EVs and the Missing Democratization Moment

Efficiency alone won’t win the market. Until EVs shed bloat and undercut ICE by a wide margin, consumers won’t see them as the obvious choice.

If you follow me, you know I don’t back one propulsion technology over another in automotive, though I’ll admit a soft spot for the roar of a well-tuned ICE engine and a bias toward simple engineering. When I write about EVs, I get it from both sides—the advocates and the critics. But I promise you, I’m an equal opportunity automotive guy, open to all the possibilities of what’s been and what’s to come. Setting that aside, I tend to look at the industry and its technology in broader terms.

There’s no doubting the electromechanical efficiency of EVs, but efficiency alone doesn’t make a product people want. Mandates can outlaw one technology and favor another, but they cannot change the reality that automobiles are expensive because of safety requirements, complexity, and inflation. What’s dragging the industry down isn’t just cost, it is bloat. Every unnecessary feature and oversized screen adds weight, fragility, and expense while eroding the very qualities that once made cars compelling. Think of a mass-market SUV that now tips the scales 500 pounds heavier than its predecessor simply because of electronic seat massagers, ten redundant driver-assist cameras, and a center console display the size of a television. Consumers feel it, even if they cannot articulate it: the cars are not better, just more complicated. And no matter where you land on the environmental debate, one truth cuts through: you cannot force desire. To move the market, you need disruption that simplifies and excites. Without that, the consumer will not follow, no matter how polished the spec sheet looks.

I’ve said it before and it remains true: a forced transition in this space will never work. Energy shifts are too complex for blunt instruments, and the only ones that succeed are those that make sense to the majority of consumers. That is where EVs still miss the mark. What’s missing is a democratization moment—the point where they stop being niche products, virtue signaling devices, or status symbols and instead become ordinary in the best possible way: accessible, practical, and unremarkable. And I don’t mean price parity with ICE. I mean 20 to 30 percent less, low enough to pull sidelined buyers back into the market. That’s the kind of delta that changes the game—not just on the showroom floor, but in financing terms, insurance premiums, and the size and accessibility of the used market within just a few years. Picture someone weighing a $50,000 ICE car against a $35,000 EV that is equal to or better than the traditional option. Old habits and biases might still tilt the choice toward ICE, but the odds of that decision holding shrink quickly when the EV is clearly the smarter buy.

And let’s be clear: EVs are evolutionary, not revolutionary. The net effect of driving one versus an ICE vehicle is the same, you go from point A to point B. The drivetrain may be quieter, the torque may hit instantly, but none of that rewrites what it means to own or use a car. Even the flashiest EV features can be folded into ICE designs (though crabwalking without wheel motors is a stretch). If we were talking about teleportation, that would be different. That’s true disruption. EVs aren’t that. They’re just another flavor of the same journey.

And if we are moving toward highly efficient manufacturing, rapid obsolescence, closed-loop recycling, and vehicles-as-a-service models, the cost savings cannot stay locked inside the OEMs. That might look good for stock performance, which I can appreciate as an investor, but it is terrible for consumers. The gains must be a shared benefit for both the OEM and the customer. Otherwise, automakers pocket the upside while consumers are left with shorter-lived products, pressured to replace them more often, and ultimately paying the price for someone else’s efficiency.

This is where the hard questions start. How do you deliver an EV at that price point when supply chains are strained by mineral scarcity, charging networks are still unreliable, and batteries carry unresolved concerns about lifespan, replacement cost, and recyclability? How do you make the product simple enough to be desirable when the industry keeps piling complexity onto already bloated platforms? The truth is, the Chinese have addressed parts of this equation, but their cost advantages rest on a combination of factors that are difficult—if not impossible—to replicate in western markets: lower labor costs, deep vertical integration, state-backed industrial policy, and command over mineral supply chains that western OEMs can’t match.

Automakers have shown they can engineer EVs that win awards, grab headlines, and push technical boundaries. What they haven’t shown is that they can deliver a product that resets expectations for the mainstream buyer. Until that happens, EV adoption will depend on mandates, subsidies, and early-adopter enthusiasm. These are significant, but not transformative. When resistance takes shape through rising supply chain costs, shrinking subsidies, or geopolitical turmoil, it exposes the fragile underbelly of a technology still finding its footing.

The future of propulsion, whether electric, hybrid, or something we have yet to see, will hinge not on efficiency charts or regulatory pressure, but on whether the industry can strip away the bloat and give consumers something that feels attainable and sensible. A true democratization moment would not only broaden the market, it would signal that EVs have matured beyond being statements of technology or status. They would simply be cars people want to buy. And if that moment never comes, it won’t be because it was impossible—it will be because leadership lacked the courage to trade a few points of margin today for the kind of product that could dominate the market tomorrow. The question every OEM boardroom should be asking right now is simple: will we lead that moment, or watch someone else seize it while we congratulate ourselves on quarterly returns?

#automotive #EV #designbloat #sustainability #innovation #designethos #energytransition

Michael Entner-Gómez is a strategist, technologist, and writer focused on the convergence of the world's most critical infrastructure sectors: energy, transportation, and telecommunications. Using a systems-thinking approach, he helps industry incumbents and disruptors future-proof their operations, scale complex platforms, and navigate the shift to software-defined everything.

This article is not sponsored, not paid, and not written to please. It’s written to inform.