Message Change.  I am impressed by the actual critical thought being posted today: "Most real car makers don't see any profitability in making purely BEV cars without subsidies or free money from their governments.  BEVs are just too expensive to produce for the average car buyer.  Unless everyone in the world get suddenly rich and wealthy, BEVs will only be rich peoples play toys."  Who knows what that will bring about.  It would be great to see such constructive discussion continue.  Unfortunately, these bouts of intelligence often fade.  The nature of online exchanges makes it far to easy to get distracted and loss momentum.  We'll see.  I added:  The significantly lower price of LFP batteries, combined with their liability cost (automaker warranty expenses), should help to bring down prices on some models.  Since that type is more robust (able to handle heat better and capable of many more cycles), lower capacity isn't as big of a deal.  And of course, not everyone needs a massive battery-pack anyway.  Change like that is how to reach mainstream consumers.  Early-Adopters are much easier to appeal to and tend to have deposable income available to pay a premium.

In other words, Toyota has been serious all along, enthusiasts just didn't like the approach.  They don't like the idea of business diversity; it dilutes what they are enthusiastic about.

Getting Stuck.  We are starting to get interesting questions.  I was especially intrigued by this: "What are the odds that VW will be sitting on their hands?"  Not having to deal with Innovator's Dilemma like GM puts VW in a position of opportunity; though, that could easily go astray.  Here's how I answered:  With regard to VW, the ever-changing market presents new problems.  They were forced into this paradigm.  That meant making the best of the situation.  As competition emerges, the situation changes... but they are stuck with what they already committed to.  They could create their own Osborne Effect if they are not careful.  Toyota is well aware of that VW predicament.

Looking Ahead.  A look outward, beyond just the brainless "anti" messaging is nice: "When will Toyota be shipping a compelling EV in volume?"  Of course, that was addressed long ago and nothing has changed.  We are still in the early stages attempting to overcome status quo with initial offerings.  That's easy to confirm too.  Just for the lack of any measureable milestone.  That type of accountability doesn't come until there's something consistent to actually measure.  When we are still just struggle to make some type of standard emerge, there's really nothing to endorse.  Our look ahead is to achieve what?  Volume is something measureable.  Here's why that played such an important role in the past:  Moving goal-posts is routine with this group.  Care to provide an actual "in volume" quantity?  Back in the days of Volt, that was a sustained 60,000 annual and the reason why was clear. It was the threshold for a new model to become profitable enough to allow the automaker to move the tech to the next stage.  For Volt, that was never achieved.  Keep in mind, that criteria must be met by all legacy automakers.  Transition is a challenge and most here don't want to address that next stage.  Think about what happens after tax-credits are gone and enthusiast desire satisfied.  Also, don't overlook the complication caused by new batteries.  When chemistry or format changes, how should that be handled?

I find it all quite enlightening.  I had not anticipated being a witness to enthusiast mistakes from overstated urgency.  But that history is now written and some of those same mistakes about to be repeated.  Some never learn.

Notice how much of that is rarely discussed?

I would very much like to know what the supposed competition is assumed to be.  Who is the audience and what specifics will draw their purchase away from Toyota?

Doom & Gloom.  The theme of Toyota struggling to survive draws like of posting activity.  This particular one was of interest to many: "This once-promising strategy is now in tatters..."  From my perspective, that was an invitation to present some facts they likely were either completely oblivous to or didn't want to accept:  Since we already know Toyota is planning 7 models of BEV in their new "bZ" brand along with 8 others (all 15 by 2025), that isn't much of a prediction.  We also know that Toyota has been quietly working on improved battery chemistry, setting the expectation of 90% capacity retention after 10 years for the upcoming bZ4X.  In other words, the idea that Toyota is suddenly seeing the light and will struggle to survive really doesn't have any merit. It just stirs a lot of comment posting.

In the case of Skoda, "planning to launch three new EVs by 2030" doesn't actually tell us much of anything.  Put another way, what expectation will they be setting for sales shift?  How will the status quo change?

Believe what you want about "survive" articles.  It doesn't change the fact that bZ4X will be rolled next Spring, ushering in Toyota's brand of BEV models.  The sad reality that enthusiasts favor quick & simple results is their own downfall.  Changing the status quo takes more effort than just cheering the first to cross a milestone in a very, very, very long race.

Ask yourself what is really important for the bigger picture, to overcome other barriers.

Note that most of Toyota's passenger offerings are already available as hybrids.  The final few are getting that convert effort now.  It's a transition plan no other legacy automaker can match.  Watching GM, VW, and Ford simply hope for the best with their cold cutover to BEV means turning a blind-eye to those who are difficult to sway or simply don't have a guaranteed location to recharge.  In other words, enthusiasts are still focusing on easy sales in denial, refusing to acknowledge the challenge that still awaits with a majority of buyers.