Sustainable implies that they can keep doing it forever without changing. Switching later means what they are doing is not sustainable. It might be successful, but its not sustainable.
There’s sustainable practices and sustainable businesses. The latter is what others are arguing. Undercutting competition to take over a market is a sustainable practice IF you can hold out long enough. I’d wager the country of China can hold out longer than General Motors.
But the business model has to change in order to survive. The company cannot undercut forever, it actually needs to change in order to survive.
The business model of today is not sustainable. They may have a large warchest, they may be able to crush GM, but once they do, or the warchest runs out, the business model must change.
If you want to make the argument that their overall plan with the later change is sustainable, thats fine, but this current phase is not sustainable.
It might just be that, since BYD is serving such a large domestic market/population, that allows them to have cheaper cars? Something something, economies of scale. I’m no expert though.
BYD is already facing scrutiny for running Evergrande like accounting, and a lot of political pressures from other Chinese manufacturers.
The risk is that they collapse like Evergrande, and that they drag public debt into it. The CCP might prop them up, so it light be safe.
A car is different from a book, because you need lifetime service for it. If they go under, you might lose access to parts.
I’d argue it is.
Just look how Amazon got where it is now: Sell way under market price, till local competition closed shop, then squeeze.
I think your muddying sustainable and successful. It definitely can be successful, but its not sustainable.
Its also high risk, especially if you can’t crank up the prices enough later
https://feddit.org/comment/7714367
Sustainable implies that they can keep doing it forever without changing. Switching later means what they are doing is not sustainable. It might be successful, but its not sustainable.
There’s sustainable practices and sustainable businesses. The latter is what others are arguing. Undercutting competition to take over a market is a sustainable practice IF you can hold out long enough. I’d wager the country of China can hold out longer than General Motors.
But the business model has to change in order to survive. The company cannot undercut forever, it actually needs to change in order to survive. The business model of today is not sustainable. They may have a large warchest, they may be able to crush GM, but once they do, or the warchest runs out, the business model must change.
If you want to make the argument that their overall plan with the later change is sustainable, thats fine, but this current phase is not sustainable.
You forgot the part where they raised prices on everything.
https://feddit.org/comment/7714367
It might just be that, since BYD is serving such a large domestic market/population, that allows them to have cheaper cars? Something something, economies of scale. I’m no expert though.
There is a limit to that effect, though. And most observers agree that the state is subsidizing heavily.
BYD is already facing scrutiny for running Evergrande like accounting, and a lot of political pressures from other Chinese manufacturers. The risk is that they collapse like Evergrande, and that they drag public debt into it. The CCP might prop them up, so it light be safe. A car is different from a book, because you need lifetime service for it. If they go under, you might lose access to parts.