By Jasper Cheng, Founder of Roadbook Media (Shanghai), June 29, 2025

I’ve had some free time lately, while clients and partners are drowning in work. Just scrolling through my phone, I stumbled upon the Xiaomi car drama. The real kicker? If you dare leave a critical comment, fanboys will come at you like rabid wolves. Clearly, there’s more here than meets the eye.

When Xiaomi’s YU7 SUV stunned automotive forums with its uncanny resemblance to Ferrari’s Purosangue, it wasn’t just the Italian designers choking on their espresso. Holy crap – from the C-pillar’s sharp crease to the black wheel-arch trim, even the 45-degree rear window slope and that exact shade of green – it’s a dead ringer for their prized Purosangue. Then came the specs: this Chinese SUV clocks 0-100km/h 0.1 seconds faster than its Italian muse. Lei Jun’s vow to “never be a follower” suddenly feels loaded with subtext.

Legal Gray Zones: The ‘Industrial Reshaping’ Loophole

“Copying” is too crude a term. Professor Huang rebrands it as “industrial reshaping.” In auto design IP law, there exists an unspoken “45-Degree Rule”:

• Patent laws only protect front 45-degree visual features
• Side profiles/silhouettes are considered “industry commons”

Xiaomi’s designers executed this with surgical precision:

• 4,999mm length (just 31mm shy of the original)
• 3,000mm wheelbase (a carbon copy)
• 0.5-degree A-pillar tweak (legally “distinct”)

Remember the Zotye SR9 – a Macan clone that dodged lawsuits? The YU7 strategy is its evolved form, akin to a celebrity plastic surgeon altering just enough to avoid litigation while retaining DNA.

Performance Jailbreak: When the ‘Clone’ Outpaces the Original

The real shocker? The YU7 doesn’t just look the part – it beats its idol on paper (maybe it’s wrong to compare those two cars) :

Consumer Psychology Shift: ‘Similarity Anxiety’ vs. Value

Tsinghua University’s latest consumer study shows:

• Gen Z ranks “design uniqueness” #7 in purchase criteria
• Tech features and performance dominate top spots

One prospective buyer nailed it: “Who cares if it looks similar? For iPhone money, I get iPhone Pro performance. That’s all that matters.”

This marks a brutal truth: In the EV era, design prestige moats are crumbling against digital-first value propositions.

Three Hidden Flaws in Xiaomi’s Masterplan

1. Innovation Laziness
   Behind the specs lies China’s endemic originality anxiety. Lei Jun’s “copy-improve-surpass” model works – until it doesn’t. Apple conquered phones not by cloning Nokia, but by reinventing the game.
2. Brand Ceiling
   The YU7 delivers 120% performance at 12.5% the price, yet overlooks luxury’s true currency: social capital. Porsche buyers pay 60% for the badge’s legacy- something no spec sheet can replicate.
3. Global Trust Deficit
   A German exec sneered: “They outsmarted patents, but not perceptions.” Every “legal clone” erodes trust in “Chinese innovation” abroad. Tesla’s open patents earned respect; Xiaomi’s legal tightropes may cost more than they gain.

The Big Picture

The EV revolution is reshaping consumer expectations – much like how the iPhone era made identical touchscreen slabs acceptable. As every automaker adopts the same fastback silhouettes and light bars, “design anxiety” is giving way to an obsession with tech-enabled functionality.

Here’s the brilliant irony: While German engineers still obsess over micrometer-perfect body gaps, Chinese automakers are rewriting the playbook. This isn’t just evolution – it’s a full transition from “mechanical artistry” to “compute-powered aesthetics,” mirroring smartphones’ leap from keypads to edge-to-edge displays.

But let’s not get carried away. For all its specsheet bravado, Xiaomi’s hype machine risks backfiring spectacularly. Those pre-order numbers and performance stats make great headlines – until consumers realize even the flashiest EV still needs to deliver on the basics: quality, reliability and actual driving pleasure.