My colleague Pete Bigelow’s coverage of CES last week had some shocking stats that should cause ulcers in auto investors around the world.
Since 2010, automakers and other companies have invested more than $530 billion in self-driving, connected, electrified and shared mobility technologies, according to the McKinsey Center for Future Mobility in the Americas. I’ve been
But the staggering $530 billion is not the cause of global gastrointestinal disorders. That’s not surprising. It’s a small number buried in the following sentence.
However, according to McKinsey, only 6% of that investment came from automakers. The rest are from venture capital, private his equity and technology companies. For those accustomed to working outside the automotive industry, the speed at which the industry moves can be frustrating.
More than $5 trillion has been spent over 12 years in pursuit of self-driving, electrification, the vague catch-all of “mobility” and more. That period averaged well below $3 billion a year.
Either the automaker signed the millennium deal, or investors abandoned common sense and careful due diligence, driven by mindless greed in their pursuit of “Tesla’s next stock.” And note that these alternatives are probably not mutually exclusive.
The article also found that the same investors, including venture capitalists, hedge funds, and other players large and small, were frustrated by the auto industry’s slow pace of adopting the technology and innovation that their money has made possible. It also mentions that there are. As you know, so that investors can make a profit.
“Other sectors say, ‘Let’s go, this is awesome, I want to own this space,’” said Russell Pullan, CEO of Canadian startup eLeapPower. charger and increased range. “Automotive says, ‘This is great, but have you been doing it for 15 years?'”
Here lies a central point of friction between the highly regulated, safety-first automotive industry and investors who mistakenly believe that Moore’s Law applies to all technology, including cars. computing. (Incidentally, Moore’s Law is his nearly 60-year-old observation that the pace of computing power will approximately double every two years, becoming smaller, cheaper, and more efficient in the process. It holds up most of the time, but not always.)
This central tension has played out over and over again over the same decade, usually posing the question, “Why can’t Detroit be like Silicon Valley?” We lament the reluctance of the wider industry to adopt a counterfeit approach to innovation.