Hacker News Reader

Comment by usmannk | Hacker News Reader

I can't imagine anyone would want the car you described, for market-sized values of "anyone"

This feels like the Microsoft Word problem - Word users only use N% of Microsoft Word, the rest is needless bloat wasted on them. The problem is that the N% of features is different for each user.

Some people like blind spot monitoring, others are annoyed by it. Some people need to have satellite radio, others never use it. Some people won't buy a car without Apple CarPlay, others would never so much as buy an Apple product. And so on... but for your product to appeal to customers in general, you need all of the features.

The latest Dacia Sandero is selling better than all other models in its class for a few months now - even if it's basically a revamped last-gen Renault Clio with even lower quality interior and safety features. Some people prefer a basic, cheaper car.

Is that because it's literally impossible to buy other cars since they have a chip backlog though? Is it worth redesigning a car for a trend that will be gone next year?

No, it is because it is a lot cheaper and it can be bought by people that otherwise would not be able to buy a car at all. I know people who bought a Sandero for this reason and I was considering buying one one year ago, just before they announced an electric Dacia that I am still waiting for.

Anyone driving a car thats older than 15 years old is already driving the car that OP is describing.

Sure, but do they actually want that car, or is that just what they have and can afford?

I personally have no interest in any upgrades over my 20 year old car. Maybe electric or no car at all if my living situation changed to support it. Obviously my hand will be forced soon enough as it slowly degrades.

I mean I drive that car because I don't see what I get out of a newer more costly model. I get my 35mpg and have my blutooth. Everything in the new car is exactly the same as everything in my old car.

And that car is worth $2000 on the market. No matter how many features they cut manufacturers aren’t going to be able to sell a new car at that price.

> And that car is worth $2000 on the market.

Yes, because the only reason a person would be willing to part with one at anywhere near that price was if was a lemon.

Mine's from 1997 so easily in that range.

Then OP can just buy a used car that has low mileage. Also, with many of the features they list, if they break, then they're just broken. It would have no effect on you if you aren't using those features already. A broken seat with a warmer is just a regular seat.

Is a typical new car buyer currently driving a 15-year-old car?

You could say that's plausible. In a way it even makes sense, that people buy cars and then drive them for as long as they reasonably last. But if you had to, would you guess that this is how the market operates?

No, because in every product sector people have shown when given a choice and the means to make it, they'd rather buy a shiny new thing than mend an older one. We are addicted to the dopamine hit of consumption.

They aren't buying a new car on all these new widgets that might be different between one today and one from yesteryear. I bet for the vast majority of people the primary technological wants of a car are cold AC and blutooth. Everything else, your TPMS, your brake alert system that beeps like a missile is locked on when you inch too close in traffic, no one stood up and asked for any of that stuff. The market just saddled it upon us and the higher per unit cost is passed right along to us with markup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com