321–330 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You gotta hand it to Elon for stirring the appetite for EVs though. What makes you think he can't do similar things in other markets?
I am not convinced he really changed the market's desire for EVs. He made a halo car, and now he is selling the baby version for Average Joe. I think the success of the Model 3 has a lot more to do with the brand than it does with it being an EV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your world view is too narrow. That 5000 figure is important, but it's not really meaningful in the grand scheme of things. There is a 4th or 5th scenario, where 4. other car makers trail behind Tesla more and more in terms of technology. Remember, all these car makers had DECADES of head start developing EVs before Tesla was even born. Tesla was supposed to trail them in tech, not the other way around. It's easy to…
> 4. other car makers trail behind Tesla more and more in terms of technology. Remember, all these car makers had DECADES of head start developing EVs before Tesla was even born. Tesla was supposed to trail them in tech, not the other way around. > It's easy to assume that because a company is bigger, and have more resources and manufacturing experience, that they can move fast in developing tech. It's easy to judge…
It has nothing to do with Silicon Valley. The geography is meaningless. The only thing that matters is staying ahead of the curve. It's always going to be hard for GM to do that, because it's focus is always going to be on incremental improvements of the same way of doing things. The "years of design and manufacturing experience" you mention.
Look at their $1B acquisition in Cruise Automation. Like you said, GM is not a power company, its' a car company. Its' business is cars. GM should have developed self-driving tech internally, and not had to buy it. Cars is GM's job. But GM missed that boat entirely, because everyone in GM is focused on incremental improvements on manufacturing.
Even your comment mentions that "most people don't care about EV right now." EV is not a big focus for GM. Sure it has the Chevy Bolt, but that only began development 10 years after Tesla started. GM does not care about EVs right now. It's focus is still on manufacturing traditional cars, and will continue to be this way until someone else forces them to change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If these $45k cars are fully automatic (a big if for sure), then $45k will be a bargain price and would probably capture at least half the new car market.
This is frankly delusional thinking. (a) Tesla aren't the leaders in the self driving car space. Waymo arguably is, (b) almost all of the car makers have self driving car programs and most importantly (c) why would the traditional car makers just sit back, do nothing and allow Tesla to eat up the entire market ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using this logic every start up would fail as soon as they showed their business model could lead to success and a bigger company swooped in a with their overwhelming capital and experience.
Many do, for that exact reason. If you ever pitch your startup idea to a VC, you're expected to explain how you're going to deal with this risk.
Sure, and many don't.
>If you ever pitch your startup idea to a VC, you're expected to explain how you're going to deal with this risk.
And that is exactly my point. Tesla certainly has strategies to respond if GM/Toyota enter their markets. You and TAForObvReasons are responding as if those companies will easily beat Tesla as soon as they make that decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GM/Toyota have the resources to start operating in the same markets that Tesla has ambitions for. And they are certainly keeping an eye on Tesla's actions. After watching what Tesla is doing, they have chosen not to invest those resources even though if they did, they would beat Tesla at its own game quite easily because they eclipse it both in capital and experience. Either their analysts are wrong and failing to se…
Using this logic every start up would fail as soon as they showed their business model could lead to success and a bigger company swooped in a with their overwhelming capital and experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Several months ago this would have been unthinkable Unthinkable? Their Q4-16 Shareholder letter [1] (Feb 22nd, 2017) stated: "Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018." On July 2nd, 2017 Musk forecasted [2] 20,000 per month by Dec…
Their timeline shifted to almost a year later, but it looks like they did get there.
That's the important thing. A lot of people are concerned about Tesla's ability to raise money and stay solvent. Tesla will not be profitable, or even cash-flow positive, until enough Model 3 cars are made.
Every month Tesla fails to reach a high-degree of production, Telsa loses another $75 million.
-----------
The worst part about this rampup effort is how bursty and unreliable it is. Its going to be a one-week hit of 5000. Next week, or even next month, Tesla's sustainted output will be well below 5000, and therefore Tesla will remain unprofitable for another few months at minimum.
That's not even factoring in all the costs Musk threw down for these tents (Obviously a temporary arrangement, as a single storm will put those tents out of commission).
You know, it is really interesting watching the Musk haters over the years. The more he succeeds in doing what he promised (albeit usually behind schedule), the more they hate him, and the more convinced they become that his present projects will all turn out to be complete failures. It almost makes you think they have some ulterior motive, like they work for the fossil fuel industry, of one of the other rocket launc…
Leave it to CNBC and HN to take such a success story by Tesla and turn it on its head to call it a failure. 1- Emphasizing the 5hr delay as opposed to the almost 5k figure WHEN THEY THEMSELVES SAID A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT TESLA WON'T PRODUCE MORE THAN 2k PER WEEK 2- Accusing Tesla of having low production quality in their tent line without any evidence 3- Criticizing Tesla for not being able to produce performance and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many do, for that exact reason. If you ever pitch your startup idea to a VC, you're expected to explain how you're going to deal with this risk.
>Many do, for that exact reason. Sure, and many don't. >If you ever pitch your startup idea to a VC, you're expected to explain how you're going to deal with this risk. And that is exactly my point. Tesla certainly has strategies to respond if GM/Toyota enter their markets. You and TAForObvReasons are responding as if those companies will easily beat Tesla as soon as they make that decision.
Hitting 5000 Model 3 Units in a single surge week is an anomaly, until it becomes a repeatable and sustainable pattern. And a pattern that includes low/no rework, because building 5000 units a week is one metric, building 5000 high quality units with no expensive rework is another metric entirely. Questions: Why would someone work in a non air conditioned tent under high stress when they could earn the equivalent wag…