Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Power

California Startup Sells 'Subscriptions' to Electric Vehicles (bnnbloomberg.ca) 121

Posted by EditorDavid from the renew-able-energy dept.
In January a California startup named Autonomy began "stocking up on EVs from pretty much every company that makes them," reports Bloomberg (including Tesla, Ford, and Polestar). Their plan? Collect a $5,900 "start fee," then charge $490 to $690 a month for an electric vehicle subscription with up to 1,000 miles of driving (but with no maintenance or registration fees): The subscription model has some logic for consumers. In part because of fast-evolving technology, EVs have traditionally shed value much quicker than gas-powered cars. On a depreciation scale, consumers typically lump them in with cell phones.... But EV ownership is also looking better by the day. The depreciation curve is flattening thanks to longer-range machines, and car companies are getting more vocal about things like battery longevity. A three-year-old Chevrolet Bolt, for example, will recoup 84% of its value today, in line with the average resale of all three-year-old cars in North America, according to CarEdge.com, a consumer-facing market research platform.

That could be why auto executives are pushing to round up that sweet, sweet software revenue in smaller chunks. BMW, to much outcry, is selling an $18-a-month subscription for heated seats in the UK, and General Motors turned its OnStar voice navigation into a $1,500 "mandatory" subscription on every new Buick, GMC and Cadillac Escalade. Even without a la carte add-ons, one of the major forces propping up prices for used EVs is, ironically, their ability to update remotely — the same technology carmakers are using to nickel-and-dime drivers with subscription services.

A contemporary car is nothing if not a dense stack of software, which means subscriptions on wheels are not entirely bonkers. But a car is also an appliance, and consumers aren't accustomed to renting a refrigerator, let alone paying a monthly fee to use the ice-maker. Luckily for Autonomy, the simplest pitch may be the best one. If it can bigfoot individual EV orders by jumping to the head of the queue, the startup could find scads of subscribers — simply because it will have available cars.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Startup Sells 'Subscriptions' to Electric Vehicles More

California Startup Sells 'Subscriptions' to Electric Vehicles

Comments Filter:

  • Rent/lease (Score:5, Funny)

    by dfm3 ( 830843 ) on Sunday August 14, 2022 @09:46AM (#62788316) Journal
    Congratulations, you just invented the rental car.

    • No, no, no sir, it's not a lease (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday August 14, 2022 @10:01AM (#62788334)
      Or rental and therefore would not be governed by any of the consumer protection laws associated with leases and rentals.

      That's my guess for what's going on here. Whenever you see a company redefining something that already exists it's usually to get around government regulations that themselves exist to prevent abuses that were happening when the laws were passed. Kind of like how Uber got around a century of labor law by being on the internet.
      • Iâ(TM)m generally not a fan of lawlessness but some of those cabby laws were in bad need of breaking. You know anything about the medallion system?
        • They needed to be reformed. The goal of The medallion system was to make it so that cabbies could make a living. Problem was so many people would start driving that nobody could make a living because there'd be too much competition. It would also clog the roads with cabbies and their rates would be so cheap because it's a heavy competition that it would get to the point where it's cheaper to just take a cab then own a car or even take the subway.

          The problem is that we let large businesses and corporatio

          • Medallions simply shouldn't be re-salable, and their price should be based on administrative costs. If you aren't using your medallion any more, you should have to relinquish it unless it's transferred to a family member who will use it. Whether a business should be able to hold them and how many they should hold, I don't have a strong opinion on, but this whole system where the medallion itself has value is offensive.

            • Re:They didn't need to be broken (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Jeslijar ( 1412729 ) on Sunday August 14, 2022 @01:21PM (#62788934) Homepage

              Medallions should be owned by individuals only. It shouldn't be a company that owns medallions, it should be a driver is granted a medallion for being a good driver and applying for one. If you don't use the medallion for x amount of time you simply lose it but are on a fast-track approval to get one if you re-apply.

              Cab companies, like auto dealerships really shouldn't be lucrative businesses. The whole system just fucks over the actual workers and the customers so that a middleman can make some bling and bring next to zero value for the majority of customers, all because "it's always been this way."

            • Trouble with doing it as a lottery is that it makes it so that being a cabbie can't really be a job you apply for or even work towards but rather it's on thing you win. That makes the quality of your drivers based more on random luck than anything else.

              Again the problem here is we're trying desperately to mix the free market into something where it doesn't fit. The cab drivers are a necessity but the entire public uses and depends on. Ordinarily for something like that it would be a public resource mana
            • Medallions should absolutely not be transferable to family members. They should be treated like fishing licenses. Beginning of each year people should have to apply for a medallion and a lottery held to assign the required number of medallions. Those who dont win a license can sublet their taxi to a newcomer who does win. The fee for entering the lottery should be low and enough to cover the administrative costs.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

                You're proposing a system with no consistency, where the best case scenario if you do not win the lottery next year is that you might be able to sublease your taxi to someone else and defray (but probably not eliminate) your fixed costs.

                I think the current medallion system is pretty shitty, but yours manages to actually be worse for the drivers.

      • That's my guess for what's going on here. Whenever you see a company redefining something that already exists it's usually to get around government regulations that themselves exist to prevent abuses that were happening when the laws were passed.

        There was one company around here which gave unbelievably cheap car rentals, like a few dollars a day for a decent car.

        The trick was that they'd charge thousands of $$$ for any damage whatsoever. A tiny scratch somewhere? $700 for a "repaint". A ding or dent? $3000 to fix it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        We have had EV rental companies in the UK for years now. People like to try cars out with them, or cover gaps where they hand one lease car back and have to wait for the new one because of the supply chain delays.

        Consumer law wise they are pretty good. Because the rental company owns the car they are obviously not going to just ignore faults that are covered under warranty. If there is a problem you hand it back, they give you a different vehicle and they get the manufacturer to fix it.

        The only real down si

    • Congratulations, you just invented the rental car.

      It's actually more impressive than that. They just invented the auto lease. Is there no end to the innovative genius of California startups?

    • Sounds more like a lease. But that doesn't have a new big-tech feeling about it, so call it subscription so that twenty somethings understand it?

    • More like a "car club" if you have to pay membership. Looking at some existing schemes [como.org.uk] in the UK this seems to be massively expensive.

    • That's innovation; continuously re-inventing the wheel.
    • Who is liable in the event of an accident? The driver doesnâ(TM)t own the car and may not have as deep of pockets as the subscription company. I suspect that is coveted in the agreement but will It hold up in court?

  • It's just gambling (Score:3)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday August 14, 2022 @10:01AM (#62788336) Homepage Journal

    The bet is that the lack of replacement battery options will cause the EV to depreciate fast enough that it makes more sense to use such a service than to buy one.

    If you didn't have to spend so much up front to buy in, it would also be a great way to try the vehicle for an extended period before putting down a payment and getting on a waiting list.

    The big problem with the idea from the consumer's side is that battery technology keeps improving, and it is one of the most intense R&D fields at the moment since so many things depend on improving it — there's a practically infinite market for better batteries, as we can't possibly even build them fast enough to fill demand. It seems very likely that EV battery replacements will continue to fall in value. Therefore the best candidates for ownership of these vehicles are people who are planning to do a very large number of miles. Most other owners don't have to worry about the battery going bad prematurely, the tech has come a long way since the first gen Leaf.

    • If batteries could be made better, why wouldn't they have been for cordless phones, cell phones, cordless tools, yard tools, etc etc? Its not like batteries are a new thing.

      • Two things to consider;

        1) Batteries for those things have improved and continue to improve.

        2) The design criteria, and therefore what constitutes an "improvement," is very different between a cell phone and a car. For example, cell phone batteries are trying to be the lightest, smallest package with the most energy possible and a target lifespan of 2-3 years. An EV battery maybe doesn't need to be as light and small as possible, but needs to be rugged to survive in a harsher environment for 10+ years.
        =Smidg

        • But a car battery will need to charge in 10 minutes. By comparison that would be a cell phone battery that charges in 10 seconds.

          • a car battery will need to charge in 10 minutes.

            False. A car battery needs to get a useful charge in a reasonable amount of time. Most EVs will get from 20 to 80% in under 20 minutes, which works for most drivers. Most people aren't fully utilizing their range anyway. As EVs proliferate, chargers become more common, and charging opportunities increase — making getting a full charge at any given time less and less important.

            • Most EVs will get from 20 to 80% in under 20 minutes, which works for most drivers.

              Actually that depends on the size of the battery, the rate at which the car can charge, the actual rate at which the charger can supply electricity and the temperature of the battery. Also of course that "80%" is a bit meaningless without knowing the size of the battery and the climate in which you're operating (in cold climates the range differs pretty significantly). What values of these capture "most"?

              I'm not necessarily disputing your assertion but that's not my experience and perhaps I'm just one of th

        • An EV battery maybe doesn't need to be as light and small as possible, but needs to be rugged to survive in a harsher environment for 10+ years.

          For every use you there is a good argument for pursuing maximum energy density, for two reasons. One, there's literally no application where you wouldn't like to drive down battery mass. Even in stationary applications, making the batteries lighter means it's cheaper to move them, facilities including both the building and any racking also get cheaper, and so on. Two, less mass means less materials means less cost. But there are lots of reasons why one might pick a particular chemistry for a purpose, and co

          • All the use cases were portable use cases, from lap tops, cameras, smart phones to EVs the energy density per kg, per liter is very important.

            But there are stationary applications, grid level storage, wind farms hoping to store energy that the grid could not absorb, home energy back up etc. There density does not matter and Lithium iron batteris are very suitable.

        • 1) Batteries for those things have improved and continue to improve.

          People are still having plenty of grief with batteries for phones, power tools and lawncare equipment. They get a couple years of use then capacity goes to shit. Modern tool batteries have competent internal BMSs /w schemes to dissipate energy when the battery is unused for a period of time and cells are still dying. I should note in many cases these are the same cells used in EVs. The difference is quantity and supporting infrastructure (structure, BMS, environmental controls..etc.)

          2) The design criteria, and therefore what constitutes an "improvement," is very different between a cell phone and a car. For example, cell phone batteries are trying to be the lightest, smallest package with the most energy possible and a target lifespan of 2-3 years. An EV battery maybe doesn't need to be as light and small as possible, but needs to be rugged to survive in a harsher environment for 10+ years.

          It's the same techn

          • Re:It's just gambling (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Sunday August 14, 2022 @04:16PM (#62789490) Journal

            > People are still having plenty of grief with batteries for phones, power tools and lawncare equipment.

            That doesn't mean they haven't gotten better. They have absolutely gotten better. Problem is, manufacturers of those things - especially smartphones - have no incentive to make their batteries last more than a few years because most people don't keep the device that long, either because it breaks/wears out or becomes obsolete. So as batteries improved, they either used less battery (compare lithium tool batteries from 5 years ago and today; different number of cells, or they use pouches now) or engineered in more device (cell phones).

            > I should note in many cases these are the same cells used in EVs.

            As far as I'm aware, only Tesla ever used 18650 cells in production vehicles, and they're moving away from those.

            > The difference is quantity and supporting infrastructure (structure, BMS, environmental controls..etc.)

            The difference is also in the manufacturing of the cells themselves, and tweaks to the chemistry. Or even entirely different chemistries. Even if the materials themselves are the same, new processes for assembling them have improved performance and densities significantly. One easy example I ca see from where I sit: Compare "Eneloop" brand NiMH AA cells with any other brand. Exact same chemistry, but Eneloop cells degrade slower, don't have memory effects, and have significantly lower self-discharge. The difference is in the physical construction, and this also applies to lithium batteries made today vs. a decade ago.
            =Smidge=

            • That doesn't mean they haven't gotten better. They have absolutely gotten better.

              I assume batteries are getting better. The question for me is whether they are good enough to invest large sums of money into the proposition of them lasting long enough to provide commensurate value in return.

              Problem is, manufacturers of those things - especially smartphones - have no incentive to make their batteries last more than a few years because most people don't keep the device that long, either because it breaks/wears out or becomes obsolete.

              This isn't a falsifiable statement. If you stipulate batteries inherently suck one can invoke the same device to excuse the fact that they suck.

              Tool vendors are getting bad press and losing money on returns over battery issues so probably not such a good corporate strategy to be adopting at all.

              So as batteries improved, they either used less battery (compare lithium tool batteries from 5 years ago and today; different number of cells, or they use pouches now) or engineered in more device (cell phones).

              I'm

              • > The question for me is whether they are good enough to invest large sums of money into the proposition of them lasting long enough to provide commensurate value in return.

                It's the battery manufacturers that are doing the investing, so it's safe to assume they've figured out that the improvements are worth it.

                > This isn't a falsifiable statement. If you stipulate batteries inherently suck one can invoke the same device to excuse the fact that they suck.

                The fact that you CAN, easily, engineer a batter

      • Re:It's just gambling (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday August 14, 2022 @10:41AM (#62788432) Homepage Journal

        If batteries could be made better, why wouldn't they have been for cordless phones, cell phones, cordless tools, yard tools, etc etc? Its not like batteries are a new thing.

        Mu.

        Batteries were made better for all of those things. Because you apparently don't have any experience with those things, and have been living under some large and broad rock which prevents sales circulars from reaching you (which I admit, is a nice feature) you apparently don't know that literally all of those things used to use nickel-cadmium batteries, then switched to using nickel metal hydride, then various lithium-ion chemistries (mostly nickel manganese chloride) over the last two to three decades. My father's Makita tools were all Nicad. My first cordless tools were NiMH. The ones I have now are Li-Ion.

        The single most expensive commodity consumer good that most people purchase is the automobile, so the automobile being based on batteries obviously and necessarily means the largest increase in consumer-driven spending on batteries. This in turn provides the R&D funding for the next generation. Most people have had little need for large amounts of battery capacity until recently.

        Where have the large numbers of large batteries been going until recently? Telcos, server farms, solar installations, generally a bunch of stationary facilities. Fork lifts and mining equipment, where weight is not only not a problem but they actually have to add ballast if you don't have those heavy batteries. Automotive starting batteries, where lead-acid does a fine job and is easy and cheap to recycle. The emphasis until the explosion of the smartphone was on cost reduction. Then it shifted to power density. Then devices started catching on fire in noticeable numbers so they put some more effort into less flammable chemistry. Maybe soon we start to see these solid-state batteries that are supposedly in mass production now, and allegedly solve that problem outright, and offer more cycles.

        • all of those things used to use nickel-cadmium batteries

          The continuing decline and disappearance of Ni-Cad batteries has created a soft market for cadmium for years now, which was the overwhelming market for this element. Niche use in thin film solar cells (5% of the market) has been taking up the slack, and is likely to continue to do so. Ni-Cads are going to become a think of the past over the next several years, like mercury cells (though these were banned due to the toxic content).

      • If batteries could be made better, why wouldn't they have been for cordless phones, cell phones, cordless tools, yard tools, etc etc?

        Planned obsolescence.

      • If batteries could be made better

        What do you mean "if"? Are you speaking oblivious to the fact that battery technology, density, service live, current produced, etc, haven't all dramatically improved in the past 30 years?

        Its not like batteries are a new thing.

        Oh but they are. You're just confusing them with the old ones.

        • Maybe they have been improved in 30 years, but we need a car battery that charges from empty to full in 10 minutes. We are nowhere near a cellphone battery that charges in 10 seconds.

          • We're getting there though, I think theres more than a few cars that can do the 20-80% charge in 20 some odd minutes from a DC fast charger and there is a massive market motivation to lower that and improve ranges and extend lifetimes all at once. It's a battery space-race right now.

            The two aren't really analagous due to the simple physics nature of one vs another, car batteries are these complex multi hundred or thousand cell webs which is why they can take 300kw+ of power input and have complex charge an

            • Ok well the 20-80% charge doesn't really help if you are on a long trip.

              • If 80 to 20% though is a range of 200+ miles though we are talking on average 3-4 hours of driving, pretty reasonable and getting closer to the gas tank range of some vehichles.

                At some point, maybe even today for some people the total stoppage time over an 8 hour trip might be a difference of 60 minutes versus 30 for gas. Not bad when you consider the savings in fuel costs and all the other EV benefits you get, especially when most people arent making 4-8 hour trips all that ofter.

                If your life involves lon

                • I recently had to drive 480km to meet with a flight. How is that supposed to work with an EV? First of all, a 5 hour drive is now 6 hours at least because of charging. Secondly should you plan to have one or two people in front of you at the charger? With an ICE you know you can fill before you leave and make it to your destination without interruptions. Even if you do need to fill for gas you can be in a line up of a couple cars and it won't affect you much.

                  • A Tesla Model 3 Standard has a range of 358km, so for 420km you would have to stop once for 10 to 20 minutes tops. Are you late for your flight and can't give yourself an extra 10-20 minutes to charge up on your 3 hour trip? Is this really how you approach your puchase of automobiles, a small inconviencnce on 5% of your trips overrides a better experience the other 95%?

                    With an ICE you know you can fill before you leave and make it to your destination without interruptions.

                    Traffic, bladders and mechanical issues don't top existing.

                    Chargers being busy has no relevance on this conversation, that's something sepe

                  • I recently had to drive 480km to meet with a flight.

                    You drove from Paris, France to Frankfurt, Germany to get on a plane? That is a 478km trip.

              • We're getting there though, I think theres more than a few cars that can do the 20-80% charge in 20 some odd minutes from a DC fast charger ...

                Ok well the 20-80% charge doesn't really help if you are on a long trip.

                Sure it does. A Tesla Model 3 quotes 358 miles of range on a full charge, so 60% of that is 215 miles. If you're averaging, say, 65 miles per hour, that says you want to stop for 20 minutes once every 3 hrs 20 minutes. You know what? After driving for 3:20, you should take a twenty-minute break. Walk around, get something to eat, hit the restroom.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by tepples ( 727027 )

                  Walk around, get something to eat, hit the restroom.

                  Agreed, so long as you aren't passing through a state that has temporarily banned dining rooms in restaurants to "flatten the curve" of the latest infectious disease.

                • Sure it does. A Tesla Model 3 quotes 358 miles of range on a full charge, so 60% of that is 215 miles.

                  Yes the Long Range model does and in the real world it's more like 224 miles [insideevs.com] 60% of which is 135 miles.

                  This is the thing I have found since buying an EV, there are a lot of variables and many of them have a significant effect on the range and also on charging speed. I'm very much pro-EV because it works for me in most cases (and I have an ICEV for when it doesn't) but I wouldn't recommend one to somebody without asking a lot of questions first because the fact is they don't work for everybody.

                  • Sure it does. A Tesla Model 3 quotes 358 miles of range on a full charge, so 60% of that is 215 miles.

                    Yes the Long Range model does and in the real world it's more like 224 miles [insideevs.com] 60% of which is 135 miles.

                    OK, that's freezing conditions (the article you quote is "Tesla Model 3 Winter Test"). Most driving isn't in the dead of winter, but if it is, you may need to charge more often.

                    This is the thing I have found since buying an EV, there are a lot of variables and many of them have a significant effect on the range and also on charging speed.

                    Yep, and temperature is definitely one.

                    But the point is, when you drive long distance, yes, you should stop for breaks from time to time anyway. Charging is just not a big deal.

                    I'm very much pro-EV because it works for me in most cases (and I have an ICEV for when it doesn't) but I wouldn't recommend one to somebody without asking a lot of questions first because the fact is they don't work for everybody.

                    I agree, but usually it's exactly the opposite way. Most people don't routinely commute from Chicago to San Diego twice a month. Most driving stays within 25

                    • OK, that's freezing conditions (the article you quote is "Tesla Model 3 Winter Test"). Most driving isn't in the dead of winter, but if it is, you may need to charge more often.

                      Yes it's also the Long Range model, but it's at 0 degrees and certainly not the worst of winter. My point is a lot of EV evangelists (as distinct from just EV owners who don't really care about convincing others to drive them) will quote the most optimistic figures but do the "oh but that's not ideal conditions" when you point out some of the real world figures.

                      Yep, and temperature is definitely one.

                      But the point is, when you drive long distance, yes, you should stop for breaks from time to time anyway.

                      You'll find those breaks mandated by your car rather than by when you want to stop, again that will change as more chargers become available and as

                    • Sure but as somebody else in the comments pointed out: most computing is just web browsing and email yet people don't just use chromebooks.

                      Yeah, these days they mostly just use their phone.

                    • Sure but as somebody else in the comments pointed out: most computing is just web browsing and email yet people don't just use chromebooks.

                      Yeah, these days they mostly just use their phone.

                      Right, "mostly" and when it doesn't work you use the right tool for the job instead. Most of the time I don't need a laptop/desktop and some of the time I do and most people probably don't need that most of the time but some people need that some of the time and some people need that most of the time but if you're in the niche category of only needing that all of the time then good for you.

                      Of course if you're outside that niche and have to choose one or the other then you choose the one that does everything

                    • In the case of the car, I can only afford one tool. So is its gong to be the tool that does the most for me every time. It's not going to be the tool that won't do stuff 'most people don't need' because that is usually the tool I find myself needing.

          • Maybe they have been improved in 30 years, but we need a car battery that charges from empty to full in 10 minutes.

            Why?

            95% of car use is short range, and you return home at night; charging overnight is fine. For the five percent of the time which is driving on trips over 250 miles, you know what? You stop for breaks anyway. The problem isn't that the batteries don't charge fast enough; you stop for lunch at spots that have a nice restaurant and charge while you're eating.

          • "how can something be good if it's not perfect?!"

      • If batteries could be made better, why wouldn't they have been for cordless phones, cell phones, cordless tools, yard tools, etc etc? Its not like batteries are a new thing.

        They have. Cordless phones and cell phones were the main driver of the battery revolution; cordless tools took full advantage of that, and battery powered yard tools pretty much didn't even EXIST until the better batteries became available.

        • battery powered yard tools pretty much didn't even EXIST until the better batteries became available.

          They've been around, you've been able to order them but nobody bothered to stock them much since they were good only for the smallest jobs. But the nicad ones had mediocre runtime and poor pack life, and the nimh ones had poor torque (they just don't deliver the amps like nicad, let alone lithium.) Battery pole saws in particular have been around, but also hedge trimmers.

          I now have a black and decker nimh pole saw with a home made adapter from ridgid lithium. Torque seems subjectively about the same, but ru

      • They have been. The batteries in my cordless tools are massively better than the first cordless drill I owned. It is an open question as to whether they can continue to improve as much in the future.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      The summary makes this statement:
      "EVs have traditionally shed value much quicker than gas-powered cars. On a depreciation scale, consumers typically lump them in with cell phones.... "

      This is simply not true (at least for Teslas). Numerous studies have shown that Teslas depreciate at a much lower rate that ICE cars. In fact, many Teslas now are selling used for more than their purchase price. My son in law bought a used Model X a few years ago and just sold it (to an ICE dealer) for $10,000 more than he pai

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Replacement batteries have been available for years. As has battery refurbishment. What tends to happen is one or two cells go bad, so you only need to replace those and not the entire pack. In Europe people have been doing it for years with Leafs, and now starting to see it done with other vehicles.

      That said, if there are going to be problems with the battery they tend to happen when it is under warranty anyway. It's the classic bath tub curve, higher early failure rate, then low failure rate until the pac

      • What you say about the batteries is true, but part of the promise of EVs is that they will last longer. This is ideal, because if we build less vehicles, it means we spend less energy building vehicles. If they last longer, then they are more likely to eventually need a battery replacement. The cost of the battery replacement affects the resale value, and therefore the entire value proposition. Right now the demand is such that the values are elevated, and any EV which doesn't clearly fail at being an EV is

  • I don't know what kind of cars will be accessible by customers, but here in The Netherlands, prices are much more affordable.

    I can drive the following cars: Renault Zoe ZE50, Tesla Model 3, Hyundai Kona and Hyundai IONIQ 5. Subscription is US$ 170 per month for having a car 2 days a week, plus 22-26 cents per kilometer (35-41 cents per mile). On average, this means I pay about 325 per month.

    Does that startup grant you much more days per month? Or does it come with miles included?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      TFS says up to 1000 miles are included in the base cost, I assume per month; leases and insurance in the US often use around 12000 miles/year as a baseline. And their web site implies a subscriber gets exclusive access to a single vehicle -- they say 28 days notice is required before returning the car.

      It sounds an awful lot like a lease with costs like maintenance and registration being amortized.

      • Interesting, so it seems it's leasing, but more flexible. Doesn't seem like a bad deal to me, but if they don't do anything extra (like providing a charging facility), then they're just a more flexible leasing company.

    • I think once they compete price-wise with Citi-bikes, they will TOTALLY be on to something.

  • So, who gets ... (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Sunday August 14, 2022 @10:34AM (#62788404)

    ... the $7500 EV purchase tax credit?

    • They do!

      Plus: 1000 miles/month isn't much. Most people will be paying extra.

      Bottom line: They ain't losing money.

    • Does it matter? The point of the EV purchase credit is to put more EVs on the road. The tax credit isn't there for you to grab back from the Evil Government (tm).

  • Why name new company after a massive fraud? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In April 2018 Autonomy's ex-CFO Sushovan Hussain was charged in the US and found guilty in of accounting fraud,[42] and subsequently allowed out on bail after his appeal raised a "substantial question over his conviction."[43] Hussain's appeal failed in August 2020.[44] Based on Hussain's evidence, Lynch was charged with fraud in November 2018.[45] Lynch said he would contest extradition and that he "vigorously rejects all the allegations against him."[46] In March 2019, HP brought a civil action in the U

  • This is a great deal, if I can just leave the car where it sits when it runs out of charge, and just get a new one.

  • Sounds awful, but that's the market (Score:3)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday August 14, 2022 @04:39PM (#62789548) Journal

    Just for the heck of it, I looked for a Tesla here and found a *used* one for about $65k. Playing around with 5 year loan calculators and reasonable rates, I couldn't shake the monthly payment down below $1000. With realistic interest rates and down payments it was more like $1200. You own the car, but if you don't have the cash flow to make that payment, the question is moot.

    A new one? Fuggedaboutit. Model X, Tesla says delivery March-June 2023.

    I wouldn't invest in this startup though. It sounds like those production companies you see credited in movies. We're watching a show called Supply Chain and Demand staring. Elon Musk. It won't always be this way.

    The smart money is driving something else and biding its time. Gas will come back down to reasonable levels. The supply chain will work itself out. The supply vs. demand will eventually favor the consumer. It's just a matter of time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      To be fair to Tesla, the Model 3 is cheaper than that to buy new. It's just very small, so you might need to upgrade to a model Y which is a bit more expensive.

      Or get an even better car like an eNiro or Polestar 2.

      • For a cheap electric car one could go with the Chevy Bolt EV -$25k new (EPA estimated 259 miles per charge), or the larger Chevy Bolt EUV $27k new (EPA estimated 247 miles per charge). Those prices are BEFORE the new government incentives-they are both under 20k with the incentives..

        The reviews are pretty good and they are cheap -and available.

        • That's actually very tempting, as my Civic with 215k was supposed to be the last ICE I ever bought. It's probably good for 300k easy though. Recently checked out, mechanic says it's smooth. I got 40 mpg on a recent trip, no sign of any engine trouble ever. We really are in the glory days of ICEs just before they become obsolete, like the last steam trains.

          A new EV in the low $20k range would match what I paid for the Civic in 2007. That's quite an inflation beater!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's incredibly cheap, very impressive.

        • The reviews are pretty good and they are cheap -and available.

          The problem is that a Volt is made by GM, which is the GM of car companies. (This is Slashdot, so I have to describe it in terms of cars, right?) Their core competency is big lumping pushrod V8s. They are hands down better at this than anyone else. Ford now has a pretty impressive 7.3 liter gas engine, not that that's confusing or anything, but they literally can't seem to figure out how to stop it from melting spark plug wires. It's called Godzilla, which I guess makes sense because if it sets your vehicle

  • Rent everything! Own nothing! Stupidity. Especially when the rental deal is such bullshit as this.

  • I see a bunch of posts that don't seem to discuss the pros and cons. I'm 3 months in on an Autonomy subscription. Here's why I did it. Note that I'm comparing to leasing a Tesla from Tesla.

    - Down payment was $4500 which included a $500 coupon. Autonomy just upped their prices by 1k after Tesla raised prices.

    - Comparative Tesla lease is based on 10k/yr rather than 12k for Autonomy. You can increase with Tesla for a few bucks more. Monthly was just better.

    - They pay the registration which is worth about $50/

  • Different wording, just leasing an EV.

  • It's a bit misleading to say that "EVs depreciate faster than other cars" - Teslas retain value exceptionally well, so it's more accurate to say that the older non-Tesla depreciate rapidly. And given that Tesla is 79% of US EV sales the last few quarters, it's misleading to refer to the 21% of the market as representing the whole market.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close