“不给钱不生产”？小米SU7 Ultra被曝强制车主提前付全款

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra pre-order process highlights significant consumer dissatisfaction due to the company's demand for upfront payment of the remaining balance before vehicle production, which deviates from industry norms and raises concerns about consumer rights and trust [1][17][24]. Group 1: Consumer Experience and Feedback - Many prospective buyers of the SU7 Ultra have reported being required to pay the remaining balance within seven days, even when the vehicle has not yet entered production, leading to feelings of being misled [1][3][10]. - Customers have expressed frustration over the lack of transparency in the payment process, with some stating that they received payment notifications while still waiting for their vehicles to be produced [8][10]. - The increase in the deposit amount from 20,000 yuan to 40,000 yuan, along with the high total price of the vehicle, has raised concerns about the financial burden on consumers [13][18]. Group 2: Comparison with Industry Practices - Xiaomi's approach of requiring payment before vehicle production contrasts sharply with the practices of established automakers like Tesla and NIO, which typically allow customers to inspect the vehicle before final payment [9][17]. - Traditional automotive companies often follow a "down payment + final payment upon delivery" model, which helps mitigate consumer risk and enhances trust [9][17]. - The automotive industry generally emphasizes shared risk in high-value transactions, which Xiaomi's current model appears to undermine [9][18]. Group 3: Financial Implications for Xiaomi - Analysts suggest that Xiaomi's strategy of demanding early payment may be driven by cash flow pressures and the need to combat scalpers, as the company faces significant financial demands during its production ramp-up phase [18][23]. - By securing early payments from consumers, Xiaomi could potentially lock in approximately 1.8 billion yuan in cash flow monthly, which would alleviate some of the financial strain associated with production and supply chain costs [23]. - However, this strategy risks alienating consumers and could lead to increased order cancellations, further complicating the company's market position [18][24]. Group 4: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The legality of Xiaomi's contract terms has been questioned, particularly regarding the stipulation that failure to pay on time constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, which may violate consumer protection laws [23]. - The company's practices have raised ethical concerns, as they appear to shift the financial risks associated with production delays onto consumers, undermining the trust that is essential in the automotive market [24]. - The ongoing issues with the SU7 Ultra, including previous controversies over product quality and misleading advertising, have compounded consumer distrust and dissatisfaction [24][26].