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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 463 posts

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

#121

Post by politician »

tshaddox wrote: post #79
cainxinth wrote: post #45

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…

Is it really that simple? Is there something about Tesla’s technology that enables longer ranges? Surely they just put in bigger batteries and charge more for the car, and competitors could also do that if it was really a primary competitive advantage of Teslas.

Can competitors source the raw metals required in sufficient quantities to put bigger batteries in their cars?

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

#122

Post by davewritescode »

mavhc wrote: post #74
judge2020 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference seems to be that Tesla was 5-10 years ahead on everything: Minimalistic interiors, modern infotainment, mobile app performance, and of course they lead the way in making electric cars viable by showing that they can both look good and blast off in record time. But you're right that other automakers see Tesla as a threat and are catching up; for example, the range and charging curve improvements on mode…

Tesla's only competition is Chinese EV makers, everyone else can't make enough cars, and none of them are profitable. Tesla are 5-10 years ahead on profit, due to adopting cost savings such as no buttons, more miles per kwh, thus smaller batteries, casting most of the body in 2 or 3 pieces. And then there's in house software creation, vs everyone else. Software makes their use of their motors more efficient. That's b…

> And then there's in house software creation, vs everyone else. Software makes their use of their motors more efficient.

You think automakers don't know about software? You do realize that what the ECU has to do to keep internal combustion engines running as efficiently as they do today is at least an order of magnitude more complex that electric motor management

> That's before you have the problem with how to get rid of your non EV business.

That's an asset, not a liability. Some places in the world are unlikely to have the infrastructure to support a conversion to EVs in the next decade or two. It doesn't mean we stop trying but having mature technology that you don't need to invest a lot in to support a niche use case is a good thing, not a bad thing.

> Then you have battery tech, opening lithium refining facilities, owning more of the supply chain. Everyone else will be paying extra for batteries for decades.

There's no reason to believe that Tesla's suppliers will remain exclusively theirs unless they've signed massive longterm deals that the public is unaware of.

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

#123

Post by macco »

msoad wrote: 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.

I would think the most valuable part of tesla is the network of loading stations that the own. At least in the US. In Europe the EU is setting a standard which is good for competition, but maybe less good for innovation.

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

#124

Post by hef19898 »

l33tman wrote: post #108
tshaddox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that simple? Is there something about Tesla’s technology that enables longer ranges? Surely they just put in bigger batteries and charge more for the car, and competitors could also do that if it was really a primary competitive advantage of Teslas.

Many of the competitors are STILL building on an ICE chassis and stuff batteries where the center axle would have been etc. When enough of them finally switch to pure EV platforms things will quickly improve I guess. But designing a new chassis that behave as well as their previous premium models, is not something they do in 1 year so it makes sense there is some delay.. The competitors also charge much less quickly,…

And they basically all did develop EV platforms, probably the main reason it took them as long to catch up as it did. But now that they have them, the benefits coming from those platforms are just enormous.

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

#125

Post by l33tman »

nradov wrote: post #63
mavhc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the app to unlock the door https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_cn/GUID-F907200...

It's hilarious that anyone would consider this an acceptable work around for such an idiotic design flaw.

Yeah well that they omit a windshield wiper stalk is also idiotic and furthermore outright dangerous. I've done overtakes next to trailers some times in heavy rain where in a second I had to hit the wiper stalk to max. Relying on their camera-based AI to do that (yes they skip on the cost of the industry standard IR sensor for rain detection) is crazy. A german guy actually died a few years back because he was searching through the UI to find the control to set the wipers to max..

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

#126

Post by _huayra_ »

bartread wrote: post #47
judge2020 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference seems to be that Tesla was 5-10 years ahead on everything: Minimalistic interiors, modern infotainment, mobile app performance, and of course they lead the way in making electric cars viable by showing that they can both look good and blast off in record time. But you're right that other automakers see Tesla as a threat and are catching up; for example, the range and charging curve improvements on mode…

> Minimalistic interiors Is this something you see as a benefit? For me Tesla's overall aesthetic, including both their exterior looks and interior design, along with the absence of physical controls that go long with that represent their biggest downsides (outside of build quality).

People ooh and aah over the tacky gigantoscreen in Teslas, but it was really a hack to avoid having to design the usual litany of buttons and knobs that go onto a dash. Thankfully most other manufacturers haven't gone as totally screen-centric as Tesla (yet...)

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

#128

Post by hef19898 »

politician wrote: post #121
tshaddox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that simple? Is there something about Tesla’s technology that enables longer ranges? Surely they just put in bigger batteries and charge more for the car, and competitors could also do that if it was really a primary competitive advantage of Teslas.

Can competitors source the raw metals required in sufficient quantities to put bigger batteries in their cars?

Yes. And if Tesla would move to block them from doing so, they would set themselves up for an anti-competition suite of epic proportions in all markets, from the US over the EU all the way to China.

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

#129

Post by DennisP »

_uhtu wrote: post #7

I'm not sure you can say that when the market cap is still 10x car companies that deliver orders of magnitude more cars than them. Even a high growth car company wouldn't justify that valuation. No, Tesla is still very overpriced for a car company based on hype.

I'm not gonna say TSLA isn't overpriced but number of cars isn't a great metric. Let's look at some financials:

Tesla: mcap $388B, debt $9B, op income $12B, free cash flow $9B

GM: mcap $49B, debt $110B, op income $10B, free cash flow $1B

Ford: mcap $48B, debt $139B, op income $11B, free cash flow $3B

Tesla makes more money than Ford or GM, while having much less debt. The fact that they sell fewer cars means their margins are higher, and they have more room to grow. Maybe they shouldn't be worth eight times more than Ford or GM, but they should definitely be worth more.

And if you believe that the industry is going electric, then Tesla is already there, while legacy auto has a lot of work to do, and Tesla's low debt load makes them better positioned to do lots of R&D.

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

#130

Post by dopamean »

pjdemers wrote: post #88

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…

> The idea that services like Uber without the drivers would make car ownership obsolete drove those valuations.

Did investors really believe that? I don't know a single person who believed that years ago when the pre-IPO valuations were going through the roof. I maybe knew a few people who believed it was possible one day but not anytime soon. It's wild to me that so called sophisticated investors really believed that in the not too distant future uber would have a fleet of driverless vehicles shuttling people around.

FWIW, I don't believe we'll see anything like that in my lifetime (I'm 37). The last few years of development in this space, for me, have proven that it's a much harder problem than people thought and that the early big improvements in the tech gave people false hope.

Post reply on HN