Wright’s Law exposes that governments targets are by design increasing the cost of living.

I just finished a video on Wright’s law, linked here, and it explains how, when new technology is introduced, prices are high, but then they keep falling until the new technology costs less than the old technology, resulting in the price of technology falling over time.

And then I thought, how does that fit with government policy to have a target of inflation typically around 2%? And what’s one of the main reasons they have a target of inflation? To ensure people don’t delay spending.

But if technology prices keep falling, which are largely discretionary items, and people buy them anyway, that means to achieve the target inflation levels, prices of things like food, which aren’t discretionary, have to go up.

Basically, everything that’s in the cost of living has to go up to support inflation, even though that doesn’t actually change demand. And discretionary items come down. Government central bank policies are driving up the cost of living by plan.

Makes me feel not only is the economy a house of cards, it’s using a deck stacked by rich donors, big business and lobbyists.

Understanding Wright’s Law, is key to knowing what technology, at what price, is coming next, and how prices of current technologies will change. It also has significant implication on completeness of USA vs China vs the rest how AI can revolutionise the cost of introducing new products.

I first came across Wrights law while researching when EVs could achieve price parity, saw it again in a discussion on Moore’s law, and only arrived at my current level of understanding while researching which future battery technologies are likely to reach production, and when.

Welcome to a One Finite Planet EV and technology video on Wright’s law.

Wrights law, also known as the experience curve effect, can be thought of as the more general form of “Moore’s law”. This is a video explains Wrights’ law, how it relates to Moore’s law, the problems it creates for the introduction of new products and solutions to those problems including USPs, venture capital and government assistance through examples such as flats screen TVs, EVs, and EV batteries, and what those examples say about future competitiveness of US, China, Europe and others, in the innovation race, and then lastly AI can impact experience curves.

What is wrights law

Wright’s law is basically an analysis of how “practise makes better” impacts manufacturing. It started with Theodore Paul Wright finding every doubling of total planes produced, resulted in a 20% cost reduction. The more of something you make, the better, and more efficient you get at making it. Getting better and more efficient means reducing manufacturing costs and improving quality.

That part sounds obvious, but is less obvious, is that it has been found that the reductions in cost follow a formulae, which, as it is well covered in full detail on Wikipedia. Here we will what results from the formula, and the implications.

This bit’s worthwhile, So hopefully I can keep it being keep it from being too boring But, the concept is that every proportional increase in the total number produced will result in the same savings. You could chose any fixed proportion, but the proportional increase everyone works with, is doubling, for product after product the same savings result from doubling the total produced, will happen again for each future doubling of total production.

Other industries typically experience anywhere between 2% and 30%. As an example, 10% rate means a 10% saving is made between the first 1,000 and when total production reaches 2,000, then again when it reaches 4,000, 8,000, 16,000 etc with each subsequent doubling producing another 10% cost saving.

As the number needed to double the total produced grows exponentially, the savings have most impact initially, and the larger the total number of something produced so far, the slower the cost reductions from that point. This results in a production cost curve like that shown, with the X scale being units produced by a time, but by volume. This is important because the high cost of the first units can make initial sales much slower, and often production accelerates once cost savings kick in.

Moore’s law?

Which brings us to Moore’s law, which is a label that others use to describe an observation, made by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, on how the number of components that could be fabricated in integrated circuits would double every year, which he updated to every second year from 1980. It came to be called “Moore’s law” and extended to lots of other things including pixels in image sensors etc.

Where can appear to differ from Wright’s law is that it predicts every doubling in the same period of time. normally after initial ramp up, each doubling of total production, will take twice as long as the previous doubling, but Moore’s law is a special case where total production keeps scaling up so it also doubles in fixed intervals, as there is a seemingly insatiable appetite for the product.

it is common with wright Dr. Mark. that the market will increase as the price falls and more people want the product . Moore’s law when people also want more of the product . with something like a TV a lower price might mean more people want 1. But not like with bytes of memory, where the number they want can keep doubling and doubling and doubling as the price falls! Memory each person will buy increased kilobytes to megabytes to gigabytes, and is now at terabytes!

Moore’s becomes a special case of rights law that applies for products seemingly without limits for how many a person may have, with time frame for each doubling remaining the same. Of course, like everything else on a finite planet there’s a limit, and for memory time frames began to stretch sometime between 2005 and 2010.

Early Loss making products: fixed cost + Wright’s.

Note: Typically, the larger the planned scale of production, the higher the initial investment in plant & tooling required to reduce unit costs.

Note: Later production runs can be a revised model, making the earlier model “loss making”

Rights law is not the only reason initial prizes are high, and typically it takes time for sales to recover those fixed costs and production to result in a profit. you can’t recover the design cost, producing tooling, and perhaps building or refitting factories from the first unit sold. You often see reports of companies losing huge amounts per unit produced, using cost per unit value calculated by spreading those fixed costs, over the units sold so far, and while such a number does mean the product is not yet at profitability, it doesn’t mean it’s not on track to reach profitability, nor that every additional unit produced will have that cost, as the reality is, normally every extra unit produced will reduce that cost.

Wrights law adds an extra layer of how cost per unit falls over time. The combined effect is that the larger the total scale of production, the bigger the cost of introducing a competitive product, and globalisation has taken the scale global.

Challenges.

Initial pricing.

that brings us to the first challenge early product pricing. recovering initial design tooling and setup costs At the time when you could cost are also still hi provides all new products with a nightmare scenario.

Consider how Tesla began selling cars in 2008, but didn’t record an annual profit until 2020. Tesla introduced the Model 3. in 2016, and in 2018,. anyone could have used the total costs including design and production setup ,divided by units sold, and declared Tesla is losing $X per car sold, but it wasn’t increasing prices that made Tesla become profitable, but falling production costs, that saw Tesla become profitable in 2020.

From that point Tesla went on to become extremely profitable, while Tesla has been able to reduce to average price of its cars, particularly once inflation is considered. But it took 12 years for Wrights law to have sufficient impact on costs, to enable balancing profits with a sales price that could entice sufficient customers.

cost breakthroughs.

consider experience curves for two products. One having an innovation that allows for a lower cost, but now consider what happens if that lower cost product is introduced later. Despite being a lower cost product it will cost more.

first plasma flat panels, and then LCDs, could be considered cost breakthroughs in the way to make a given size TV set , That price penalty meant the first flat screens were initially high cost premium products, but comparing the price of a 34 television in 1990 with the current price over 65″ Television it’s clear just how that new, initially expensive technology, has enabled lower prices.

Era / Year	Size	Nominal Price (USD)	Inflation‑Adjusted Price (2025 USD)	Technology	Lines Resolution
1990	34‑inch	1,500–2,000	3,500–4,700	CRT / rear‑projection	480 (SD NTSC)
2005	65‑inch	5,000–10,000	7,500–15,000	Rear‑projection / plasma	720–1080 (HD)
2006	65‑inch	5,000–6,000	7,000–8,500	Plasma	1080p (HD)
2006	65‑inch	7,000–10,000+	10,000–14,000+	LCD	1080p (HD)
2025	65‑inch	600–1,200	600–1,200	LCD / LED	2160 (4K UHD)
2025 (premium)	65‑inch	1,800–2,500	1,800–2,500	OLED / Mini‑LED	2160–4320 (4K–8K UHD)

,,,,

The second challenge is that of introducing cost breakthroughs. The graph onscreen shows the problem, where, while at each point in the curve a new product may cost less to make, a target number of units must be produced before.

Consider Tesla introducing the Model 3, which appears to have had that very issue:

When the Model 3 was first produced in 2017, it was designed from the ground up for mass production—with simplified architecture, fewer parts, and a focus on automation. However, the very first Model 3 units were not cheaper to produce than the Model S at that time.

In fact, early Model 3 production faced significant bottlenecks—Elon Musk referred to it as “production hell”—which drove up costs. According to reports, initial Model 3 production costs were higher than target, and Tesla only began achieving cost reductions after ramping up volume and refining manufacturing processes.

Which largely explains why it was only in the 4th year of producing the Model 3 that Tesla was able to post an annual profit.

Just as the flats screens were for decades premium products despite under the surface inherently being lower cost, consde the parts count, and it becomes clear that EVs could be considered a cost breakthrough in the way to make cars, but it can take decades.

Comparing production experience for EVs with ICE….. 2.5-30 billion ice vehciles produced, now in 2025 still only 85 million including PHEVs

Durability: Improving product lifespan and profits!

Durability Disadvantage: Scale and Experience Curves -> Cost Disadvantage

The third challenge is introducing a longer lasting product, because that product then takes so much longer to reach every total production milestone, stretching out the experience curve and quickly giving a cost advantage to the higher volume shorter lasting product. Whatever the price differential between single use, and rechargeable. double A batteries the larger volume of sales for the single use batteries quickly magnifies that difference.

of course, this only protects the less durable product when the alternative requires different production, and investment allows setting low prices and waiting for the experience curve to enable profits.. If the same experience applies to producing the durable product, and a manufacturer can introduce the more durable product at any time, which is why the light bulb cartel was formed in 1924!

Solutions.

The USP..

an ideal way to overcome that initial price disadvantage, is to find a Unique Selling Proposition. Something advantage that’ll appeal to at least some buyers, even when your product that it will ultimately be less expensive it’s still more expensive.

For the flat screen TV’s it was initially size. Plasma TVs had to be large in order to fit in extra dots for high resolution. but they enabled size just not practical with CRTS, and it was paying a premium for size that justified the initially higher price.

while the were pluses and minuses, it was less why anyone paid a for an LCD over a plasma. I even once heard a sales pitch to buy the more expensive LCD as they would win by becoming less expensive. But their inherent cost advantage won out.

For early EVs, the the first USP was the reduction in emissions, without without which, it would be really hard to justify the purchase of a Nissan LEAF over a Comparable Ice Vehicle. Tesla added the innovation that, when combined with a sufficiently large battery, an EV could justify its price to a market segment by its acceleration, and that this made EVs and exciting, rather than boring, new technology. Still, when I first looked at the comparison back in 2020 it was a hard sell for anyone not really focused on one of those two specific USPs, rather that waiting for the volumes and the when Wrights law would enable better relative pricing.

Contract sales.

The EU supply contract is effective as of Sept. 2 and runs through Dec. 31, 2035, while the second, which is listed as a U.S. “Mercedes-Benz affiliate,” begins July 30, 2029, and extends through Dec. 31, 2037.

Mercedes-Benz, LG Energy strike $11B EV battery supply deal

In some cases, contract sales can be a solution. For many products, manufactures don’t sell direct to customers, but to either retailers or, as with the case of EV batteries, to other business that utilise their product to produce a final product.

This can enable a long contract, specifying price points over years, allowing the manufacturer to take the losses on early sales, knowing that as their costs fall, the contract will eventually become profitable.

Deep pocket

another solution, is defined very deep pocketed venture capitalists who can fund a new product through early losses, and until Wright’s law eventually makes the product viable profitable. The USA is the home of the Deep Pocket venture capitalists, and having had experience with the Palo Alto sand Hill Rd crowd in the 1990s and early 2000s, Tesla was very lucky to find Elon Musk. But that is what it can take.

Government intervention.

The last option is a government that identifies the and backs an entire industry as happened with china with EVs the 19 90s. The nurse covered in more detail on my video in the history of modern EVs to be linked below.

Innovation: USA vs China vs the rest

and if we look at EV startups the only only success has either come from deep pocketed From US based Deep pocketed VCS or from support from Chinese government initiatives, or lastly and in most cases not yet that successfully. an already established large automotive companies.

the US actually began reach the market first with the EV1 but that then struggled with the whole “who killed the electric car debacle, which is certainly worth following up on if you have not heard the story and will add links. It appeared to be headed towards a classic case of business favouring profits over consumers, only to then be caught out by the venture capital backed tesla, which allowed the US to comer from behind to at one point, and arguably still have the world #1 ev company. certainly at 1.

In the early stages, although what happened in China at that time was little known outside china, the EV lead oscillated between China, Japan and the US, until Tesla took the global lead.

But today, what we’re actually seeing is its the Chinese system system that’s produced the most results for this new industry of EVs, courtesy of its head start by the government.

The next category in terms of numbers is pretty closely tied between Tesla, once you combine their Chinese production with their production outside
China and Europe.

Basically, this is the result of the US VC system. And from Europe, all products that have really reached market are from established manufacturers, and rarely are those initiatives yet clearly profitable.

It’s not as simple as communism versus capitalism As Russia is nowhere to be seen But there’s something going on as the situation as China is even more dominant in terms of batteries.

Clearly ff the west doesn’t want to be economically dominated in the technology sphere by a totalitarian regime Then there are some lessons to be learned or adaptations to be made

AI.

Now to the point about AI. The nature of AI as it is today is the AI itself is all about learning by experience, just like the experience curve which means AI has been focusing on how to use virtual experiences to accelerate learning.

One of the Key manufactured products for AI is the humanoid robot, and Nvidia, a company with its success tied to the success of AI, and its been creating virtual experience facilities available to companies looking to produce AI enabled robots.

this same virtual experience process could also change the future of the impact of rights by the By enabling much of the experience to occur in the virtual world.

Examples, history & trends as a basis for predictions.

I had planned to do a section on examples They’ve actually already covered them in the chapter “Price Breakthroughs and usps” with both flat screen TV and EVs providing good examples although mobile and laptop computers can provide other examples,

It is hard to go past lithium ion batteries, renewable energy generation in general and solar panels in specific as great examples worthy of further examination.

LCD TV prices have fallen by a factor of 16x in 20 years, lithium ion batteries by a factor of 12 since 2010 and PV solar panels by 320x since 1975, and 16x since 2015, while the price of a Nissan Leaf has fallen by only 36% since 2010.

It seems hard to digest that so much of the price of something can be reduced through experience, with a factor of 16x meaning prices are now just 6% of what they were. Using the 20% reduction per production doubling wright found with planes, each doubling reduces the price to 80% of the previous step. 7 steps reduces the price 20%, and 12 steps to around 16th!

There are two other key points from these examples: firstly that plasma technology for TVs was too quickly overhauled by LCDs to be profitable for companies committed to overcoming the initial pricing problem and profits from plasma TVs, with Panasonic, Hitachi, Pioneer suffering losses with Hitachi and Pioneer exiting TV production in 2012 and 2010 respectively.

Given that rarely can initial pricing actually cover production costs, companies need to be extremely weary embracing technologies that can quickly be leapfrogged. the saga with TVs continues, with now mini-led or micro-led technology is looking to take over from oled, and this is particularly for batteries with multiple technologies all competing and this is discussed fully in a video on future batteries to be linked below.

extrapolating to a general principle when a new technology is only 1. of several options Manufacturers are very be cautious about picking winners which can delay breakthroughs coming to market.

the second key point is that from the 2010 Nissan Leaf to the 2026 Nissan the price reduction is only 36% percent and far less significant than the other examples, in part this is because the original Nissan LEAF definitely definitely suffered from that initial pricing problem. Noting To the battery alone would have $28,800. hundred of the $32,780 selling price. while the usable battery capacity was only 30 per cent of that of the new prices have still not fallen to the same level as with batteries.

this is EVs are a mix of new and well proven. a mix of early and far later experience curve. the main material is steel Which is which is nothing new for an experienced more for batteries Many of the materials are and extracting and preparing goes through its own experience curve reducing raw material prices. while some or some suggest a surge in demand The result in rising prices that can far It can be far more than counter by the experience unless something actually constrains supply.

into launching the

panels and as hot topics.

But lets look a little further. oking back.

a critical lesson was learnt from the first popular large screen tech: plasma. Because the next new technology, lcd, followed so quickly, production schedules of plasma were cut short .

The lesson there is that given early production is usually at a loss, interim technologies are a problem.

Predicting future trends is easiest when the trend has started. If a newer technology is growing in popularity, then it is likely to take over from older rivals and eventually win on price. EVs, solar panels, and batteries for energy storage, are all great examples.

The future lower cost technology almost never be lower cost on debut, and will usually begin as a niche or premium product.

When there are many candidates for the next technology, as with battery technologies, the players are reluctant to start a new experience curve until it is clear they have a winner. Someone will win, and prices will fall, but who is a game of cat and mouse.

—

but the future that’s going to be interesting.

conclusions,

Conclusions. Well, obviously, the first one is that China has become dangerously dominant in leveraging the benefits
of rights law to deliver low cost production and bringing new technologies for market.

For us as individuals, the question is so how does all this impact on predicting what future products will come and how prices will behave.

Data to answer these questions is in the previous chapter on examples and bases for predictions, but generally once a product is on cure with prices are falling and demand growing the trend is likely to continue at a speed determined by the rate of market growth.

the other major The lesson is that you have to dig really deep to know the underlying price of new technologies as it can be so as it can be so far removed from initial pricing, And there is And that it’s the technologies with the lowest underlying price that will succeed. also be sceptical about predictions of immediate cross revolutions.

EVS provide an example of how long it takes to overcome a predecessor that has cumulative production in the billions. But if the replacement is sufficiently simpler, then it will become dominant in every area where it’s truly viable.

but the key to the success of EVs and to renewables in particular Sol taking over for energy generation is energy storage and the future of batteries.

currently Most solids tight sodium batteries as the Holy grail for both cost and abundance of of batteries A battery storage. advances or continue to lower the price an increase The roles in which Evs are viable and perhaps even more significantly Provide the firming that can enable solar to deliver on ever decreasing Energy costs, provided governments actually allow the costs to big business donors and go against the lobbyists supported by their lobby and allow consumers to save as covered in the cost debate videos link below.

subscribe and click the bell for more on these topics, and , and please, add your thoughts and the comments.

-;-;-;

Of course to key to it all these batteries The key to what happening with EV is what happens with batteries where it can be in kind of a holding

with most the Holy Grail that that solid state sodium bat of the ultimate will eventually take over from any from any interim solution making it really hard for those inference to overcome their initial cross barriers by investing in the long term More of this in a specific video on batteries but the other main he said even when a new technology is coming it’s unlikely to immedi the cause of price revolution

New technology always initially costs more due to the Lower-cost-problem Corollary, and this almost always outweighs any usually the ultimate goal of the new technology costing less than what came before. This means each time new technology is introduced, brands must find USP a way to get early adopters to pay premium prices, or start out selling at a loss, to get buyers for something that will usually ultimately sell at a lower price than current alternatives.

For example, even though each generation of mobile phone technology devices have, in inflation adjusted terms, feature for feature become less expensive, the first devices for each new generation are always premium products at a premium price.

Sometimes it requires crazy people, or at least those with very specific wants and needs drawn to a specific USP, to buy new technologies when they are first introduced, as it is very difficult to introduce any new technologies at a low price, as until significant numbers using the new technology have been produced, Wright’s law results in the old technology still costing less because of its higher cumulative production, even when improvements in design of the new technology logically mean it can be produced at a lower price. Initially the old technology with reduced manufacturing costs will be less expensive and until cumulative production of the new technology overcomes the production volume difference, prices for the new technology remain high.

The other implication of the Psitechian Corollary, is that the very first units produced, will need to be sold at a loss, unless a new feature, “hook” or unique selling proposition can be found. Almost everyone has seen how expensive prototypes are, and this is because producing just one unit is extremely expensive. Clearly, at the time the first unit of a product is sold, the company is making a loss on that new product, and the product will only become profitable once a minimum number of units have been sold, which in some industries, can take years.

Moore’s Law: Memory gets bigger and cheaper.

Everybody in the world of semiconductors knows Moore’s Law: In a nutshell Gordon Moore showed in 1965 that the number of transistors on a chip had doubled every year and predicted that this trend could continue.  In 1975 he reevaluated that stance and changed it to say that the historic trend might run out of steam and that the number of transistors on a chip would approximately double every two years.  Intel has dedicated a web page to the phenomenon that is recommended reading to those who want to explore this in depth.

Moore’s Law: Moore’s Law vs. Wright’s Law

Wright’s law or the “Experience Curve”: production improves.

The above quote on Moore’s Law and the one below on Wright’s law are from the 2013 Forbes article which concluded “Wright’s Law was found to be slightly more accurate than Moore’s Law”, and in the 10 years since, Wright’s law has performed far more accurately.

Moore’s law, during the period where it did accurately apply, was in fact a specific example of Wright’s law, and the principles of Wright’s law, which as stated in the excerpt above and on Wikipedia, are “as the volume of a product type that has been produced increases, the more the quality of the product also increases and the cost of production falls” and are applicable across many industries.

Since I had never heard of Wright’s Law I decided to check it out.  It seems that very few folks other than the MIT researchers call Theodore “TP” Wright’s finding “Wright’s Law” but very many people know of his Learning Curve (or Experience Curve) in which cumulative unit production is plotted against price per unit.  Wright discovered that progress increases with experience: each percent increase in cumulative production in a given industry results in a fixed percentage improvement in production efficiency.  He determined this while studying airplane manufacture – for every doubling of airplane production the labor requirement was reduced by 10-15%.  He published his finding in a 1936 Journal of Aeronautical Sciences article titled: Factors affecting the costs of airplanes.

Interestingly enough, the learning curve has done well in predicting the prices of many products of completely different natures, including photovoltaic cells (in $/Watt – this post’s graphic) and DRAMs, even though the processes of cost reduction for these two technologies are dramatically different as are the slopes of their two learning curves.

Moore’s Law: Moore’s Law vs. Wright’s Law

Lower-cost-problem Corollary: New technology initially can need a USP.

Wright’s law says that greater the cumulative production of the existing product, the more cost effective the production.

The Psitechian corollary the early deficit in cost effective production of the technology and its components will give even products that will ultimately result in lower prices, have an initial price disadvantage over more established product. The challenge is to find a way to fund sufficient production to progress along the experience curve to compete will products already further along their experience curve. The solution is to either:

• Sell products at a loss until Wright’s law and the “experience curve” disadvantage has been overcome.
• Find a USP that can justify an initially higher price to a group of buyers who value that USP in order to progress along the experience curve and reduce prices to bring in more buyers.

For an example of the barrier to be overcome, an existing product may require 7 parts, each initially costing $10 to produce, but given current production volumes and experience, now costing only $1 to produce, for a total material cost of $7, even though the initial materials cost would have been $70.

If someone invents a new solution only requiring 3 parts of similar complexity and cost to the parts in the existing product, the new solution will initially cost $30 to produce at the time the materials cost of the existing product is down to $7, even though, over time, the materials cost of the new solution will fall to $3 per unit.

This can make introducing improved technology impossible to fund unless the new technology also has a unique selling proposition.

USP: Unique selling proposition.

With Wright’s law meaning that even a new technology that will eventually cost less to produce will initially cost more to produce. This means the new technology will either need to sell at a loss or find a way to overcome a price disadvantage. The result is most new technologies need not only cost savings, but also a “Unique Selling Proposition” or USP. A USP is feature that, at least in one aspect of the product, gives the product an advantage over products already established in the market, and enables some buyers who particularly value that feature to pay a premium for the product. This provides initial sales while costs are high that can progress the product along the experience curve to becoming price competitive. The unique selling proposition does not have to appeal to everyone, as it only has to provide a market segment large enough to reach production totals sufficient to allow for bringing the price down to reach more groups of buyers.

Some products even step through multiple USPs, with an initial small group motivated by one USP they will pay a significant premium to obtain, and then larger groups not quite so passionate able to be motivated as prices can fall.

Example: Transition to mobile phones.

Back in the 1970s, inflation adjusted, people paid more to have their home phone landline than they today need to pay to own a mobile phone.

Yet the first mobiles were far more expensive than not only the far more advanced mobile phones of today, but also the landline phones of the time. By the late 1980s, while “car phones” and brick like portable mobile phones were available, most people declared that “they would never have the need to own a mobile phone”.

The unique selling proposition was that these new phones were mobile. It was not until the technology was sufficiently mature and had progressed along the experience curve to be lower cost than land lines that the mobile phone networks could reach people in those developing countries who could never previously afford telephone technology.

Example: Plasma and LCD Flat screen TVs.

The first flat screen TVs to arrive where plasma displays that cost far more than the tube-based TVs of the day. Then LCD screens arrived, and although they from the outset held the promise of lower prices, I recall at one time being told “even though they cost more than plasma now, they are the future as the prices will fall far below plasma”. At that time, I did not buy an LCD, because it seemed to make little sense to pay more now for something that would cost less later, as LCD screens lacked a compelling USP over plasma, I would wait until they were available at a lower price.

Example: Hybrid cars and EVs.

When the Prius was first released, it was relatively expensive and with very poor performance, and even though hybrids today can surprisingly require simpler engineering and less parts than conventional gasoline cars, they are still most often more expensive.

However, the Prius gain the “I am saving the planet” image that even led to some Hollywood celebrities buying a Prius.

EVs, are even simpler again than hybrids, but despite a massively reduced parts count, until EVs reach production levels matching those of conventional gasoline or hybrid cars, they will in many cases remain more expensive.

EVs first offered the same USP as hybrids, “I care about the planet”. Then Tesla introduced rapid acceleration as a second USP. By 2022 with prices starting to approach “parity”, running costs became a sufficient USP for a larger group of buyers, and by then end 2025, it will be hybrids that need the USP as EVs will cost less than hybrids, which should in turn also cost less than traditional ICE vehicles.

Example: AI Humanoid Robots.

AI humanoid robots are about to change the world and AI humanoid robots are in early production with the current cost of around US$100,000 expected to drop to US$20,000 or even US$10,000 within just a few years. So, what is the USP that will enable early units to sell at their high price? Consider a robot can work 24hours and thus replace 3 workers. This means the cost of an AI robot could be recovered in one year in a country where an employee would cost US$33,000 per year. Even in China AI, a country with low labour costs, robots are already beginning to be deployed in factories:

On May 31 [2024], in a collaborative effort, Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor (a subsidiary of Dongfeng Motor Corporation) and Ubtech Technology signed a strategic cooperation agreement to use humanoid robots in the automotive manufacturing industry. cost less than these robots will

Dongfeng Motor to deploy humanoid robots for auto manufacturing

While in that case there is a cooperation between companies, AI Robots are an example where the price advantage applies even with early low volume production, which is one reason AI Robots will grow in sales much faster than a product like EVs.

Updates:

• 2024 May 18: Commenced.