Aptera’s Gambit
Can a small startup turn billionaire capitalism on its head?
NOTE: Within this text, wherever gender is not key to the explanation, I am using the Elverson ey/em construction of the Spivak Pronouns.
I am an advocate for real engineering. I’ve written extensively about how modern engineering has become a simple, desiccated procedure. Rich corporations hire software engineers largely for the purpose of furthering the delusion that they are providing value to their captive customers. These customers have simply accepted that their smartphone, smart car or smart banking app is going to be constantly updated (implying that the product is being continually improved) despite the fact that nothing is actually getting better. Ever since President Reagan decided to stop enforcing U.S. anti-monopoly laws, the easy solution to competitive threat is to simply buy the competitor. Company after company manages to copy each competitive advance until it becomes tedious, at which point the competitor is simply absorbed.
For this reason, I have become fascinated by a small vehicle startup called Aptera. My family has invested money in the company and we have reserved one of their vehicles. The company has a complicated history beginning in 2005 with a highly efficient diesel/solar prototype. After a bit of startup struggle, the founders brought in automotive “experts” as partners who scrapped the initial concepts and moved to a more conventional design which led to a company devoid of genius and value which subsequently failed in 2011.
In 2019, the original founders decided to try again, this time with a total electric vehicle supplemented with on-board solar cells (a Solar Electric Vehicle or SEV). This approach makes use of the latest technology in order to more fully exploit the advantages of the original concept.
Excellent engineering always begins by defining the problem to be solved. If there is no problem then engineering is not needed. In my most recent field (software), the engineer is placated with the delusion that the purpose is to give the customer what ey wants, whether that solves the customer’s problem or not. This is a lazy sort of self-imposed servitude that entirely avoids the actual purpose of engineering. What the customer wants always defines a tenuous façade which reduces the pain but doesn’t cure the disease. It is the solemn responsibility of the engineer to assess the problem itself: the root cause of the phenomena which drove the discomfort that led the customer to cobble together eir own inadequate solution which ultimately manifests as what the customer wants. An irresponsible engineer will do what the customer says. A real engineer will do the hard work of addressing the root cause and solving the problem fully.
We see hints of the actual problem leading to Aptera in other vehicle companies. GM, Toyota and others have been addressing the problem of how to make an internal combustion engine more fuel-efficient. Tesla decided to take the simple next step of electrifying a car; but, all of those companies are only glossing over the real problem to be addressed. We need to step back, wipe away our preconceptions and consider the entire scope of the problem. What is the real problem to be solved? How do we understand that problem without the taint of existing flawed solutions? What does a world without that problem look like?
I believe the Aptera engineers have actually tackled the real problem which may be summarized as follows: In those cases where public transportation is not sufficient, how do we get a person from point A to point B as efficiently as possible? The solution to that problem does not look like a car. It looks like nothing you have ever seen before. Engineering at this level is exhilarating — it is a vocation.
Listening to Jason Hill, Aptera Head of Design, as he explains the Aptera design philosophy, we are transported into the mind of the engineer. There is no simple procedure here. Hill’s explanation betrays a visceral giddiness as he expresses the utter joy of problem-solving. Having been employed as an engineer in an innovative company, I remember that innocent glee as we breached the apparently impenetrable barrier. To innovate, the problem must be approached with a child-like openness and disciplined rigor; the engineer must recognize the impossible as a challenge rather than a limit. This philosophy seems to permeate the company and this leads me to believe that the Aptera solution is likely to fundamentally change transportation.
The Brilliant Idea Is Not Enough
So now we come to the next real problem. It is an engineering problem as surely as any complex problem requires the skill of an engineer. How does a small unconventional startup raise enough money to begin manufacturing a vehicle?
We have been told that initial funding was obtained from fairly mundane sources such as venture capitalists and hedge funds. That money allowed development of the final refined prototype and the acquisition of manufacturing facilities. Now, though, in order to obtain the machinery for mass production, a final round of funds must be acquired. Aptera management has been transparent regarding their goals and risks, and investors were assured that negotiations for these funds have been under way for the last few months.
Then, in January of 2023, Aptera announced their accelerator program wherein new middle-class investors could compete for delivery of the first 2000 vehicles off the production line. It was met with mixed emotions from the Aptera community. Some early investors complained that it was unfair since the risk they had assumed now seemed somewhat diminished, and allowed new investors to jump the queue. Those with a more rational view saw this as a bold innovation that may secure and validate their existing investment: a social engineering solution to a basic problem in economics.
We, in the modern neoliberal world, count on the extremely wealthy to fund all problem solving. Don’t worry, Jeff Bezos will provide all goods; Elon Musk will get us to Mars; Bill Gates will rescue our failed system of education. This is nothing new: the ancient Greeks turned to the unfathomably wealthy to fund their armies. That doesn’t mean it is good for the community.
The community provides the essential means whereby the wealthy may become so, and then timidly begs those very recipients of the community’s boon for a tiny dividend in the form of investment. Brilliance is not enough, some rich person must be convinced that ey may now become even more rich by the labor of the humble but ingenious supplicant.
Of course, Aptera is doing all that requisite begging; but, at some point, it decided not to settle for the generally accepted solution. Why not strike at the root cause of the problem? There is a large cadre of enthusiastic small investors who already believe in the product. They are hoping for success; but, as is so often the problem, success seems dependent upon a handful of rich people. Is that dependency real or is it a lazy assumption? Can that assumption be tested?
The accelerator program is, like any engineering solution, bold and controversial. It approaches the problem from a very different angle as can be seen on the company’s leader board. Is it a move of desperation or genius? This is not yet clear. Many successful endeavors have been a little of both. By introducing an element of competition into an eager group of admirers with some available capital, a last round of funding may bear fruit without requiring the beneficence of oligarchs. Billionaire control may submit to funds derived from the masses. A democratic force may fund and sustain a well-conceived startup with a message of real innovation.
If this company fails, my family loses an entirely manageable investment. My spouse will tell you that her husband has learned more expensive lessons; but, is there a lesson to be taught here? Oh yes, we progressives like to claim that the oppressive capitalist system will be brought down by the people, but are we willing to prove that? Will progressives with means actually pony up some money to put flesh on the bony frame of dissent? Can the common individual raise from the dead the wretched corpse of real innovation and prove that U.S. industry is more than the pitiful residue of grift?
If a green electric roadster with up to 1000 miles range cannot be produced without the approval of the billionaire class then we are well and truly doomed. Here is a simple opportunity for the progressive faction of the U.S. to prove that the people may best the ruling class. It is the free thinking progressive that challenges the norms. It is the free thinking progressive that demands justification from the ordinary. The free thinking progressive looks to see the world as it is and move it to what it can be. Can we put a thumb in the eye of the oligarch? Can we stand as a unified force to confront our supposed betters? Can we do this because it is demanded by our understanding of social justice? Can we do this because, for the love of all that’s holy, it would just be a hoot?
Julian S. Taylor is the author of Famine in the Bullpen a book about bringing innovation back to software engineering.
Available at or order-able from your local bookstore.
Rediscover real browsing at your local bookstore.
Also available in ebook and audio formats at Sockwood Press.
