Shape Insight attended the FT Future of the Car Summit in London w/c 11th May, bringing together a global cross-section of senior leaders from across the automotive industry.
Below, we outline some of the key themes emerging from the discussions, alongside their implications for OEMs and automotive brands.
Key Conference Takeaways
Seven strategic takeaways spanning electrification, software, luxury, autonomy, and the supply chain – and what they mean for OEMs and automotive brands.
Takeaway 01: The real Chinese advantage is not the product or the price, but the speed of execution.
Across all three days, no theme came up more consistently than speed. Not electrification, not tariffs, not software. Speed. Chinese OEMs have built an operating model that Western counterparts simply do not have and the gap is getting wider.
Omoda’s Oliver Lowe called it “China Speed,” and he was clear it goes well beyond engineering. It covers how quickly decisions get made, how fast customer feedback turns into product changes, how readily a marketing strategy gets torn up and rewritten. What sits behind all of it is a genuine willingness to act quickly on what customers say – and to do so quickly. That responsiveness is lacking across many Western OEMs.
A newer dimension to the story: China is no longer just a market global OEMs sell into, but increasingly a base they manufacture from. Volkswagen has announced plans to export China-built vehicles to the Middle East and Latin America for the first time, while Nissan is targeting 300,000 exports from China by 2030. For European manufacturing, this matters. The competition is no longer just Chinese domestic brands, it is European and Japanese brands building more cheaply in China and selling into the same markets.
Implication 01: Speed of development is now a brand attribute.
Chinese OEMs are making ‘pace’ a defining brand attribute. Established brands need visible proof of rapid iteration: OTA update frequency, response to customer feedback, speed of product changes. Without it, the positioning gap becomes a perception gap, and perception gaps are harder to close than operational ones.
Takeaway 02: No consensus on powertrain strategy… The industry has split
Some brands are committing fully to EVs and treating that clarity as a competitive advantage, while others are adopting a mixed approach because market reality demands it. Both positions are valid, reflecting different customer bases, regional dynamics, and business constraints.
In the pluralist camp, brands such as Lotus, Volvo, and Lynk & Co signalled that hybrid is a near-term necessity rather than a fallback. Renault’s 50/50 target between full EV and full hybrid by 2030 is perhaps the clearest public admission yet that consumers are not moving to full EV at the pace regulators assumed.
The counter-argument came from Polestar, which is staying EV-only and framing that focus as a strategic advantage. The logic: in a market full of brands trying to do everything at once, standing for one thing clearly is itself a differentiator. It is a credible position, and it was one of the more direct statements of intent at the conference.
Implication 02: Whatever the powertrain strategy, the brand story must lead it.
EV-only brands gain clarity, but risk being defined by their technology rather than what they stand for. Mixed powertrain brands gain commercial flexibility, but lose the simplicity of a single, clear proposition. In both cases, the brief is the same: build a brand narrative strong enough to make the powertrain strategy feel intentional, not reactive, and ensure powertrain is just one aspect of the brand, not the defining feature.
Takeaway 03: The SDV conversation is actually two conversations. One is nearly here. The other is years away.
The term ‘software-defined vehicle’ (SDV) featured a lot. Perhaps the most interesting thing said came from NXP (a chipmaker focused on automotive tech), and it was a distinction rather than a claim. A digitised vehicle – running software, enabling updates, and offering personalisation – is already here. A truly intelligent vehicle, where AI actively manages core functions such as battery optimisation, energy use, and propulsion in real time, is a fundamentally harder and still emerging challenge.
The barrier is structural. Safety-critical systems require certified, deterministic software and they cannot move at consumer product pace. NXP positioned mainstream AI integration into core vehicle functions as a 2028–2030 horizon.
The consumer-facing layer is a different story. Chinese buyers already treat real-time AI features, conversational interfaces, and adaptive personalisation as standard expectations. European OEMs are also lagging here, though for different reasons: legacy architectures, complex supply chains, and a customer base that still tends to prefer control over immersion.
Both gaps are real, and they require different responses.
Implication 03: The near-term SDV opportunity is in what customers can feel, not what engineers can build.
The consumer-facing layer – personalisation, real-time AI features, intuitive interfaces – is where the competitive battle is happening now, and where Chinese brands are already winning. Core vehicle intelligence is years away. Brands that communicate what customers can actually experience today will build more credible differentiation.
Takeaway 04: Ultra-luxury is thriving. The aspirational middle is where the pressure is.
The K-shape describes a market splitting in two directions: the top strengthening, the middle softening. In automotive luxury, that divergence is clear.
Rolls-Royce is doubling its Goodwood factory to meet demand, not for volume but for craftspeople to fulfil increasingly personal commissions. Lamborghini deliberately manages production at about 11,000 units a year and has 94% of buyers using its bespoke personalisation programme. In both cases, scarcity is not a constraint – it is the point.
What both have in common is a shift in what they sell. The product is no longer an object; it is a curated experience built around the individual. Rolls-Royce describes itself as a house of luxury rather than a car company, and that framing matters.
The brands under most pressure are in the aspirational middle, where technology is becoming commoditised and Chinese entrants are matching the specification at a lower price. That gap is not closing on its own.
Implication 04: Know which luxury game you are playing.
The K-shaped market means ultra-luxury and aspirational luxury now require fundamentally different strategies. In ultra-luxury, the product is only part of what is being sold – the commission process, factory experience, and ownership journey are integral to the value. In aspirational luxury, the challenge is more competitive: rebuilding differentiation in a segment where specification parity is rising and price pressure is intensifying.
Takeaway 05: EVs are commoditising the traditional markers of luxury. Brands are having to fight harder to stay distinctive.
Smoothness, silence, and instant acceleration once signalled premium or luxury. In EVs, they are now baseline attributes, available across almost every price point. That shift makes emotional identity more important than ever.
OEM responses differ, but the underlying motivation is the same. Rolls-Royce is leaning in with Spectre, its first full EV, positioning it as the purest expression of effortless silence the brand has ever achieved. Lamborghini is holding at PHEV for now, as engine sound and visceral engagement remain central to its identity and customer dream. Lotus has stepped back from a fully electric strategy toward hybrid, seeking to preserve driver feel while developing what it calls “digital craftsmanship” to translate its ethos into the cabin.
The interior is another battleground. Minimalist, screen-led design has made many cockpits feel increasingly interchangeable. Brands such as Volkswagen are reintroducing physical controls, while others like Lotus and Bugatti continue to emphasise tactile materials alongside digital interfaces. The strongest solutions will blend craft and technology, rather than choosing between them.
Implication 05: The delta between luxury and mainstream has to be rebuilt.
Electrification has commoditised many of the traditional markers of premium. Smooth, silent, and fast are now available at almost any price point. Luxury brands need to find the new delta, and it will not come from 0-60mph figures or screen size. It will come from emotional identity, craftsmanship, and a sense of individuality.
Takeaway 06: Autonomous driving is making real progress, but full delivery remains further away than the headlines suggest.
Waymo has over 2,500 vehicles operating in controlled US cities, which is genuinely impressive and genuinely limited. The underlying limitation is increasingly familiar from consumer AI: these systems are trained on patterns rather than true reasoning, meaning they perform well in familiar conditions but struggle with novelty. Flooded roads and unusual junctions are still catching them out.
Autobrains, having raised $140m, is taking a different approach – using agentic AI to build reasoning rather than pattern recognition into the system. It is a compelling proposition, but one that is still unproven at scale.
From the legacy OEMs, Nissan set the most specific public timeline: 90% of global volume featuring autonomous technology by 2030, with both consumer subscription and B2B robo-mobility models planned.
Implication 06: Build consumer trust in autonomy incrementally, not all at once.
Full autonomy is still years away, but the journey there matters. Brands that invest in well-communicated driver assistance features build the kind of incremental consumer trust that makes the eventual transition feel like a natural progression rather than a leap of faith.
Takeaway 07: The era of designing one global product and shipping it everywhere is ending. The brands adapting fastest are building genuine local presence.
Tariffs have accelerated the conversation, but the shift goes deeper than cost. Building, locally, and partnering locally is becoming a strategic necessity.
On manufacturing, the direction is increasingly clear. BYD is building plants in Brazil and Hungary, Xpeng is producing in Austria and evaluating further European expansion, while both Nissan and Volkswagen have begun exporting China-built vehicles to third markets for the first time.
Product localisation is proving just as important. BYD designed the Dolphin G specifically around European dimensions and preferences. Changan invested two years in local testing and calibration, including suspension and software tuning for UK roads. Volvo was explicit: software cannot be developed from a global template because data regulation, road conditions, and driver expectations vary too significantly.
Joint ventures are emerging as the key mechanism to bridge capability gaps. Alliances such as Nissan–Renault, Smart (Mercedes–Geely), and Horse Powertrain (Renault–Geely) reflect a consistent logic: East and West have complementary strengths, and partnership is the fastest route to combining them.
Implication 07: Localisation is now a competitive differentiator, not just a compliance exercise.
The brands gaining ground fastest are not just manufacturing closer to their customers – they are developing closer to them, calibrating products for local roads, regulation, and expectations. For established OEMs, the question is how much of their product and software development is genuinely local versus globally developed and locally badged. The difference is increasingly visible to consumers.
If any of these themes are live conversations in your business, we would love to talk. This is the space Shape Insight works in every day… helping brands understand what is shifting, what it means for their customers, and what to do about it.
