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

Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#21

Post by anindha »

pmarreck wrote: post #13
true_tuna wrote: post #4

[flagged]

I’d much less rather live in a world of ads, because that’s exactly what created the perverse incentive to press all emotional buttons possible in order to get more eyeballs/ad impressions (see: fakenews epidemic). People who produce good content expect to be paid for their labors. Do you have a better business model than ads (which incentivize twisting wording around to create emotional-button-pressing, and therefor…

If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC.

I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#22

Post by abakker »

pmarreck wrote: post #16
brink wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ~$20 a month. Do you really think I'm going to pay ~$220/yr so I can read articles on WSJ once in a while?

Seems like there is an unaddressed business opportunity for a per-article micropayment option.

News organizations work because the interests of the many finance a broad array of articles. Micropayments for articles would disrupt and distort the motives of unbiased news. There would emerge a hierarchy of articles chasing clicks and editors that favored certain writers with privileged access to click-generating traffic. underperforming articles would cease, and eventually, we'd get CNN. Joking aside, the newspaper model finances diversity of content. Per article payments finance creating lowest common denominator drivel.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#23

Post by colechristensen »

abakker wrote: post #20
colechristensen wrote: post #18

This isn't news, it's gossip. ~200 instead of ~1500 means the bootstrapping is a little off schedule. It's stories like this and the attitude that they're important which gets us very destructive behaviors like putting production quota ahead of quality. Production misses are news when they're for substantial cause. Like a 10% miss for an S or X might be news.

Yes, but it is news for investors. Missing productions goals as a startup is different than missing production numbers as a public company that is arguably quite overvalued. It matters because if it effects their share price, that can have important downstream effects on their eventual ability to execute (e.g. secure more loans). Edit: I am not trying to say that Tesla should be punished, but am specifically addressi…

It is especially not news for investors. It encourages terrible behavior when people focus on this sort of dumb number. Projecting problems and solutions at the beginning of production is more or less impossible. Valuing a company based on the accuracy of what is litte more than random noise makes you a bad investor, making it a headline news story makes you a bad editor. It's only news if it shows an _actual_ problem instead of showing what it actually shows ... which is random chance pushing around production scaling schedules.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#24

Post by mrgordon »

mattbeckman wrote: post #7
true_tuna wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Try this bookmarklet to treat it like a Facebook referral: javascript:window.location.href='https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

This approach stopped working recently AFAIK. Does it still work for you?

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#25

Post by ams6110 »

anindha wrote: post #21
pmarreck wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d much less rather live in a world of ads, because that’s exactly what created the perverse incentive to press all emotional buttons possible in order to get more eyeballs/ad impressions (see: fakenews epidemic). People who produce good content expect to be paid for their labors. Do you have a better business model than ads (which incentivize twisting wording around to create emotional-button-pressing, and therefor…

If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.

Government funded is incompatible with independent. By definition such an organization is dependent on continued government funding.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#26

Post by bradyd »

anindha wrote: post #21
pmarreck wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d much less rather live in a world of ads, because that’s exactly what created the perverse incentive to press all emotional buttons possible in order to get more eyeballs/ad impressions (see: fakenews epidemic). People who produce good content expect to be paid for their labors. Do you have a better business model than ads (which incentivize twisting wording around to create emotional-button-pressing, and therefor…

If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.

> it should be government funded and independent

You can be government funded or independent, but not both.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#27

Post by jryle80 »

colechristensen wrote: post #23
abakker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it is news for investors. Missing productions goals as a startup is different than missing production numbers as a public company that is arguably quite overvalued. It matters because if it effects their share price, that can have important downstream effects on their eventual ability to execute (e.g. secure more loans). Edit: I am not trying to say that Tesla should be punished, but am specifically addressi…

It is especially not news for investors. It encourages terrible behavior when people focus on this sort of dumb number. Projecting problems and solutions at the beginning of production is more or less impossible. Valuing a company based on the accuracy of what is litte more than random noise makes you a bad investor, making it a headline news story makes you a bad editor. It's only news if it shows an _actual_ proble…

It's news because Tesla projected to have delivered 1,500 Model 3 by end of 3rd quarter. They missed that milestone. Simple as that.

I wouldn't read too much into this myself. Scaling production is hard. Regardless, it's an important metric that speaks to Tesla's ability to deliver, at least short term.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#28

Post by ucaetano »

anindha wrote: post #21
pmarreck wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d much less rather live in a world of ads, because that’s exactly what created the perverse incentive to press all emotional buttons possible in order to get more eyeballs/ad impressions (see: fakenews epidemic). People who produce good content expect to be paid for their labors. Do you have a better business model than ads (which incentivize twisting wording around to create emotional-button-pressing, and therefor…

If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.

> government funded and independent

Pick one, please.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#29

Post by maxerickson »

colechristensen wrote: post #19
modeless wrote: post #3

Actual source: http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1042449 OT: Sad how difficult it was to find this. The media avoids linking to primary sources. For example, Engadget's 3 paragraph article contains no less than 5 links back to engadget.com and not a single mention of this source.

This is a press release which was likely delivered to wsj et al through a wire service they pay to deliver them piles and piles of press releases. Nobody quotes those as sources because nobody but news organizations that pay for them has access to them. A press release is also a rather bad primary source unlike, say, a research paper or a blog post.

The text on the Tesla website mentions https://globenewswire.com/

Anyone can setup a real time account for free.

Also the WSJ article pretty clearly used the press release as a source, so mentioning that is a separate issue from whether it is a good or bad source.

(unless you think the WSJ called Tesla and verified specific facts like "4,820 Model S and X vehicles were in transit" vs "The company said 4,820 vehicles were in transit at the end of the quarter")

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#30

Post by bisRepetita »

colechristensen wrote: post #23
abakker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it is news for investors. Missing productions goals as a startup is different than missing production numbers as a public company that is arguably quite overvalued. It matters because if it effects their share price, that can have important downstream effects on their eventual ability to execute (e.g. secure more loans). Edit: I am not trying to say that Tesla should be punished, but am specifically addressi…

It is especially not news for investors. It encourages terrible behavior when people focus on this sort of dumb number. Projecting problems and solutions at the beginning of production is more or less impossible. Valuing a company based on the accuracy of what is litte more than random noise makes you a bad investor, making it a headline news story makes you a bad editor. It's only news if it shows an _actual_ proble…

Are you saying one should not value a company based on what they're saying? Then in Q2 when they wrote "Based on our preparedness at this time, we are confident we can produce just over 1,500 vehicles in Q3", then we should not believe them. So why do they bother saying this? If they got an uplift then, they get punished a bit now, that's fair, life goes on.
Post reply on HN