Automobile buyers who buy American or European cars are more likely to be auto enthusiasts.
Then there's the utility / practical / recreational crowd who goes for SUVs and pickup trucks.
Those whose primary aim is utility are already in (non-EU) foreign markets or used. Those are invisible to new-car US/EU sales.
It's a classic Innovators Dilemma dynamic (Clayton Christensen), where chasing higher-end market niches torpedoes development of disruptive tech within the same firm.
The mean, median and modal auto buyer in north america is buying a blob shaped "car" that's marketed as a "crossover" and officially categorized as an "SUV" for compliance reasons. Maybe it's an ICE, maybe it's a hybrid, some are even electric. 99.9% of buyers choose based on fit for their intended usage pattern. And because the automakers are competing for these hordes of buyers in this segment, these cars are very competitive in terms of bang for buck.
The types of buyers who chose their form factor or source of motive power for their vehicle based on image or virtue points are a rounding error.
I own 2 cars, both Porsche. Mine is a 15 year old Boxster S. The wife has a brand new Macan 4S EV. It is a brilliant car. 280mi/450km @ 80% charge and no issues with the cold. It was 27F/-3.5C this morning.
I will never buy a gas car again. I plan to keep my Boxster until I can buy an EV version.
In the US there isn't much choice. There are a few Japanese and Korean cars - but even those brands put effort into appealing to auto enthusiasts.
Remember, if you need a widget that you don't otherwise care about knowing someone who does care about them recommends something is a very important factor in your decision. The realistic difference between a car/suv of similar size between GM, Toyota, or VW (random choice of brands but covering the 3 geographical regions) is minimal: the non-enthusiast will be happy in any of them.
Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia all appeal primarily to the strictly-utilitarian car owner, with the Accord and Civic (Honda) and Corolla and Camry (Toyota) being classically "boring" but highly-practical, dependable, and efficient vehicles. There are even more pragmatic offerings in the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio. These are small, arguably ugly, but very versatile options.
There's simply nothing comparable currently produced by an American marque, though there were the Chevy Spark (Korean-built) and Ford Fiesta (Spain), both have been discontinued.
> I can 100% confidently say the average US buyer is not an auto enthusiast. Cars are appliances to the vast majority of people here.
Only like 1-2% of new cars are manual transmission here. A lot of the enthusiast market complains that everything is an automatic these days, even high end sports cars.
I like manual transmissions but I think DCTs are an improvement for the average car. They seem to have a lot less "hunting" than the typical torque-converter automatic and good precision for the driving conditions. It is easy to put them into a manual-select mode. And, of course, they don't seem to stall.
The manual transmission crowd cannot be convinced. Even when you show them the performance advantages etc. They just want 'fun' and 'engaging', however they define that.
Manual transmissions have certain advantages, particularly in their home next to an ICE. They never 'hunt' for gears; if you want that, you have to hunt. They can be push started if the battery is dead.
Manuals are really good in bumper-to-bumper traffic: often the second gear has an incredible range from slow crawling to 40 km/h. You keep the clutch completely engaged and just work the gas pedal. (The odd time when things look like they are coming to a complete stop, you hit the clutch to keep the engine from stalling. But if the traffic moves again while you are still rolling, then you just re-engage in second gear.
You can do a similar thing in automatics with their 1 or 2 gears, but it doesn't work quite as nicely as that second gear in a typical manual.
Manual transmissions are tougher against heavy loads (than torque converter automatics). If you have to tow a heavily loaded trailer, manual is better. The clutch is fully engaged and so very little energy is lost in the transmissions. Automatic transmissions can heat up under load and can overheat.
A lot of this is not relevant when we are talking electric vehicles, of course.
But in an ICE car, there are good reasons to prefer a manual transmission, even if you're not a sporty driving enthusiast.
I've driven both. I don't know how to define what I feel, but the true clutch is more "fun and engaging". I still went with a EV because it is the right choice, but I want the ICE with manual and if money was limitless I'd have a collection (plus a personal mechanic to keep them all running)
For me, there is the sense that the transmission is doing a precise and correct job, which reflects my intent. That causes the feeling of fun that comes from anything that works well.
On YouTube there are videos of machines doing precise jobs well, which people call "satisfying to watch". Those are relevant to the discussion, I feel.
I have only ever owned cars with manual transmissions for my personal vehicles.
I would 100% get a vehicle without a manual for my next car if it’s an improvement over a manual. I’ve driven a handful of Priuses. I would definitely own one. I would definitely own an EV.
I have no desire to own an ICE-only vehicle with a CVT, automated manual, or conventional automatic. They add complexity and opaque failure modes. Last year I lost reverse in our plow truck (an automatic). Totally undiagnosable for me, nevermind fixable. Had a new used transmission put it, and it started bogging and lurching from a stop and up hills. Can’t work around it, can’t fix it. Sold the truck for $300 to someone who’s going to part it out (the engine wasn’t great either) and moved the plow onto a new used truck.
We’re not all stuck in the past. Some of us do understand the system well enough to be picky about believing something is an improvement.
Another example: CFL lightbulbs flat-out sucked. Avoided them as best as I could. Bought CREE LED bulbs at $20 apiece as soon as they came out at Home Depot.
I like manual transmissions; they do what you tell them, and do it quickly. They are fun to drive.
They are also on their way out, together with the internal combustion engine. It's possible to work them into electric cars, but they don't make much sense there.
The deal breaker for me isn't the lack of a manual transmission, but all the screens and software updates, and barriers to repair.
Can we not have an electric econobox that focuses on utter simplicity?
Auto enthusiasts no, but cars are definitely not appliances in the US.
Cars are a way people mark their social status - whether they will admit it or not. A big, luxurious SUV with a small mountain of space, the latest tech, etc is not an 'appliance'. It's a luxury people are choosing to buy.
The difference is in priorities. Americans wanted a very different kind of car than China is/was making.
They are in the sense that most of them are buying cars that represent their identity. For example nearly every pick up truck is an "auto enthusiast", because almost none of them are used for their primary purpose more than a few times mes a year.
Many Americans base their identity off that appliance though, buying big trucks to drive around the suburbs and commute in. It needs to go vroom, so no e trucks allowed. I'd say it's more like a form of narcissism than enthusiasm.
Adult diagnosis last year for me, bring gentle with myself for past mistakes is part of my plan. I’m also trying adderall under medical supervision, so I can strengthen the habits and systems with a little extra help.
Check my reply to your sibling. No good formula. I am just starting (was somewhere at the beginning of 2025). In general: try to reconcile the parts of you that don't feel listened to, with your everyday self.
And be a touch assertive when you need to. I found I can't just put down the phone so I changed what I do on my phone (books instead of doom-scrolling). So far it works okay-ish. I am fine with a gradual progress.
The real problem is the billing model we have, where every individual act a clinician performs is separately billable... and separately haggle-able.
One model that has shown promise is "bundled payments." For example, imagine that a certain insurance company switches to a bundled model for childbirth. They say, "we will pay a hospital $X to cover everything related to this patient's childbirth. Maybe it will be a very simple birth and the hospital will make a lot of money on it. Maybe it will be more complex/expensive, and the hospital will make less money. In some rare cases, the hospital will actually lose money."
Why is this a better model? Well, 2 reasons:
1. the hospital has an incentive to provide care efficiently, rather than trying to churn out as many procedures as possible so they can bill more
2. there's just fewer numbers for providers and payers to haggle over
> I’m surprised there isn’t a Costco like medical group that’s nationwide, has a membership, and works solely to provide care efficiently.
What you are describing is an HMO, which hasn't had that much lower costs historically. Theoretically, you pay once and then they take care of you, but in practice costs haven't been that much lower.
Where I live, we have three major hospital chains. Imagine one of them is Kaiser Permanente. My primary care is through Kaiser. When I needed to see a podiatrist to get a toenail removed, they were through Kaiser. When I went to an ER a few years ago for some abdominal pain, it was a Kaiser ER.
It is beyond me why my employer is paying an insurance company anything at this point. Kaiser should be selling me an annual plan where everything at Kaiser is covered, maybe up to a point, and then they have insurance-like network relationships with e.g. other ERs in the area, if you need them, plus out-of-area addons for when I'm traveling.
This is, fundamentally, in Kaiser's interest to sell (again, I don't live near Kaiser Permanente, I'm just using them as an example; every population center has networks of healthcare providers like this). They hate dealing with insurance as much as their patients do. But only recently have these healthcare mega-conglomerates achieved so much monopolistic integration that they could actually do this and people would be interested.
Also, interestingly: My dentist does not accept insurance; direct pay. My eye doctor also does not accept insurance. This is also a new thing; it wasn't long ago that I recall them actually asking for it, but nowadays they just bill directly. It hasn't gotten more expensive (beyond the fact that my employer is paying for useless dental and vision insurance, but at least those are only like $1-$4/paycheck).
Idk, my point is, I think things are changing and will continue to change faster than you might think. I'd love to see government-ran single-payer, but even admitting that is very unlikely to happen on the near term, there's just so much excess, waste, and bureaucracy in the medical system that some kind of short-circuiting direct-to-consumer play, by someone, will happen. Once a major healthcare provider chain can prove that this D2C model works (and it would work), the dominoes will fall.
> Kaiser should be selling me an annual plan where everything at Kaiser is covered, maybe up to a point, and then they have insurance-like network relationships with e.g. other ERs in the area, if you need them, plus out-of-area addons for when I'm traveling.
If you’re trying to solve them problem, why on earth do you propose such an expensive, convoluted and strange solution?
Two dozen countTies have solved this. It works very, very well. People pay less and get better outcomes. What more do you want?
What I want is simple: For change to actually happen. You don't need to convince me; your choice is either to convince 100M+ unreasonable people, or make a reasonable path. Direct to consumer billing is that reasonable path; that's why we're seeing it take hold in the dental, vision, and pharmaceutical industries. Core medical is next. Specialty medical will follow. Emergent medicine might never change, but that is absolutely an area where insurance does make logical sense.
> It is beyond me why my employer is paying an insurance company anything at this point. Kaiser should be selling me an annual plan where everything at Kaiser is covered, maybe up to a point, and then they have insurance-like network relationships with e.g. other ERs in the area, if you need them, plus out-of-area addons for when I'm traveling.
Well, then you are beholden to Kaiser. Kaiser will not pay for any treatment or medication for weight loss other than gastric bypass surgery. Kaiser will not pay for many medications for mental health, especially for adolescents. Will not pay for medications that could be used for ED, even if not being prescribed for that.
And the most annoying, recently: My partner got a couple of root canals, and was in significant pain and discomfort as you'd expect. Dentist sent her prescriptions for antibiotics and pain management to Kaiser, and we go after her surgery to pick them up at the Kaiser UC/ER hybrid.
No pain meds for you. "We will only fill that through mail order - you'll get it in 5-7 business days". Very helpful for that post-surgical pain now. The irony being that they absolutely had those drugs in stock and available, they were just only for their UC/ER inpatients.
I don't understand your comment. Kaiser Permanente health plans already work that way. If you go to an out-of-network provider then they can still submit a claim to KP, although prior authorization may be required in some circumstances.
Does your dental insurance not reimburse you? My dentist is also direct pay but submits for reimbursement on my behalf. They get paid up front and I get a check a few weeks later.
While it is challenging, looked at one a life time scale it is kind of a neat thing. It isn't a purely linear decline and that means while the later years kind of suck, you get a lot of decent time before then.
Yes, we should try and work against this but I am just looking at the silver lining.
There's quite a lot of aging research going, maybe will get something concrete in the next 10-20 years (maybe too late for her) but it's at least something
It's a huge industry, so a lot. Job is really stressful and has a lot of employee churn, so it's not really something I feel bad about. Pressing elevator buttons was a job too back then
I just moved away from Chicago but it took me a few years to appreciate the city (and I never found visiting that compelling). I miss it now though, I think the best way to learn to appreciate the city is to go out and do things in the city and find the stuff you like. There is tons of great music, food, art museums, shows (especially improv, idk if the IO Theater is back running but the Improv Shakespeare that they did was amazing). You can find pretty much anything there, the only thing I struggled with is I like the outdoors and there isn't good hiking (but Chicago actually has really good birdwatching in the city).
The easiest bit of advice is to get out of the Loop; the city Chicago boosters won't shut up about is mostly out in the neighborhoods. Also: our real pizza is thin-crust.
Tavern style is what I always saw there (though I like deep dish). Also I'm surprised people always talk about deep dish pizza and not the clearly superior Chicago food: dipped Italian beef with hot peppers.
This is a bit of my own biases showing but I've found being very into deep dish or calling the loop "downtown" were ways to know who is new to Chicago
> You can find pretty much anything there, the only thing I struggled with is I like the outdoors and there isn't good hiking (but Chicago actually has really good birdwatching in the city).
Lincoln Park north is not what I would call "good hiking", but I think it's nice for those who like the outdoors. Good for daytime walks, large beaches, dog beach, bird sanctuary, some small natural areas, lakefront trail (paved).
For good hiking, yes you'll have to drive out of the city.
You don’t have to go too far out of the city - more than 10% of the county land area is forest preserve. Inside the city, the far northwest side (along the river) and the far south side (big marsh/beaubien woods) are probably the best bets.
I know that the wooded section between the IC tracks and LSD from 47th street up to Oakwood/Pershing is a hiking trail very popular with birdwatchers. You can keep walking up to the 31st street beach parking lot, but I think it might technically be trespassing ;)
Naturally, if you want really good hiking, there is a daily train from Union Station that stops at the front gate to Glacier National Park. You can also take the South Shore train eastwards - there are 3 stops adjacent to the Indiana Dunes (both the state and national parks).
No problem. You know, the whole area is very flat. There’s no getting around that, and some people will never accept that any hiking trail can be good if there isn’t a lot of elevation change. That’s their loss.
I remember going to a talk at the cultural center ~10 years ago where some lady, who was apparently very famous in her line of work, talked about moving to Chicago because of her husband’s new job and spending many years hating the natural surroundings. Until one day she was in a prairie west of the city and decided to really look at the wildflowers. And that was the spark that got her to start drawing the flowers, and eventually made her famous for it.
Anyway, it’s no Coastal California or Colorado mountain meadow. But if you go out and explore with a desire to find beauty in it, you will :)
Edit - and by the way, on the South Shore train, Dune Park and Beverly Shores have trails you see from the train platform. Ogden Dunes is a bit trickier, the open space west of the train station is all national park service land, east is private property except closer to the lake. The town itself tries very hard to make it look like a private gated community but the roads are all public and you are free to walk right in. Miller Beach I’d say the train is too far from the parkland, but if you have a car, the area due north starting about a mile from that train station will blow apart every stereotype you’ve ever had about Gary, IN.
Hah, there's my only lament about Chicago: no pet-friendly public transit if you have a large dog. I don't really have the stomach for the loopholes either: service dog lies or carrying her in a duffel bag NYC subway-style.
I liked to bike the lake there, the lakefront in Chicago is pretty underestimated by people who don't live there. For hiking there's the dunes or Starved Rock but those are super busy a lot of the year (and at this point I've been to both a million times). I ended up needing to drive at least like 2.5 hours into Wisconsin for long hikes, which is a longer drive than I want for just a day trip. That means for the outdoors I up mostly just went birding in parks in the city, generally Montrose Point Bird Sanctuary or Jackson Park, which were really nice but not the same vibe as a good hike (there are some birding groups that will meet around the city that were nice to go with).
I just moved out from Chicago. Don't miss it. Been to hundreds of big cities, Chicago is weak. There's not much to do for tourists compared to other cities. There is a decent theatre scene. Deep dish pizza is good. Lakefront can be nice.
As a lifelong native, I highly recommend one of the architecture boat tours. Never gets old, and the guides usually manage to pack in a fair bit of history. I know it changed my personal connection to the city.
I’m also convinced that if someone hasn’t connected to the city yet, they just haven’t been to the right neighborhood. They are many, and cater to many tastes.
One overlooked feature of physical controls is that they also give interiors an identity and experience.
Growing up obsessed with cars, I loved seeing how different brands would lay out the cabin. Volvos from the 2000s used a rather large diagram of a seated person to select the HVAC vent for example.
Also, in my brain, a 3000+ pound object just dang requires some stuff to physically press, push, and hear click!
A couple giant touchscreens with touch controls nearly eliminates that.
The classic Range Rover has a seat-adjustment control in the shape of a little seat. If you want your seat to lean back, you just grab the back of the miniature seat and push it in the appropriate direction; the motors in the actual seat move it to match.
While I'd have preferred a simple, bulletproof, nonmotorized seat, if one must automate, that's a great interface.
I get what you're saying, but I totally disagree with it. It reminds me of mid-2000s Nokia, where each year they completely redesigned their phones simply to change them. It turned out what people wanted was a brick with a few common buttons, a nice screen and a standard GUI.
The main problem stems from the fact that car manufacturers will always choose novel designs over usability. They change components not to improve functionality, but simply for differentiation. As you pointed out, even if a control is well designed like Volvo's HVAC, it's phased out during the next refresh.
A newer problem is that every single car maker is beyond incompetent when it comes to software and UX. It's not part of their culture and expertise. So in addition to bad or missing buttons, even the screens are a nightmare.
This is an entrenched idea in the automotive industry, so it probably won't change, but it's something that really needs to stop in my opinion.
I’d also be curious of any current day architects carrying on his style or at least ethos.
reply