Selling at a loss is how you build volume and reach the economies of scale that drive down costs.

If you fiddle around half-heartedly putting out small numbers of EVs, you'll never come close to competing with a company that puts out over a million a year. A lot of automakers still aren't willing to commit, and they're whining about the position they chose to put themselves in.

China is using subsidies to accelerate the green transition, exactly like the US is doing with the "Inflation Reduction Act" and other initiatives.

I truly don't care if China destroy the car industry, it's fucking ridiculous how expensive some basic shit is. In my opinion if you introduce a feature into your cars, you have ten years before it should become standard.

a comment in the article you linked says this better than I ever could:

This whole narrative about alleged “subsidies” to Chinese EV makers and them “losing $35,000 per vehicle” is pure propaganda. Firstly, that company - Nio - is a relatively new one and it is still ramping up its production. A year ago when they were not selling EVs yet but invested a lot in R&D it could be said that they were losing infinite amount of money per vehicle - because infinity is what you get from dividing by zero. Both this logic and this math are erroneous. Tesla was losing money for years even after it started making and selling its cars.It kept going by taking money from investors in exchange for shares. That is exactly what the Chinese EV companies do. So secondly, those are not “subsidies” but investments, even if the money comes from Chinese government entities. This article states itself that local governments take stock in companies in exchange for investment - exactly the same thing Tesla investors did.

The article also talks about BYD, a more established manufacturer than Nio, that is making profits selling electric cars.