I don't perceive such a "shift" in focus...
I don't see that (or get such an impression) in the 10K. In PART I, it makes clear that they are working on introducing lead acid versions for certain models in order to make the vehicle more affordable for those that are simply doing city driving, considering the cost of Lithium Ion. I see no suggestion (or anything implied) in the 10K that would lead someone to believe that they are shifting focus. Lead acid is just going to be an "option" that they will provide in order to reduce capital expenditures (in the China market) while at the same time broaden their market share into those sections that want an electric vehicle (in China) but could not otherwise afford it if it was only offered in Lithium Ion.
There is nothing in the 10K that suggests that such is the strategy internationally, since the "funding" problem described in the 10K with China government subsidies is not applicable to the international markets.
For example, the 10K plainly says "A lead acid version of the minivan EV will be offered for the low end market and the plan is to have the lithium acid version of the minivan launched for China and the international markets this year. There is more rapid adoption in the use of electric vehicles for fleets that are focused on providing EVs to delivery and logistic companies, as well as car-sharing leasing companies in the densely populated cities.
Examples are all over the place that backs this up, such as the Mullen 800e SUV that is manufactured by Zap Jonway. It uses a Lithium Ion battery pack. It is not offered on the Mullen web site in a lead acid version.
When Zap Jonway sells to customers outside of China (i.e. international sales), no such "funding" problem exists, since international orders have no connection to China government subsidies, delays and red tape and pay "full price", with no delay in reimbursements to the manufacturer.
