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

161–170 of 463 posts

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

#161

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> Uber, were priced as if self driving cars are almost here

Source? I struggle to even find it mentioned in Uber’s S-1 [1]. (To say nothing of Lyft.)

[1] https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001543151/f0dcd9a...

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

#162

Post by dougmany »

cainxinth wrote: post #45
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, 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…

That article states > Although we haven't tested each of the longest-range models under our own EV highway range testing procedure, we've provided the data where possible.

I don't think Tesla is as far ahead on range as everyone thinks. Highway miles are what matters and Tesla tends to be optimistic on their numbers.

https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

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

#163

Post by fassssst »

Yea having test driven the Mach E, Ioniq 5, and XC40 Recharge there is no way I’d buy a Tesla either. We liked all of those better than Model Y and Model 3. Going with the Volvo, it just feels nicer to actually drive, and has built in Google Maps with Google voice controls.

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

#164

Post by NickM »

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,…

Like, on paper they can do 250 kW but you never get more than 100 when actually charging it etc

Yeah this is one area where there's a lot of deceptive marketing. For example the Kia EV6 specs list a max fast charging rate of 350 kW but what that actually means is that you need a 350 kW charging station to reach the car's actual max charging speed of 240 kW (or 180 kW, depending on the battery options).

Granted, that is still nice and fast, and the EV6 is a great car, but it's really frustrating how hard it is to compare charge speed from different manufacturers.

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

#165

Post by hannasanarion »

aardvarkr wrote: post #109
dawnerd wrote: post #80

We’ve also been shown that Elon doesn’t know how to run a tech company. It’s been obvious before the Twitter takeover from all the half baked features that were shoehorned in and abandoned.

Oh no, Elon failed so hard at running tech companies that he accidentally built three of the most innovative companies of the last 20 years and became the worlds richest man… you can hate him all you want but don’t underestimate him. I hate that I have to be the voice of reason here since I really hate his god complex but I can at least respect what he’s built. That list includes X/PayPal, Tesla, and SpaceX. Don’t le…

Elon didn't "build" any of his businesses, he is and always was the "money guy". He provided startup capital for X.com and SpaceX, but never did any substantial technical work on either. He bought Tesla after they already had several prototypes and started cosplaying as "founder" and fired everybody who called BS.

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

#166

Post by jeffbee »

elisharobinson wrote: post #136
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.

"carmaker" != "electric carmaker" , all other carmakers DO NOT make profitable EV's and require heavy subsidies to be in parity. Tesla has better margins because it is vertically integrated . Apple will NEVER make a car , cars require a totally different supply chain not as simple as moving a low mass objects like phones and PC's , ie cant move them multiple times across different continents. other car makers will ha…

Tesla earned 5.5 billion on 54 billion in sales in 2021. 1.5 billion of that was in air pollution credits Tesla sells to other carmakers, meaning they earned about a 8% margin on the car business. You could definitely argue that Tesla is only profitable because of government price supports.

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

#167

Post by bsagdiyev »

usrusr wrote: post #144
wazoox wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually after having tested a couple of other cars, for instance the Renault Megane, the BMW i4 and the Mercedes EQE have better enhanced drive assistance than Tesla. For instance: * when in full-auto on a single lane road, when there's an exit on the right the Tesla 3 almost always slightly swerve towards the exit before coming back in its lane. None of the Megane, the EQE or the BMW i4 do that. * To overtake a slo…

> * when in full-auto on a single lane road, when there's an exit on the right the Tesla 3 almost always slightly swerve towards the exit before coming back in its lane. None of the Megane, the EQE or the BMW i4 do that. A minor nuisance. Unless you happen to be at the ready attentively double-checking whatever the assistance is doing - then it must be infuriatingly annoying! Guess what you're supposed to be doing, a…

That's the point of assistance, it shouldn't need double checking by a human every time. It should just work.

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

#168

Post by [deleted] »

macspoofing wrote: post #153
pulse7 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I read something like "are many decades away" and "less than one decade away" I ask myself if we have a prophet here... Since nobody knows what will be discovered today and tomorrow nobody can make claims that "something is many decades away". And on the other side, nobody can make claims for "less than one decade away", because some lunatic with the atomic bomb can stop the progress of an almost finished…

>We can only speak about "probabilities" here... Yeah but this is colloquial speech, the probabilities are there just implicit because it would be exhausting to make this explicit in everyday speech.

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by lesuorac »

helen___keller wrote: post #117
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…

> 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 ge…

> 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.

I think this is the wrong counter-argument against self-driving cars being viable.

If the median answer is $0 and there were a lot of negative answers then that means there's a lot of positive answers. Just sell the cars to those people!

Not everybody wants a self-driving car just like not everybody wants a big mac. Hell you probably need to pay some people to eat a big mac. But theres enough people that want a big mac that despite that fact it's a huge business.

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

#170

Post by UIUC_06 »

md_ wrote: post #14

This is true for so many "tech" darlings: Should Uber be priced like a tech company, or a cab company? Is Amazon a tech company or a retailer? Are ecommerce outlets like Warby Parker and Away tech companies, or just retailers with good CSS? It continues to amaze me how investors seem bamboozled by the appearance of "tech company-ness", by businesses which are obviously in markets that don't support the high price to…

I did my post, and then I saw yours. More examples, and excellent analyses!
Post reply on HN