Live data from Hacker News

Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

economist.com

111–120 of 463 posts

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't a tech company, it's an ad company. Apple is a tech company because they sell computers, which are information systems: Hardware counts. Chip manufacturers are also good examples of tech companies.

> Apple is a tech company because they sell computers, which are information systems If we’re making that stretch, I fail to see how a modern car isn’t an information system as well. What is and isn’t a tech company is context dependent. Economically, it describes a high gross margin business with negligible variable costs and vast scaling opportunity. By this definition, Tesla and Apple are not tech companies. The d…

It contains information systems, but it is not an information system. It is a vehicle. Its purpose is to provide transportation.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#113
post #4

I have a Tesla and I also hold a short position on TSLA. My Tesla is a great car. The best car that I've ever driven but I'm not sure if it has anything that other car manufacturers can't replicate. I think Apple can make an even better car than Tesla if they build the hardware and software like their phones and computers. The idea that Autopilot has some magic sauce that nobody else can replicate is laughable.

That's just it. I see it as follows. Back in the 2000s, the iPhone came out. Especially with the 3G, it was miles ahead of the competition, and it took Android manufacturers five years to catch up and overtake it.

I believe Tesla holds - or, held - a similar position. They had a head start in many areas, but they could not keep it up.

One big difference is quality; Apple phones have great build quality, always have - although they had issues with bending and holding the phone a certain way iirc. Nothing like that in recent years though. But Teslas are known for poor build quality, mainly in the bodywork - expensive construction methods, poor and inconsistent spacings, etc.

Tesla hasn't innovated in recent years. Their last 'big' one was announcing the semi, cybertruck and a new Roadster, but it went radio silent for all of those for years after the announcement until recently when they finally started delivering the first semis.

Apple on the other hand has consistently released a new phone every year since the iphone 1, and more models and innovation to boot.

Tesla had so much money but they don't seem to have invested it efficiently. They also failed to advance their self-driving much further, which seemed to be the USP they were pushing for for a while.

Its owner messing around with the stock price by announcing a privatization, then buying Twitter on what seemed like a whim was another big issue of course. He lost a lot of credibility over the years.

I think Tesla will pivot from a car manufacturer to a battery manufacturer, and that its long-term strategy is its Turbocharger network. Electric cars are here to stay, and whoever owns the charger network now will benefit for a long, long time - like the oil industry has for a hundred years on fuel.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#114
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most car buyers don't actually want minimalistic interiors.

Some people like black overstuffed couches. Some people like Danish modern.

Of course some do. The point is the vast majority do NOT want the interior of a Tesla.

They want everything in the same darn place that 99% of cars have it, with physical switches to be able to change things so you can just feel what you are doing without taking your eyes off the road.

Most people see the interior of a Tesla as a complete gimmick.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Minimalistic interiors, modern infotainment, mobile app performance None of that is why Tesla was ahead of everyone for so long. It's because their cars have better range, and Tesla is still the range leader. They held four of the top six spots in 2022, and the number one is the Lucid Air (only 3k of them have actually been sold): https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/g32634624/ev-lo... Also, I just want to…

They also have by far the best charging network. IMO Teslas have the best long range driving experience. This detail is important although not the only thing to consider. However, it looms large in how Americans think about their cars. I say this as someone who owns an electric car by a different manufacturer.

> They also have by far the best charging network.

In the US.

And the US drives these crazy valuations.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people like black overstuffed couches. Some people like Danish modern.

Last time I went car shopping, I saw a digital speedometer which irritated me for some reason so I rejected that model from further consideration.

I take it you're not shopping for new cars then? the cheapest new car I'm aware of that has analog gauges is a porsche.

btw I have the same preference, just letting you know you are in for a disappointment.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#117

Tesla, and even more Uber, were priced as if self driving cars are almost here. The idea that services like Uber without the drivers would make car ownership obsolete drove those valuations. Now that self driving cars are many decades away, instead of less than one decade away, is bring stock prices down. I always questions how fast we would see self driving cars, not because of the technology, but because of consume…

> There was a survey a few years ago of how much more people would be willing to pay for cars that could drive themself, and the median answer was $0. This is because quite a few people gave a negative number, that is, they would pay extra for a car that could not drive itself.

I think there's an inherent distrust (which I share) of giving technology the power to end our lives with one bug. Trust in technology, in general, is pretty low right now, so that reflects back on perceived future technology where one bad steer or missed brake ruins your life. Although I happen to share this pessimism with the human aspect of driving as well, I've almost died before because I wasn't focused while driving (IRL nerd sniping basically), and I know it could happen again in the future no matter how much I want to be a safe driver.

The truth is, if full self driving cars actually happened, with safety statistics better than humans and with a low barrier to entry, you can bet that people would change their opinion real fast. Much like Americans who have a revelation after experiencing European or Asian public transit, the realization that they could have an extra hour per day that was previously spent staring at a road, would be a big motivator to change opinions on technology. Add in that three of your friends already use it daily and they're not dead yet, and you rode with them and it seemed like a safe driver.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#118

Absurd headline. It's still WAY too overpriced to conclude that investor consensus is that it's just a carmaker. Market cap has a long way to fall before that conclusion holds.

Exactly. Tesla stock price should be looked at in a log plot.

Regardless, it's still 10x overvalued if we're simply considering it to be a carmaker.

It's currently 7x the value of Ford with a fraction of the production.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#119
Every time there is an article about Tesla, the vast majority of comments here are either too critical, too ignorant, or just FUD. It's too unbalanced, no other company (good or bad) gets such bad treatment here. I see many of the HN audience here are just repeating the media narrative without their own experience or even trying to understand the topic. Yes, Tesla is moving at the forefront of EV development, and yes, sometimes not everything is delivered as promised or on time. But on the other hand, this is HN, we're supposed to love new technology and engineering! Why so negative? It's pathetic.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is a tech company because they sell computers, which are information systems If we’re making that stretch, I fail to see how a modern car isn’t an information system as well. What is and isn’t a tech company is context dependent. Economically, it describes a high gross margin business with negligible variable costs and vast scaling opportunity. By this definition, Tesla and Apple are not tech companies. The d…

It contains information systems, but it is not an information system. It is a vehicle. Its purpose is to provide transportation.

> contains information systems, but it is not an information system. It is a vehicle. Its purpose is to provide transportation

By this measure, personal computers haven’t been tech since the 1980s. Virtually nobody wants an information system, whatever that means. They want to buy a function. That was OG Jobs.

Post reply on HN