Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla raises $1.8B

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 207 posts

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#151

Post by Tade0 »

sandstrom wrote: post #145
totalZero wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-ar... '....a Tesla representative said that Eberhard and other principals in the dispute have come to an agreement. The company did not reveal any details of the resolution, except to say that there are now five, rather than two, agreed-upon "founders" of Tesla.'

Just because he pays them to say he is a founder doesn't make him one (in the technical sense of the word). But also, it doesn't matter that much, few would disagree that JB and Elon has done a tremendous amount for Tesla and that it wouldn't exist without them).

Precisely. Tesla today is today's Tesla because of these two gentlemen.

I remember that there were quite a few EV startups back in the day - aside from Tesla next none of them exist today.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#152

Post by hueving »

Tomminn wrote: post #116
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

For the exact same reason Tesla won't be able to sell the Model S, because taking the difference between electricity and petrol prices, it will take 50 years to pay off the price difference from a Toyota.

Bad comparison. You can buy renewable from your electricity provider so the entire 'being green' factor goes away in this comparison.

People buy Teslas because they are fun to drive/nice cars and they get environmentalism bragging rights. There is nothing special about a solar roof compared to paying the utility for the renewable source.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#153

Post by calafrax »

lancewiggs wrote: post #139
Aron wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this was just a loan. The first time for them that it wasn't attached in some way to shares.

Not only that it is unsecured "junk" debt, and the interest rate is incredibly low at 5.3%.

5.3% is not incredibly low for a corporation borrowing 1.8 billion. it is pretty high which is why investors are jumping on it.

This adds $95 million in interest expense per year which is pretty substantial.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#154

Post by hueving »

jerkstate wrote: post #65
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

How much would it cost for a roof-mounted device that makes gasoline for you? Add your local transportation bill to your electricity bill and now tell me how many years it is.

The cost difference between an electric car and a cheap compact car is so high that it pays to fuel the compact car for 100,000 miles +.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#155

Post by hueving »

dpiers wrote: post #66
mattnewton wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I kinda think they and the investors are hoping that electricity demand increases and the tech becomes much cheaper while their RnD is funded by millionaires who care about the aesthetics and the environment.

Which is basically how Tesla started - toys for rich people funded RnD until they could scale and get their costs down.

It's still how Tesla exists now until they can deliver the 3 at scale.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#156

Post by hueving »

rock_hard wrote: post #107
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

You are missing the point. Tesla customers care about money as much as Apple customers do...they don't. What they care about is being part of the future...today! Tesla customers look at ICE cars and grid dependence like Apple owners look at feature phones...pity full.

People that want grid independence are quite selfish when they simultaneously demand that the grid pay them retail rates for excess electricity. They are free riders on the transmission and deliver at suboptimal times.

IMO grid independence is not a laudable goal because it means no scalable energy storage and production systems. Particularly when someone still wants the option to use the grid at their convenience. The maintenance burden is now spread across fewer paying customers with the same number of lines to maintain.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#157

Post by calafrax »

mack1001 wrote: post #53

If tesla can get 500,000 cars out there, ICE cars are toast. Enough of legacy cars and makers.

economics: as market share for electric cars grows demand for gasoline goes down and the price for gasoline (already low) goes down thus exacerbating the already large gap in cost between electric and gas.

electric will always be a victim of its own success unless it can actually become competitive with ice on cost and energy density.

remember that the baseline cost for an ice car is about $1000 (used) and $5000 (new). there is a world outside of california (shock) and it has billions of potential customers.

ice isnt going anywhere.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#158

Post by coob »

monkmartinez wrote: post #87
epistasis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners often pay extra for aesthetics that appeal to them. But lets pretend they don't. How quickly does a normal roof recoup its costs? For at least the beginnings of a fair comparison, you should look at recouping the surplus over the normal cost of a roof. Also, how are you spending $25k on batteries? This sort of comment seems to attempt to try to take the most negative reasonable possible look on the situati…

Normal roof mounted solar doesn't pay for itself unless you plan on staying in the same home for a longggg time.

It pays for itself when you sell the house.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#159

Post by angstrom »

mej10 wrote: post #48
dopamean wrote: post #33

It's interesting to me that in May of last year Snap, Inc raised about the same amount of money. I've never understood how some companies need so much money. To me it makes sense for Tesla. They are building actual cars and that is expensive. What on earth did Snap need a 1.8 billion for?

Did you see how much Snap was/is paying on infrastructure? It is _insane_. $2 billion over 5 years. The amount of waste that is obviously happening there is maddening.

That's more than maddening. One company is working on the forefront of an entire ecosystem transformation in a 100 year old entrenched customer base the other...well, let's just say in another 100 years you'll be lucky to find anyone that knows what snap was.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#160

Post by Rexxar »

bharath28 wrote: post #129
rock_hard wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point. Tesla customers care about money as much as Apple customers do...they don't. What they care about is being part of the future...today! Tesla customers look at ICE cars and grid dependence like Apple owners look at feature phones...pity full.

What they care about is being part of the future...today! And why is this bad?

No one has told that this is a bad thing in this discussion.
Post reply on HN