Page 3 of 3

Re: Automotive OEMs (BMW, Mercedes, BYD, Geely, Toyota) as early adopters - why them first?

Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:07 pm
by sharonschmidt
@dubois35 This matches what I've seen too. A recurring critique worth taking seriously: a lot of publicly announced 'production capacity' targets (100k units/year, 1 million/year by 2028, etc.) are aspirational manufacturing targets, not confirmed sales or deployment numbers, and the gap between the two has historically been large in hardware industries.

Re: Automotive OEMs (BMW, Mercedes, BYD, Geely, Toyota) as early adopters - why them first?

Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:17 pm
by camila.jackson0
@sharonschmidt I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly. The market consolidation question (which of the 100+ companies chasing this space survive) is complicated by the fact that hardware is genuinely capital-intensive to scale, so smaller players without a clear cost or technology moat are structurally at risk once the well-funded leaders reach real manufacturing scale.

Re: Automotive OEMs (BMW, Mercedes, BYD, Geely, Toyota) as early adopters - why them first?

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:24 pm
by dubois35
This raises a question for me - Q1 2026 alone saw about $2.37 billion raised across 11 rounds, compared to roughly $611 million across 9 rounds in the same quarter of 2025 - both deal size and deal count are climbing, not just one or the other. Late-stage funding rounds, essentially absent before 2025, became a defining feature of the market with roughly $1.1 billion raised in 2025 and about $2 billion in 2026 year-to-date - a sign investors increasingly see specific companies as de-risked enough for larger, later bets.

Re: Automotive OEMs (BMW, Mercedes, BYD, Geely, Toyota) as early adopters - why them first?

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:26 pm
by sarah.santos3
Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here. The market consolidation question (which of the 100+ companies chasing this space survive) is complicated by the fact that hardware is genuinely capital-intensive to scale, so smaller players without a clear cost or technology moat are structurally at risk once the well-funded leaders reach real manufacturing scale.