Why EVs Replacing ICE Vehicles Is a Myth: Seen Through a Product Lens

 “The EV revolution is coming.”

We’ve heard that line for over a decade now, often accompanied by triumphant sales numbers, government subsidies, and bold forecasts that predict the end of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. And yet, despite this chorus, something feels… off. The numbers are rising, but the momentum isn’t breaking through, and the reasons are more complex than we think.

Electric vehicle (EV) adoption isn’t following the trajectory of other historic technological shifts — like the transition from horse to automobile. Instead, it’s stalling at a predictable point in the product adoption curve. Why?

Because we’re misreading the market, ignoring product strategy fundamentals, and overestimating consumer alignment with the value proposition of EVs.

But perhaps the most intriguing part of this story? The potential hidden strategy behind Elon Musk’s push for autonomous vehicles; not just to innovate, but to create an entirely new category of EV buyers.

📈 Understanding the Adoption Curve: Why EVs Have Plateaued

Any innovation moves through phases of market adoption:

  1. Enthusiasts — want it first, no matter the flaws.
  2. Early adopters — vision-driven, willing to embrace risk.
  3. Early majority — pragmatic, require proof, stability, and value.
  4. Late majority — risk-averse and slow to trust.
  5. Laggards — change only when forced.

EVs have clearly saturated the enthusiast and early adopter segments, with millions sold in the past decade.

The problem? Forecasters often extrapolate that success linearly, assuming the early majority will follow suit.

But they won’t, not unless the value proposition changes dramatically.

I’ve seen organizations spend millions trying to scale a product based on traction from early adopters, only to discover too late that the audience had shifted. What worked at the front of the curve didn’t carry through, and the momentum stalled at the chasm.

That’s not a flaw in the product. It’s a failure to recognize that different categories of users buy for different reasons.

💡 The Value Proposition: EVs Don’t Solve a Core Consumer Problem

Let’s rewind to the classic horse-to-car transition. This was not just about technology. It was about radically improving the user’s life:

  • A 10-hour journey became a 30-minute drive.
  • Maintenance shifted from feeding a living creature to changing oil.
  • Speed, predictability, and endurance all improved.

The value proposition was clear, compelling, and immediate.

Now compare that with today’s EVs. What’s being promised?

  • “Save the environment” — a long-term, abstract benefit.
  • “Lower maintenance” — maybe, but unclear for most.
  • “Reduced fuel cost” — potentially, but only under specific conditions.

And the tradeoffs?

  • Long charging times
  • Range anxiety
  • Higher upfront cost
  • Uncertain battery lifespan
  • Dependence on charging infrastructure

The dealbreaker, especially for the early and late majority, is charging time. When it takes 30–45 minutes to charge an EV versus 5 minutes to refuel an ICE vehicle, the value proposition becomes inverted.

🧱 The Hard Limiters: Resources, Recycling, and Reality

Even if we solve charging, the most visible limitation, a deeper challenge looms: can we actually scale EVs globally? Not easily.

The EV future depends on:

  • Lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other rare materials
  • Global mining operations with ethical and environmental red flags
  • Battery recycling systems that barely exist at scale

Worse, battery swap models, touted as a workaround, demand:

  • Total cross-manufacturer standardization
  • Significantly more battery inventory
  • Complex logistics and infrastructure

This isn’t just an engineering challenge. It’s an industrial and geopolitical Rubik’s Cube. And we haven’t even solved the first side.

And there’s another layer too, one often ignored in consumer-facing conversations: the surge in electrical energy demand. As EV adoption grows, it will stress not just vehicle infrastructure but the entire energy grid, requiring major upgrades to power generation and transmission.

It may not be a hurdle for individual users, but it lingers in the background as a systemic constraint that could quietly stall momentum.

🎭 The Subsidy Mirage: A Market Without a Foundation

Governments around the world are pouring billions into EV adoption. But here’s a thought experiment:

If a product only sells because the government is paying part of the cost, does the product actually have a viable market?

Subsidies mask the lack of consumer pull. They also shift cost from buyer to taxpayer, a distortion that’s politically fragile and economically unsustainable. Or, as one might say: “A government rebate for EVs is just me asking my neighbor to help pay for my car.”

Without a compelling self-sustaining value, adoption will plateau.

🤖 The Secret Agenda Behind Autonomy: Creating a New Buyer

Here’s where things get interesting.

What if Elon Musk sees all of this? What if he’s accepted the reality that the EV market is capped — not by manufacturing limits, but by consumer behavior?

In that case, the push for autonomous EVs is not just about technology — it’s about strategically creating a new market.

Consider this:

  • If people no longer own cars, they don’t care about charging, battery lifespan, or resale value.
  • If you summon a robotaxi and it shows up, clean and ready, the experience matters more than the hardware.
  • Ownership disappears; access becomes the product.

This changes everything:

  • Charging time? Not your problem — fleet operators manage it in the background.
  • Up-front cost? Irrelevant — you’re not buying, just using.
  • Range anxiety? Replaced by predictable availability.

It’s not a stretch to say Musk is not trying to convert more ICE car owners into EV buyers. He’s trying to make car buyers obsolete.

And that opens the door to a tripled market:

  1. The current EV enthusiasts
  2. ICE holdouts with access needs, not ownership desires
  3. Entire populations (urban, young, emerging economies) who never wanted to own a car in the first place

🎯 What This Means for the Future of EVs

  • EVs, as personal vehicles, will struggle to cross the chasm into the mainstream until dealbreakers like charging time and total cost of ownership are resolved.
  • Government incentives may keep sales afloat, but they can’t generate true market momentum.
  • The long-term viability of EVs lies not in better batteries, but in redefining how people interact with vehicles altogether.
  • Autonomous ride services are not a feature — they are a strategic escape hatch from the ceiling of the current EV market.

🧭 A Shift in Strategy, Not Just in Tech

Every major transition in history is shaped not just by what is built, but by why and for whom.

The EV story, if we step back, is not one of inevitable domination, but one of bounded potential under current assumptions.

If true mass adoption won’t come through better EVs alone, it might come through a new use model entirely — one that makes the early/late majority’s objections irrelevant.

Autonomy isn’t just about innovation — it’s about building a future where EVs finally make sense. And unless we shift the use case, we may be chasing a market that simply isn’t there.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is English Leading Our Kids Astray on Gender? Ancient Precision vs. Modern Hype

Sanskrit’s Precision vs. English’s Flexibility: A Cautionary Tale on Gender Fluidity A Linguistic Lens on a Societal Shift What can the languages of ancient civilizations teach us about today’s debates on gender fluidity? This question emerged from a deep dive into English’s singular "they"—a pronoun now synonymous with gender neutrality—and its contrast with Sanskrit, the language of Vedic India, a civilization renowned for its advanced knowledge. As English dominates global communication, its flexibility may be propelling an exaggerated narrative around gender fluidity, one that Sanskrit’s precision never entertained. This article explores that tension, spotlighting a concern: are we, through English’s vagueness, rushing into irreversible choices—especially for children—that a wiser past might warn against?   The Singular "They": English’s Flexible Friend This journey began with a simple attempt to rewrite a text to avoid plural pronouns for an individua...
Read more

The Wisdom Beyond Us

A Prayer for Discernment and Clarity In a world filled with uncertainty, rapid decision-making, and complex situations, the ability to discern the right course of action is invaluable. We all strive to make wise decisions, but how often do we realize that our human faculties are inherently limited? Our biases, our egos, and our perceptions shape how we view the world, and often, they distort our ability to see things as they truly are. This is where the wisdom of sad-buddhi —a Sanskrit term for right discernment or wisdom—becomes crucial. But how do we acquire it? Sad-buddhi is not something that can simply be developed through knowledge or intellect. We may believe we possess wisdom, but as the ancient Sanskrit phrase Vinaash kaleen viparit buddhi suggests, when the end is near, the mind becomes clouded. This concept reminds us that despite our best efforts, our perceptions can be faulty, especially when we are caught up in the complexity of a situation. In these moments, we may...
Read more

Big, Slow, and Dying

Why Large Companies Strangle Themselves? Cutting costs or firing people doesn’t make an organization healthier. Let’s get that out of the way. It’s a desperate short-term fix designed to make executives look competent while avoiding the real work of fixing what’s broken. So what actually makes a company healthy? Simple: it must produce value efficiently. And if your company is bloated, slow, and buried in bureaucracy, you’re failing at that. The Slow Death of Big Companies Most large, traditional businesses are caught in a cycle of self-inflicted decay. They’ve been around for decades, lost any competitive edge they once had, and no longer sell a killer product that commands a premium price. Instead of adapting, they rely on financial trickery—legal, but misleading—to hide the reality: their cost of delivering a product or service is bloated or out of sync with the market, leaving them at a disadvantage against leaner, more adaptive competitors. This is the equivalent of an out-of-shap...
Read more