Recently, BeijingXiaomi Cars have once again become the center of public attention. The controversy isn't about consumers' mindless speculation on the car's aerodynamics, but rather the "bait-and-switch" issue in Xiaomi's marketing—specifically the discrepancy between their advertised aerodynamics design and the actual internal structure. This problem has not only disappointed consumers but also sparked discussions about false advertising.
On several occasions, Lei Jun clearly stated that the aerodynamics design of Xiaomi's car would remain consistent with the prototype, not merely a superficial difference, but a complete design change including the internal air duct system. During the sales process, consumers were also told this, and some even chose configurations such as the perforated hood, believing it was worth the wait. However, after the purchase, they found the actual product deviated significantly from Lei Jun's promises. The design they were promised didn't materialize, and instead, they received a product with configurations that could be easily swapped out—what some might call a “mood piece.” This "technical change" led many consumers to feel misled and has fostered deep distrust in Xiaomi's advertising.
This incident also brings to mind another issue involving mismatched technology and advertising—Tesla's FSD system in China. Tesla's FSD is hailed as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology in the US, full of confidence, independence, and power, almost becoming a benchmark for future technology. However, when it arrived in China, Tesla's FSD seemed to undergo a sort of "technical gender reassignment"—it was no longer the bold "geek warrior," but became a product limited by market and cultural constraints.
First, the difference in computational power has significantly reduced the decision-making ability and environmental adaptability of the Chinese version of FSD. The Chinese version cannot freely roam the roads like its American counterpart; instead, it seems constrained, as though it’s forced to adapt to a new environment, unable to fully unleash its original energy. Additionally, the difference in training data means the Chinese version of FSD cannot fully adapt to China's complex traffic environment, causing it to retain a strong "foreign" flavor in its judgment and decision-making.
From a technical perspective, the Chinese version of FSD has not developed an independent technical identity; instead, it exists in the gap between globalization and localization. This "technical transgender" process prevents it from fully inheriting the freedom of the American version, while it also cannot fully cater to China’s road needs, resulting in a "neutral" existence, lacking sufficient autonomy and failing to meet local technical requirements.
Even more ironic is that while Elon Musk publicly opposes the LGBT community, he has created a "digital queer" in the tech world—a system that floats between different cultures and markets. This contradictory action mirrors Xiaomi's false advertising. Musk appears to reject fluidity of identity but, through Tesla's FSD, his "technical transgender" practice in the Chinese version demonstrates an invisible support for fluidity, change, and reconstruction in the tech realm.
Overall, both Tesla and Xiaomi are trying to break traditional technological barriers, yet the compromises they make in local markets under the pressure of globalization, coupled with gaps in their advertising, have left consumers deeply disappointed and confused. Behind these "digital queers" lies the irreconcilable technical conflict between globalization and localization, as well as the collapse of consumer trust.
thttps://b23.tv/nEWaZPb