I also think it is important to point out that they were not making cars, they designed cars and outsourced production.
You don't need to own your factory to make good solid cars. Sometimes it's best to hand it over to more experienced partners who know what they're doing, while you focus on the consumer facing side.
After all, none of Fisker's major issues were manufacturing related, but software/UX.
I mentioned it because people place Fisker at the wrong position and judge their cars from the wrong perspective. I really don't think it was a bad choice on Fiskers part.
>After all, none of Fisker's major issues were manufacturing related, but software/UX.
Yes, much of the car was quite usable from what I heard. Driving performance and feeling seemed good and it seemed well manufactured. So everything which Fisker didn't do and outsourced to Magna Steyr was quite good. Of course this puts Fisher in an even worse light.
The richest hardware company in the world, Apple, completely outsourced production.
Maybe things are different with cars but that seems unlikely to me.
That is interesting. So they were more of an IP shop, and didn't get into the capital and labor side of auto manufacture. That may not have been material to the business arc that led to bankruptcy, but it reflects a different way of operating.
How much did they outsource software design and construction? Software flaws were part of the MKBHD review referenced in a different comment.
I think it is pretty unclear. Magna Steyr was the manufacturer of the Ocean and Fisher used their platform. I would assume that Fisker developed most of the user facing stuff, so interior, exterior and UI.
Jokes aside, they sort of "deserve" it - given their product
