Thinking Competitive.  Here is an example of how enthusiasts think Toyota should compete: "Hyundai and Kia older Ioniqs, Nios, and Konas have better range and faster charging times than Toyota's, Lexus, and Subaru's, bZ4x, Rz300e, and Solterra."  Just like how range & speed weren't the dominant sales trait for Prius Prime in the past, they still aren't now.  Toyota strikes a balance with quality & reliability.  Notice how usually perfect the Prius Prime ownership experience was for me?  Other than a few flat tires, I had no issues whatsoever, despite introduction of a heat-pump and a carbon-fiber hatch with the dual-wave glass.  Along with the EV speed increase to cover even the fastest speed limit here, it was a trouble-free 6 years for me.  Heck, my wife still has her Prius Prime after almost 7 years.  Neither Hyundai nor Kia can say the same for their offerings.  Enthusiasts turn a blind-eye to that.  It doesn't support their narrative.  Ugh.  To that lack of objectivity, I asked:  Do you think those traits are what ordinary showroom shoppers deem more important than what they usually seek when shopping?  In other words, I'm calling out those who keep moving the goal posts, claiming range & speed of the past was all we needed to compete with ICE.  Since when what happens at dealers is no longer a concern?

Being Competitive.  We are still in that "teething" stage, where automakers are figuring out what they are capable of delivering in balance with what consumers will actually purchase.  That means competing directly with others isn't necessarily a priority.  Enthusiasts don't see it that way.  Reason for that perspective is simple; they don't find mainstream priorities as important.  Those showroom shoppers are ordinary, not seeking out what pushes limits and stands out as leadership.  This disconnect with the masses is why they end up losing virtually ever fight in the end.  It's about winning the wars, not individual battles.  Reality isn't as clear cut to detect.  That mindset is sometimes difficult to notice, which is why FUD is so easy to spread.  Here's an example: "I think this makes so much sense.  Basically their used prices are bringing them around the price that would have made them competitive in the first place given their weaker than average specs.... While I would avoid a new Toyota like the plague these prices are making used Toyotas be worth considering."  I attempted to stir constructive dialog from that with:  Being competitive wasn't the goal.  We knew upfront there would be limited availability and that Toyota didn't want to see a loss-leader.  The goal was to refine their tech on e-TNGA prior to rollout on the new dedicated platform.  It is literally a repeat of the history we saw with Prius from gen-1 to gen-2.  In fact, that is why we saw the 2024 model getting updates and already know 2025 model has more planned.

Introducing Hybrids.  Looks like the Genesis brand (Hyundai's luxury brand) won't be skipping the hybrid stage after all.  Upon getting that news, I posted:  It simply never made sense for any automaker/brand to attempt to shift from ICE directly to BEV.  Not having any type of bridge, with markets so fickle and so unprepared, was quite an economic gamble.  Odds were stacked against such a risk... without even taking into account the inevitable backlash for any such effort... blatant misleading & undermining from those who have something to lose.  This is where Toyota shines, having chosen the bottom-up approach instead.  Enthusiasts hate it.  They thrive on the thrill and quick return from top-down.  Taking the slow & boring route to success is nothing they would ever support, despite shared long-term goals.  It was a "make sure we have enough popcorn" outcome for anyone reading about this history afterward.  You end up asking yourself "what were they thinking?"

EV Awareness.  I wonder how often I will encounter posts like this: "Since when was a Prius a ev last time I checked it was hybrid garbage hybrids aren't ev's there ice vehicles with a tiny battery."  Finding out how absolutely clueless some of the most staunch Volt enthusiasts were, I suspect it will happen on a regular basis.  They made up their mind at some point, then stopped paying attention.  Prius is a hybrid, period.  Any effort to add a plug... to them... was just work-around.  They didn't understand that flexibility was part of the original design.  For Prius, that meant simply adding a clutch to enhance the electric-only propulsion already present.  The resulting increase in power delivered EV drive, since it bumped maximum power & speed to accelerate to and maintain 135 km/h (84 mph) without ever using a drop of gas.  Such close-mindedness explains a lot.  Their assumption enables lots of arguing without ever taking a moment to consider having overlooked something.  Turns out they are wrong, very wrong.  I find it vindicating to point that out too:  Since 2016, when the plug-in model with a 25-mile range and 84 mph all-electric driving was rolled out.

Most Important.  This was awesome to see: "The Bz is the worst EV for the money.  Less range, power and slower charging.  These are some of the most important features of an EV.  Any other EV is a better choice.  You have to be blindly loyal to Toyota to buy one."  There is no way I could resist... and I didn't:  Most important?  Talk to GM about that.  Toyota's software has been flawless.  When their first full EV drive rolled out in 2016 for Prius Prime, no one paid attention.  All these years later, not a peep.  There was never any issue with the all-electric drive... which quietly carried over to bZ4X.   Meanwhile, we see GM struggling with on-going software problems in Blazer EV.  Not everyone needs lots of power and range.  Everyone wants reliability though.  As for slower charging, note that the 2024 model delivers improved DC speed.

We will see range increase over time, but that will be incremental, like what we have witnessed with storage in electronic devices as cost & space permits.  In the meantime, there will be a flood of "low battery range" choices which people will gladly purchase instead of a new ICE... which is why GM is now reconsidering PHEV.

Profits From Hybrids.  An article drawing attention to the lucrative business... not fully endorsing EVs... now rapidly growing was unwelcome news.  Toyota is making money phasing out ICE vehicles.  Hybrids were not supposed to be a draw of any sort.  Other automakers have struggled to make them competitive enough to compete directly on the showroom floor.  Success for Toyota with that has been so profound, it leaves antagonists without any type of argument.  All they have remaining to post is distractions.  This comment to that article drove that message home: "Uh oh... the deluded BEVs-only clowns will hate this!"  There's simply nothing effective to dispute that with.  They look silly even trying.  I found that a great opportunity to nail that coffin shut.  It was that invitation I had been looking for to draw attention to how this was foreseen as a logical step, the sensible choice to end reliance on traditional vehicle sales.  We need to somehow get dealers on board and attempts in the past have failed miserably.  I pointed that out with:  Purist were delighted that GM dropped Volt in favor of Bolt.  It made no sense to abandon a viable bridge.  But the enthusiast mentality of being overly optimistic blinded them from how BEV transition would be funded.  Now 5 years after Volt's demise, we see Toyota preparing to make their high-volume seller 100% hybrid.  That's an awesome position to be in, offering a cleaner vehicle with much higher efficiency than legacy automaker stuck competing with ICE while their BEV product-line evolves.

Hypocritical Distractions.  Gotta love the desperate efforts like this to distract: "If they would stop wasting their money on hydrogen they would have plenty of development funds for EVs.  Meanwhile it's just promises, promises."  Antagonists can post any what-about they want, but you are absolutely prohibited from doing that yourself.  I enjoyed pointing out the hypocritical nature of that attempt.  If they don't want to address the topic at hand, why not counter with an equally critical distraction?  Ideally, I would like to actually find out what they think "development" actually means to them.  It is almost always just add more range and provide faster charging.  That's pointless when you are neglecting the entry-level market.  It also make no sense wasting so much money on efforts that do nothing to grow the market.  How is the investment in FSD (Full Self Driving) supposed to provide a benefit over ICE ownership cost?  Wasn't that the point of EVs, to provide a cleaner choice with far less maintenance and lower operating cost?  Support for Tesla seems to have forgotten that.  I used this opportunity to make them aware of having lost such important objectives:  Kind of like Tesla spending so much on FSD... which has nothing to do with EV propulsion or production... rather than addressing the entry-level market with Model 2.

Want vs. Need.  The exchange became intense.  One guy got quite irate at a few of us for questioning his objectivity.  He was yet another individual who just plain could not grasp the concept of MVP (Minimal Viable Product).  He kept imposing his wants as necessity, baffled how we challenged what he stated.  There's little hope for someone unwilling to accept science.  Ugh.  Oh well, at least the discussion was able to move on with some constructive posting.  I found this helpful: "250/300 mi all-weather range is not extreme."  It was the conclusion following a line of reasoning with detail of a legitimate situation.  I see how statements like that become generalizations, where context missing changes the meaning.  So, I replied:  For most of the population, that is an extreme.  This is just like when hybrids were new.  Someone would provide a perfectly valid example of how the current offering was inadequate.  It always comes down to the 90/10 rule.  90% of the users will be fine with the balance you plan to deliver.  10% of the users will require a large amount of additional resources to fulfill their particular need.  At this stage, it makes no sense whatsoever to address that small audience yet... especially since shortcomings of cost & infrastructure still need to be resolved.  Focus should be on satisfying requirements of the masses in the near term.

Not Necessary.  Voices of reason are emerging.  I was delighted to see this: "On road trips most people will charge to 100% before leaving then running the battery down to 5-10% before recharging to 80-90%. As charging speeds continue to get faster it’s not as big of a deal to charge from low SOC to high SOC.  In normal daily driving nobody needs 500 miles of range."  It was in a comment posted from an article featuring 2024 EPA ranges for vehicles offered in the United States, targeting that specific audience.  Needless to say, it stirred lots of interest.  I jumped into the discussion by replying to that comment with:  Frequency of +500 mile trips is incredibly low.  People obsess with extremes.  Far more realistic is the weekend warrior, where people exit the suburbs and head out to recreation regions.  That routine warm-season migration for us in Minnesota is traveling from the Twin Cities to lake country.  It works out to about 150 miles each way.  If you have charging available at your destination, a quick stop at a DC charger along the way isn't needed.  That is a bitter pill to swallow for those who obsess about range.  In their mind, carrying around that extra weight is required. Reality is, you're sacrificing cost & efficiency for capacity that is not necessary.

Long story short, you claimed "mass appeal" for Model Y, then did not provide anything to explain how Tesla will be able to maintain that level of success.  Kudos for those sales, but there is no guarantee they will continue long term.  Notice how GM is attempting to steal the spotlight with a starting price of $34,995 for Equinox EV?

Waning Demand.  There are some noticing recent stumbles from Tesla.  Something is amiss.  Challenges from CyberTruck design choices... slow & inefficient charging... range shortcomings... shape & finish issues... port placement... cannot be denied.  Pressure from BYD only makes that worse, highlighting absence of diversity.  It's ironic how leadership decisions once praise suddenly turn into inflexible barriers.  Tesla is stuck.  That Model 3 refresh rolling out now is "not what's needed" situation.  Improvements to the vehicle add to its impressive nature, but at the same time highlight is still lacking.  Ugh.  I responded to the new discussion on the topic drawing attention to Tesla's waning demand with:  This is a textbook problem, predictable & preventable.  Tesla continued to refine its product more and more.  Its technology became a gold standard.  Success was undeniable.  Such outstanding results came about from appealing to a very particular market though.  That type of specialization has consequences.  Targeting a niche without regard for how appealing to the masses will happen is called "Innovator's Dilemma".  Growth becomes exceedingly difficult as competitors develop choices the innovator was unable provide.  CyberTruck is indisputable evidence of that textbook problem, spending a great deal of resources appealing to a very particular buyer.  Continued price slashing on Model 3 and Model Y is too.  Neglect for the entry-level market is quite obvious.  Without Tesla changing its direction in a big way... like how GM is now back-pedaling on PHEV offerings... growth simply won't be possible.  Tesla will be trapped serving a limited audience.

2030 Expectation.  Talking about distorting what was actually said.  This is what started the rhetoric: "Toyoda said at a business meeting this month that he sees full battery-electric vehicles only reaching 30% market share."  Leaving out the date is a really big deal.  Exclusion of context is key to misleading.  Antagonists hope you'll assume that market assessment is an expectation for sales ever.  What it really did was provide a milestone, an actual measure to determine progress.  Notice how the "all in" pledges excluded anything like that?  Not providing any type of status indicator, how will you know the objective will be achieved?  It's so disappointing that both media & enthusiast can be so brain-dead at times.  Use some critical thinking.  For crying out loud!  Anywho, this is how I responded to that nonsense:  The statement was only for status as of 2030 and only for their sales & production, which covers a large number of markets with significant infrastructure challenges.  In Europe & United States, it is quite reasonable to expect higher penetration.... assuming we continue with NEVI funding and NACS efforts and support for domestic production.