People own expensive cars today even if they could buy a cheaper car that also gets them from A to B. When car ownership is a s status symbol the economic pressures don’t get people to stop owning them.
Owning your own car means that you can customize it’s interior to your liking. There are people who live in an RV today, and if you don’t anymore have to be in front of the wheel an RV can be smaller and still provide the same amount of livable space.
When people don’t spend their time in front of the wheel, the functionality of the rest of the car becomes more important as well.
Most status symbols I have known are not customized. I don’t see why status symbols and luxury cars wouldn’t be subject to the same economic pressures to lease.
A case could be made for ownership when the car owner has extremely specific needs. Hmm, which user cases does that apply to? I can kind of imagine use cases where a specialist car would be rare enough that it would be inconvenient to share it, I find it hard to think of a scenario where a car cannot be shared. Generally that’s the role of static buildings.
I hope that in these cases, it will be easy for an end-user to connect a car they own to a fleet- and that the cars wont be prohibitively expensive to own. This is one of the reasons we need public coordination protocols, and a competitive manufacturing industry.
Most status symbols I have known are not customized.
Suits are commonly customized by a tailor.
I find it hard to think of a scenario where a car cannot be shared. Generally that’s the role of static buildings.
Why? A lot of things that are done with static buildings don’t depend on the specific location of the building. If my flat would move around within the city in which I live that wouldn’t reduce it’s value but add to it.
An RV has the potential to store a lot of personal items that the owner might not want to share. If you have a fridge, it loses value when you share it and it becomes important that everytime you drive you have actually access to your own fridge.
People own expensive cars today even if they could buy a cheaper car that also gets them from A to B. When car ownership is a s status symbol the economic pressures don’t get people to stop owning them.
Owning your own car means that you can customize it’s interior to your liking. There are people who live in an RV today, and if you don’t anymore have to be in front of the wheel an RV can be smaller and still provide the same amount of livable space.
When people don’t spend their time in front of the wheel, the functionality of the rest of the car becomes more important as well.
Most status symbols I have known are not customized. I don’t see why status symbols and luxury cars wouldn’t be subject to the same economic pressures to lease.
A case could be made for ownership when the car owner has extremely specific needs. Hmm, which user cases does that apply to? I can kind of imagine use cases where a specialist car would be rare enough that it would be inconvenient to share it, I find it hard to think of a scenario where a car cannot be shared. Generally that’s the role of static buildings.
I hope that in these cases, it will be easy for an end-user to connect a car they own to a fleet- and that the cars wont be prohibitively expensive to own. This is one of the reasons we need public coordination protocols, and a competitive manufacturing industry.
Suits are commonly customized by a tailor.
Why? A lot of things that are done with static buildings don’t depend on the specific location of the building. If my flat would move around within the city in which I live that wouldn’t reduce it’s value but add to it.
An RV has the potential to store a lot of personal items that the owner might not want to share. If you have a fridge, it loses value when you share it and it becomes important that everytime you drive you have actually access to your own fridge.