The enthusiast effort to stigmatize "stop gap" solutions is really unfortunate.  Fortunately, reality of economics is forcing automakers to embrace a bridge strategy.  They foresee their own "sales will drop dramatically" situation with nothing but a BEV-only approach.

Cost, Capacity, Longevity.  Enthusiasts have their own priorities.  They see the world through that lens.  Not understanding how mainstream buyers could have different wants & needs is their weakness.  It is why so many of my encounters with them end with a "Know you audience."  Anywho, today it was this protest about Solid-State-Battery intentions: "I don't buy their marketing BS.  They've been promising SSB since 2014."  It is quite telling when those same enthusiasts say that well posting praise for Tesla wasting time & resources on CyberTruck rather than focusing on entry-level offerings.  The same double-standard comes from hydrogen too.  It's the same pride barrier as with Volt.  Enthusiasts would endorse something "nicely under $30,000" due to the tradeoffs required.  Quite annoyed... as well as being rather if he would recognize the strives LFP have delivered so far to become a useful means of reaching the masses... I replied back to that nonsense with:  Since some of the goals for SSB have actually been achieved without removing liquid electrolyte, continuing to refine that technology to get cost down and yields up makes sense.  Far too many enthusiasts get hung up on talking points, which ends up feeding a narrative rather than acknowledging progress.  In other words, others have effectively counter-marketed with their own BS.

Put another way, know your audience.

Nothing like that would sell here in the United States.  Production in high-volume is not required to achieve needed experience either.  Priority of power, speed and range is the problem.

Notice how those here are constantly diverting attention to Toyota diversification efforts as a means of not having to address the entry-level market?  That is what China has been focusing on.  The obvious obfuscation of that topic makes it all too clear that "the market" is really just cherry-picked consumers.  Those customers who shop the showroom floor are just woefully ignored still.

In short, that "slower and behind" simply doesn't equate to much yet.  It's quite premature.  We're still in the teething stage.

Promoting Distractions.  There are some who sincerely believe this: "They may have realized it was dead years ago, and only promoted it as a distraction from BEVs and their inability to build a competent one.  It didn't work for them though."  My ask is how they figure Toyota failed.  With so many subsidies propping up sales and so much infrastructure still needed, there's no good way to consider the stage we are at as anything beyond introductory still.  With the technology proven by early-adopters, mainstream consumers are only now getting their first look at the potential.  Most are no where near making a purchase decision yet.  So claiming something didn't work already makes no sense.  Enthusiasts like to win battles, not to fight wars.  That's why the tortoise & hare story applies so well.  Anywho, this is how I replied to more of their narrative about distractions:

Enthusiast definitions of "competent" and "leadership" rarely reach beyond their own niche.   Acknowledgement of what ordinary consumers actually need falls on deaf ears where an expensive, impractical, electricity-guzzling vehicle CyberTruck gets so much praise instead of putting pressure on real choices for mainstream shoppers.  In other words, that distraction promoted here is quite hypocritical.

More hypocritical behavior here is the allowance of the "all in" pledges from other legacy automakers going unchallenged.  Without any milestones or penalties, they could just declare a vague objective and not be held accountable for any actual progress.  It's hard to believe enthusiasts would be so gullible to fall for that same deceit again and again.

Meanwhile we see Toyota has been diligently updating bZ4X, while rolling out new PHEV, revealing new BEV, building battery production in the US, and working hard on provided a bridge for those hesitant or unwilling to accept change.

Distraction is basically just an excuse anyway.  Paradigm shifts are difficult.  It would be quite an act of denial to portray BEV as ready for the masses.  That kind of downplay of challenges still faced is a disservice to those really trying to make it work.

Hydrogen Support.  News of Shell abruptly closing all 7 of its hydrogen stations in California has stirred anti-Toyota rhetoric: "Another nail in the coffin for Toyota's hydrogen ambition.  They need to take a deep breath and learn to let go..."  There have been far too many BEV purists who feel Toyota had wasted resources on their fuel-cell endeavors.  Other automakers wasting resources on gas-guzzlers is fine though.  It was always quite remarkable to witness that type of double-standard.  They fight what they don't like and turn a blind-eye to what doesn't fit their narrative.  Ugh.  Reality is, we'll depend upon hydrogen as a solution for a number of important uses.  Do they really think the shipping industry will continue consuming diesel?  Some type of alternative that can be transition over to green sources must be leveraged.  Those boats & planes must continue to operate.  Hydrogen is viable for their needs.  Why are some people so fearful of a multi-solution approach?  Battery is not the most practical means of electricity storage for every application.  So will benefit from carrying tanks of compressed or liquefied hydrogen instead.  That should be obvious.  They don't want to accept such support.  Fear of diluted BEV support is clouding their judgment.  They don't see how killing diesel could contribute to killing gas too.  Duh!  Anywho, I pointed out:  Since fuel-cells & hydrogen were destined for industrial & commercial applications, using a passenger platform to demonstrate & refine the technology isn't really a loss.  Keep in mind, Toyota doesn't have to be just an automaker.  In fact, diversity is advantageous.  Mirai served its purpose regardless.  It's not like some of its EV components weren't shared with their PHEV and BEV.

When History Repeats.  Wow!  What's happening now reminds me of the market in the early 2000's, when Prius was breaking ground.  The concept of hybrids had been defined, but those firsthand witness events are what made the difference.  That same pattern of awareness to insight is now repeating with plug-in vehicles.  It's so different from online rhetoric.  In person, people make the discovery and are fascinated by what they see.  You get hit up with lots of questions, none of which support the focus enthusiasts express online.  Their sentiment differs quite a bit.  I remember that so well... all those years ago.  It's hard to believe such vivid memories were from 2 decades ago.  The passage of time doesn't matter.  In fact, that's what reinforces audience.  This is a new market, with new interests.  That same "what's new?" inquisitiveness is alive & well.  That's very encouraging... the type of history you hope will repeat.

Being Real.  Gotta like this attention-getting article title: "Toyota Says It's Not 'Anti-EV,' It's Just Being Real."  What it said wasn't a concern.  My focus is on the takeaway, what those reading it had to say.  This comment stood out: "Also its a bit disingenuous to say you are responding to customer demand while at the same time producing misleading advertising about EVs to sway those same customers to buy hybrids and diesels."  I replied asking for detail, tell me about that misleading advertising.  Nothing.  It was a bluff.  After waiting, I pointed that out:  A day after being called out for posting that statement, still no evidence has been provided to support it.  Add that to the proof of Toyota being portrayed as an antithesis.  Hope for a quick & easy path to BEV is fading and the narrative is failing.  Blame those in this echo-chamber for that nonsense. They chose to shoot the messenger for being real.  I call bs on that.  Show us something misleading since IRA was passed.

Toyota Has Zero.  It was such a bizarre statement to make.  I had been quarreling with the person about infrastructure shortcomings and he suddenly switched the topic to make the claim of Toyota not actually having any BEV available.  Sometimes, the absence of knowledge from some people blows my mind.  Apparently, the propaganda is so good, he actually believes it.  Ugh.  That explains why there is such a strong anti-EV sentiment about Toyota still.  Clearly, lies repeated often enough accepted at fact.  Ugh.  Here's how I dealt with that nonsense this time:  What?  Disregarding the two converts (CH-R & UX300e), there is bZ4X which shares its platform with RZ450e (total 2023 sales were 104,018).  Toyota also produces Subaru Solterra.  Today (in Oslo, Norway at eCarExpo), Toyota will be revealing their next BEV offering, a smaller SUV... likely named bZ3X... which is expected to be available later this year in Europe.  Next year, Toyota will be producing a larger BEV in the United States.... the bZ5X.  Claiming "Again Toyota has 0 BEV on the market" is an obvious misrepresentation, more FUD to feed the anti-EV narrative.

Assuming Inaction.  This is evidence of a new audience being reached: "Wouldn't it be nice if the government pushed to update and upgrade the grid system and had the infrastructure to handle the demand that EVs will surely place on said system?  Instead we get a dementia riddled president that puts the cart before the horse."  It is a very reasonable deduction that the person who said that has never actually given more than a moment of thought about the grid.  This is a new topic for them and they just assume inaction.  Most people are completely unaware of how demand is addressed, how power planning is a heavily monitored process.  That data is constantly analyzed for optimization opportunity and debated about to squeeze out the best investment with replacement & upgrade funding.  New technologies are always being considered and take many, many, many years to implement.  A lot takes place long before any "push" gets noticed.  Being in the big EV owners group here in Minnesota, we get guest speakers on a regular basis presenting their plans.  We also get someone making policy from time to time, those who provide the funding.  There's a lot of decision-making that takes years to become a reality.  That's why much of it goes unnoticed.  It gives the appearance of inaction.  Anywho, like for many who assume, I keep my replies brief:  Actually, there is heavy government funded to improve infrastructure.  Most people simply have no idea what to look for.  I suggest starting that discovery by searching for off-peak upgrades.

EVSE Meaning.  Discussion today came to a screeching halt when it was questioned what the heck I was talking about when I made an "EVSE" reference.  He got rather frustrated with my use of "ESVE", thinking I had just introduced some type of distraction to change the topic.  I quickly attempted to rectify that by replying with:  Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE).  That's the proper name for what people often refer to as their "charger" even though all it really does is serve as an adapter for the J1772 plug.  Next is to address J3400, the official identifier now for DCFC... Direct Current Fast Charging.