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

221–230 of 463 posts

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

#221

Post by trefoiled »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #29

What happened in 2020 that made investors think Tesla was a tech company instead of a car company? Based on the graph in TFA, it seems like investors maybe used to price the valuation right. (Caveat: I have no idea if they did, but the valuation used to be in line with other car companies, I guess?)

Not sure of the exact timeline here, but for a while Musk was explicitly promising that within a few years, true FSD would be a reality. He said you'd have to be insane not to buy a Tesla, because your car would be out there making money for you as an autonomous taxi when you're not using it. A car that pays for itself and then some would be a true paradigm shift, but as we can see now, his predictions were hot air.

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

#222

Post by xorcist »

turbobooster wrote: post #6

What did Elon do to make Tesla earn so much money that the original founders couldnt do? Is it just about debt loans needed?

Tesla wasn't earning any money at all until two years ago. Until then it was coasting by on debt and selling carbon credits.

The whole 2010s was a debt driven economic cycle. Very cheap money for those who can dream up a use for it. And some people are great at selling dreams.

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

#223

Post by firmnoodle »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #140
lotsofpulp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The giant tablet screen that sticks out like a sore thumb is the opposite of minimalistic, or minimalistic in the worst way. I wonder how long Tesla can get away with not offering CarPlay/Android Auto functionality. The lack of that basic, cheap, and frequently used feature disqualifies any car from consideration in my view.

I don’t love that I have to use the touch screen to open my glove box, and I certainly think there are a lot of UI issues (and the lack of integration with phones beyond regular bluetooth), but one thing I appreciate is that there aren’t any blinding dash lights. I can see a lot better at night in my Tesla as a consequence compared with any other vehicle I’ve driven.

I have a dedicated glove box button in my Tesla S. It's one of the few dedicated buttons.

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

#224

Post by humanistbot »

shadowgovt wrote: post #193
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…

And of course, there's the meta-question: Why do investors price so highly these gambles over things that are already generating demonstrable value for real human beings? Like, why do these cultural signifiers make them salivate to be parted from their funds given the track record of tech (20% fail in year 1, 1% become unicorns, 18% of first-time founders generate a company that can even tread water)?

Oh, that's the easy question, it is one of basic psychology. We like and trust people and environments that are similar to our own.

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

#225

Post by colinmorelli »

COGlory wrote: post #210

This is a pointless distinction. All car companies are tech companies.

It seems like you are thinking about "tech" from a value proposition standpoint (i.e. that car manufacturers are building value through technology, and thus that makes them a tech company).

This article is referring to the term used in more of a financial context - referring to how the company will grow and scale. In this context, "tech company" refers to a company with very low marginal CoGS that exponentially decays with scale.

The distinction is highly relevant if you're deciding how to value a stock. For whatever reason the public markets had been valuing Tesla (and every other EV startup) as though it was going to benefit from tech-like high margins and free distribution.

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

#226

Post by conductr »

judge2020 wrote: post #19
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.

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…

> in making electric cars viable by showing that they can both look good and blast off in record time

I still don't get the 'look good' part, why do non-ICE cars always need to have a different look that what is already popular/proven in the market. The traditional automakers are still doing this today with their first big pushes in EV. If they don't sell they'll blame 'the market' for not wanting EV, but in reality it could be folks just aren't interested in the design / don't what to make the fashion statement.

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

phpisthebest wrote: post #145
helen___keller wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>>with safety statistics better than humans The problem is that will not be the expectation. It will need to be perfect or near perfect. full self driving cars can drive a million of miles with no accident, but if on 1,000,001 miles there is a accident with a death it is all over the news, and people proclaiming the technology is terrible, unsafe and not ready. In that same 1,000,001 miles humans have caused far more…

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by dlivingston »

hannasanarion wrote: post #149
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…

You mean the range that a major governmental agency declared to be false advertising just a few days ago? https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/03/south-korea-fines-tesla-for-...

> South Korea’s antitrust regulator said it would impose a 2.85 billion won ($2.2 million) fine on Tesla for failing to tell its customers about the shorter driving range of its electric vehicles in low temperatures.

As a Tesla owner: range and ambient air temperature are significantly correlated (i.e., your 300 miles of range plummets to ~120 when below freezing).

But, on a good, sunny, warm day, their range claims are correct.

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

#229

Post by helen___keller »

jasondigitized wrote: post #219
helen___keller wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 average American will never be persuaded by statistics. Ross Perot tried that already.

It’s not statistics that will convince people it’s convenience. I just mentioned statistics because if the tech were convenient but actually killed people at 10X the rate of human driving, it could end up banned or something
Post reply on HN