Volkswagen to invest up to $5B in Rivian

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Volkswagen’s plan to invest up to $5 billion in Rivian is seen as a lifeline for the cash-burning EV startup and a way for VW to quickly upgrade its lagging EV software and platforms. Commenters compare the move to Microsoft’s 1997 support for Apple, debate whether Tesla, BYD, or others will emerge as the long-term “winners” in an increasingly commoditized EV market, and question lofty valuations across the sector. Some also argue Rivian may be giving up its key software edge too cheaply, especially as traditional automakers struggle most with software rather than mechanical engineering.

VW–Rivian Deal and Strategy

  • Compared to Microsoft’s 1997 Apple investment: seen less as pure cash and more as strategic tech and confidence boost.
  • Some view VW as lagging in EVs and needing Rivian’s software/architecture to catch up, especially against Chinese EVs.
  • Others argue VW’s tech is fine; the main issues are pricing and sales, not capability.
  • Unclear exactly what VW wants most: Rivian’s platform for trucks/vans, software stack, or an options-style hedge alongside its own Scout brand.

Rivian’s Position and Finances

  • Widely noted that Rivian loses large sums per vehicle and burns cash quickly; some call it “circling the drain.”
  • Investment seen as possibly essential to reaching next-gen models (R2/R3).
  • Concern that sharing its software erodes Rivian’s main differentiator, leaving it to compete on hardware with an OEM that already excels there.

Tesla, BYD, and Legacy Automakers

  • Debate over analogies: Tesla as Apple vs Android vs Nokia/BlackBerry; BYD sometimes cast as Samsung or even the true “Android of cars.”
  • Some think US commenters underestimate Chinese EV and battery leaders (BYD, CATL).
  • VW highlighted as strong in platforms and range of models, selling many more cars overall than Tesla but fewer BEVs.

EV Technology and Batteries

  • Discussion of fast-charging batteries (e.g., ~10-minute full charge) and very high-power chargers; grid capacity identified as the main bottleneck, not terminal hardware.
  • Interest in iron-based and sodium-ion chemistries; focus mostly on cost and manufacturing scale rather than huge density gains.

Software, Autonomy, and UX

  • Strong disagreement over Tesla’s driver-assist: some say competitors (Mercedes, BMW, GM SuperCruise, BYD, Renault) now do better in lane changes, comfort, and avoiding phantom braking; others say Tesla’s FSD is far less constrained than systems like Drive Pilot.
  • General sense that EV hardware is commoditizing and UX, software quality, and model variety will drive differentiation.

CarPlay/Android Auto Debate

  • Rivian’s (and Tesla’s, GM’s) refusal to support CarPlay/Android Auto is heavily criticized by some as anti-consumer and data/subscription motivated.
  • Others report being satisfied with Tesla/Rivian-native systems and see phone mirroring as unnecessary or distracting.
  • CarPlay/AA praised for longevity, flexibility (choice of nav/audio apps), and avoiding automakers’ weak or short-lived infotainment; critics note reliability issues in some implementations.

Design, Use Cases, and Market Perception

  • Mixed views on Rivian aesthetics: some find them ugly and costly to repair, others praise their looks (especially future R3) and see them commonly in affluent mountain towns for light truck use.
  • VW’s past EV designs (ID.3/ID.4) are criticized, though newer styling is seen as improving.

Valuations and Historical Context

  • Reminder that Rivian once briefly surpassed VW’s market cap; many see those EV valuations (including Tesla’s) as still detached from fundamentals and likely to correct.