While your observations may be correct (I don't know and don't have the expertise of what any company should be doing...), I wonder what qualifies them as an incumbent company *now* rather than any of the last, say 80 years (when they were at least 30-40 years old already, and when innovations surely happened).
You keep bashing anybody but fully EV companies for their commercial decisions - but if you know so much better than these people, I wonder why they have not hired you to lead them.
Sure CEOs and companies make mistakes, and they may very well have in the way you point out (again, I can't say). But the mistakes you point out seem to all be located in "legacy companies" - and to me, having seen many strong advocates for a certain issue suffer from this - this strongly points that an introspection of confirmation bias might be useful.
Fair enough. I am not in the business, I just listen to what the different companies are saying, and look at what they are doing/shipping, and notice patterns.
I have never had any interest in buying a Tesla, not held any of the stock, and called them out on a lot of BS over the years (like giving their IP away... a huge PR stunt when their IP was worthless). But they said they would release a few models, and scale production, and that they would sell them and make a profit doing so. And except for some delays with production scaling (of order 6 mos), they did all of those things. While automobile market analysts and media folks were saying that they couldn't do all those things.
That said, Tesla's FSD has been an overpriced and overpromised fiasco. No excuse for that, its just snake oil. And their MSRP is always higher than predicted.
Rivian ships quite a few trucks that I see around, that are expensive. As a startup, I suppose they must be making some profit, or have convinced investors they will soon. But there is chatter about them running out of cash before scaling the R2. We will see.
BYD I know a lot less about... but they seem to sell a competitive product against Tesla in China, with an unknown amount of financing help from the CCP. And ofc they are a kinda legacy... bc they sell ICE cars too.
In contrast, all these other car companies (by definition legacies) have claimed for years that they too would start making EVs at scale, at affordable prices and would make a profit. And all the analysts agreed, and hailed this or that upcoming product as a 'Tesla killer', and predicted that the grownups with car building experience would breeze past Tesla and outcompete them in short order.
And VW has made BEVs at scale, that are serviceable and popular. And they don't talk about profit so much. Smaller makes like BWM also make quite a few EVs (as a percentage), and they sell at a nice price point. So, they seem to be doing OK, while their profits doing so are unknown.
And GM and Ford have made huge promises in BEV land for the last several years, and apparently lost their shirt on the ones they sold (Ford) at a modest scale or just shipped a puny amount of vehicles (GM).
What happened? I dunno. Maybe they didn't figure out production costs or plan ahead properly for the falling price of batteries? Just guessing?
I was a big fan of legacy EVs, having bought 3 of them with my own money and loving them. But folks told me that they were compliance cars and the companies weren't actually into making EVs at scale.... and I scoffed. In the last couple years of Ford's and GM's disappointing output... I am now a believer that they are all about PR and telling investors what they want to hear, more than shipping BEVs.
I honestly think/hope that Ford and GM will figure it out (maybe with a govt bailout or two), when batteries get cheap enough, and they start to just build boxes and slap other folks batteries in them.