Have you ever stopped to think _why_ cars specifically are so expensive? The manufacturers need to put on a fake show to the market and consumers and pretend they are innovating with new "features" every year. But in reality they stuff so many expensive, fragile, and difficult/ impossible to replace electronics and gadgets into cars because 1) every single piece in that car is marked up from the price they paid. The more (ideally expensive) components, the more they get to mark up as the middleman, the more they get to gouge the customer. 2) The more challenging it is to repair the car, the more likely you _must_ come back to the manufacturer (i.e. dealer) and pay them exorbitant fees to fix problems only they know how and have the parts to fix.

▲

mbg721 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I thought it was safety and environmental regulations, primarily. You have to have airbags, and now antilock brakes, and now rearview cameras, etc. If you were allowed to buy a new car built to the standard of the 1970s, it would be cheap.

▲

hateselfdriving 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am also very suspect of the origins of some of these regulations as well. Modern airbags are wonderful, don't get me wrong, but it's not unreasonable to question, in the US at least, whether auto manufacturers and their lobbyists have been causing new rules to be invented that coincidentally both require fancy, expensive technology AND increase the difficulty/ cost of meeting the standards as a mean to prevent new competitors from starting up in auto manufacturing. Rear-view cameras, eye tracking, and drunk-driving detection all come to mind.

	▲	bluGill 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Emissions regulations should come to mind first. Eye tracking is a lot cheaper than getting an ICE to pass modern emissions (a multi-billion dollar project). Of course any of the above if they work are a good thing. We are debating cost/benefit here though.

▲

hateselfdriving 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I've been keeping an eye on Slate lately. They _supposedly_ will be selling their trucks for sub $30k late 2026. Presumably they will meet every modern safety standard.

▲

hateselfdriving 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

3) The "smarter"/ more unnecessarily complex the vehicle, the easier it becomes to enact planned obsolescence, forcing you to forever buy a new vehicle every 5-7 years, if not more frequent.

4) The "smarter" the vehicle, the more they get to track you and sell your data. You'd think "oh in that case I'm sure it'll be like google where I'd pay a reduced price that's offset by the ad money". No, they will obviously happily rip you off on the vehicle itself AND by selling your data. edit: Because guess what? It's working! People are more than happy to fall for this stuff apparently. I mean hell, it's worked for the phone market too, as one other example.

I'd be ecstatic to see the entire industry wiped out by a newcomer on the scene.

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The "smarter"/ more unnecessarily complex the vehicle, the easier it becomes to enact planned obsolescence forcing you to forever buy a new vehicle every 5-7 years, if not more frequent.

This makes it harder not easier!. Cars can only see for $50-100k because they last for many years. When the person who wouldn't caught dead in a car more than 3 years old trades in for a new one it gets sold. If the car only lasted 5-7 years that used car buyer would factor that in and be unwilling to pay nearly as much - they would have no choice because banks won't give you a 6 year loan on a car that only has 2-4 years left.

Planned obsolesce exists, but they are thinking of 12-20 year old cars need to go. Any car that makes it to 25 though is a collectors item and they want you to show it off at car shows (preferably not a daily driver though) so people think you can make cars that go that long.

	▲	hateselfdriving 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The bank loans are a fair point; insurance likely wouldn't insure them either. The CyberTruck, as a notable example. I will say it _can_ be difficult to keep up though, you don't necessarily find out a particular model is a lemon until it's too late, so it can take some years for everyone to learn and adjust. I mean a buddy of mine only found out in 2024 that his 2016 Explorer had a common/ known engine flaw (the water pump frequently goes bad and requires an engine rebuild). And so how do you reconcile that against for example some of Ford's other accomplishments? I mean, there's loads of F150s that have lasted forever (or at least used to). In theory banks/ insurers would have enough data today to be able to map the general trend; so I don't think you're wrong, but at the same time I will counter that we may not yet be fully experiencing the effects of any obsolescence being implemented today. I guess my larger/ real point is that I just foresee this industry heading the same way as phones, and many computers.