that outdated narrative at this point?  We see the first big software update being rolled out for bZ4X now and production for bZ5X in the United States being planned.  We have also seen to smaller BEV concepts for other markets already.  There is the bZ3 for the market in China too.  Along with that was a series of press tidbits about upcoming "giga-casting" adoption and significant battery advancements Toyota is pursuing.  Trying to portray them as anti-EV simply makes no sense anymore.

Declared Failure.  Gotta love how there is such a predictable enthusiasts are.  They cannot resist the temptation to draw conclusions right away.  They focus on the traits they find most important and dismiss any other criteria pointed out.  That's how narratives work.  They are selective about data & durations.  It turns into vague messaging rather quick, no longer are talking-points even bothered with.  You get posts like this: "Unfortunately, the BZ4X is a fail.  Maybe the second generation will be worthy.  Toyota has the ability, but do they want to really embrace EVs?"  Driving a bZ4X every day, I know that is a load of rubbish.  Worth is measured on a scale, like how you get grades in school.  So what if Toyota earned a "C" from enthusiasts?  In terms of reliability and how well the vehicle itself is produced, both score extremely high.  So what if cost & efficiency aren't vastly superior?  Getting you in comfort with confidence from home to your destination and back is the point, right?  We have already seen the software upgrade deliver speed increase for DC fast-charging to that take advantage of rates targeted for NEVI funded stations.  How is that not criteria about the biggest complaint not make that grade look more like a "B" now?  We know optimization is coming for some components and a full refactor for production/design itself.  How does that not raise the prospects to earning a solid "B" for the next-gen rollout?  Calling something "worthy" still treats the situation as pass/fail, which in no way is a reflection of how mainstream shoppers actually shop.  They weigh options.  They don't seek vastly superior.  With all that in mind, I responded with this reply:  Toyota plays the long-game, disregarding noise from enthusiasts and the media claim is important.  It's been their formula for success.  This doesn't appear any different from their history of focusing on what the masses will actually purchase verses what early-adopters seek.  Put another way, we see engineers trying to tell business experts how to run their business.  There's a happy middle others fail to take the time to find.  Patience can be rewarding.  You know... the tortoise and the hare.

Range Anxiety.  It is intriguing when someone tries to engage in a constructive exchange, but then trips on their own words: "If you didn't have the Prime, I'm positive you would also be complaining about range anxiety. 225 miles is nothing."  He obviously meant capacity as a shortcoming.  That distance of 225 is short if you are taking a very long road trip.  But then again, how often do you actually drive that far?  Our trips up north are 175 miles.  Having a place to recharge while there would cover the journey.  So, I can't complain.  There's no anxiety.  There is annoyance by the lack of charging options, but that's different.  I wouldn't complain during the actual drive either.  This brings me back to the days of Volt, prior to rollout.  Many enthusiast had no idea how it would operate and had an incorrect impression of how Prius worked.  That meant more discussions were doomed from the start, since the basis for many exchanges was flawed.  So, we look to goals.  What is the point?  What are we trying to accomplish?  What makes a PHEV or BEV the better choice?  Of course, why must there be a choice?  BEV of the past had less range and DC fast-chargers were almost non-existent for anything but Tesla.  How come that was ok then but it isn't now?  There's no need to get that deep.  We don't require an answer to every question with audience so limited still.  That's why I kept this to a teaching moment:  No, because that isn't what "range anxiety" actually means.  It is the uncertainty related to how you feel when the battery is almost entirely depleted.  Much of that emanates from being unfamiliar with the vehicle itself along with unknowns related to charging infrastructure.  As an owner, most of that SOC discomfort fades away as you become more familiar with the vehicle.  With regard to DC fast-charging access, seeing more and more stations being built takes away that worry.  Looking at feedback from those who have been driving BEV for a long time, most of the concern you hear about online is really just FUD.

In short, it comes down to timing.  Investment shift (like stock) is an early indicator of paradigm shift. Interest in long-term well-being is becoming the focus.  The early-adopter years have come to an end.  We now see new production, charging standards, and fast-charger locations drawing far more attention than the vehicles.  That's why NACS became an obvious next move for Tesla.

Bragging, Again.  Here's come the return of "vastly superior" posts.  They don't actually use that phrase anymore.  Instead, we get "substandard" or "inferior".  The meaning & intent is the same.  It is an insult.  They are better, period.  Ugh.  Today, it was: "Model Y destroys the BZ4X/Solterra on every single of the metrics above.  So I don't know what it is you're trying to defend Toyota for - they were late to the game and brought a substandard product to market, and their sales show it."  Gotta like how the metrics are cherry-picked.  I know all too well how they are selective about what's important and dismissive of everything else.  The checklist is only comprehensive for an enthusiasts.  Anyone else may not even realize some aspects of the purchase decision are excluded.  Others are simply not possible to quantify.  The measure of worth is not criteria they acknowledge.  You buy the best, period.  There is no such thing as "good enough" in their world.  That is how the word "compromise" now has a stigma of weakness.  Rather than weighing options and seeking a balance of tradeoffs, you much accept only the highest ranked outcome.  Never settle for anything less.  Ugh.  Of course, when dealing with that mindset, you can't argue that.  So instead, you point out the absence of data... as I did in reply to today's nonsense:  Simple, that list doesn't actually quantify anything.  Without detail, it's just bragging rights.  It also leaves out AWD ability and ground-clearance, both of which Toyota/Subaru does better.  As for sales, it's a marathon not a sprint.  We're still looking at the results of low-hanging fruit.

Bad?  I ended up getting this question: "I don't own one, so why is the BZ4X bad in cold climates?"  That's encouraging.  Someone online requested information to clarify their assumed bias.  Imagine if more exchanges like this happened.  Sadly, they don't.  In fact, online sentiment is often the opposite.  They have a negative attitude and no desire to validate whether or not that is justified.  Ugh.  Thankfully, you bump into an open mind from time to time.  In this case, I posted this as an answer:  It was (not as much after the software update) the speed of DC fast-charging.  Toyota didn't see the tradeoff of pre-conditioning as a good us of electricity.  After all, using energy for the sake of reducing charge-time isn't exactly climate friendly.  The other problem was the market basically ignored cold-weather penalty until Toyota got attention.  The reason why is now obvious, Toyota's usable capacity is less for the sake of longevity.

Canadian Perspective.  Being in a BEV group primarily for Canadians has provided a great deal of insight.  They have very cold winters, like I experience here, but also have to deal with a lot more long-distant driving.  The population is more spread out and the territory more rural.  That makes a challenging situation for BEV ownership even harder.  Much will change for the better in the next for years.  But in the meantime, we still have a lot to address.  Thankfully, that group is very reception to open exchange.  So, I can share this without any real pushback:  Living in Minnesota, I see similar winters.  So the cries of failure fall on deaf ears for me.  Replacing my Prius Prime with a bZ4X provides that perspective.  I can point out how incredibly reliable the EV drive was and how great it was to have a heat-pump.  When the temperature drops below -10°C, you will see efficiency take a big hit due to the need for supplemental heating.  But when you only require a little warming, the radiant warmer (infrared heater, an optional feature for bZ4X here) is awesome.  None of us know what the recent software update delivers with regard to how the battery-pack itself is warmed for DC fast-charging; however, speed boost right now (early summer) is noticeable.  Here is a photo of mine just a few days after purchase.  A well timed snow storm provided the ultimate opportunity to try out the AWD.

Blogging Attacks.  It is always fascinating to read something someone posts as fact knowing it is either incorrect or outdated.  Today, it was: "Toyota, the maker of the bZ4X, ran a campaign on its UK website that had the tagline "making electric easy" claiming that the crossover could be charged to 80 percent state of charge (SoC) in about 30 minutes using a 150-kilowatt DC fast charger."  Without context, who knows what that was reference pertained to.  Intent was clear though.  The poster was using that to represent Toyota as being dishonest.  The blog was being used to attack reputation.  I had evidence to the contrary though, debunking the attempt.  It was fun to post too.  I know that person will not be happy to see this comment:  An article published in Norway on June 6th, testing the recent software update, measured a charge from 8 to 80 percent in 31 minutes and 20 seconds.  That confirmed the claim of 30 minutes to be accurate.