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

361–370 of 463 posts

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

#361

Post by college_physics »

Manias, panics and crashes - nothing new under the sun.

But actually no, in the age of 24/7 viral digital titilation, manias have been upgraded to hysterias.

Once the dust of this cycle settles the tangible "tech" advances booked will actually quite meager and people will not believe how many got so excited about so little.

Entire theses and books will be written about how general STEM illiteracy and FOMO coupled with unprecedented liquidity create fertile soil for all sorts of bizarre collective phenomena.

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

#362

Post by filoleg »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #151
scarface74 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infotainment system on Teslas is worse than a Nissan Sentra with CarPlay/Android Auto

If it would just integrate with airplay (and whatever the Android equivalent is) then Tesla wouldn’t need to support a one-off application for every streaming service.

You don't need a one-off application for every streaming service, those are there in case you want to use them without phone at all. Bluetooth audio is a thing, and you can stream whatever audio you want from your phone to your car audio using that.

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

#363

Post by vt85 »

helen___keller wrote: post #142
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

> 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 this counts for more than people realize. Similar with Facebook/Zuckerberg and Amazon/Bezos. The most effective founder CEO, in my opinion, for a large company is one that stays generally unknown to the publi…

[dead]

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

#364

Post by FireBeyond »

dlivingston wrote: post #228
hannasanarion wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Just like FSD works, vaguely, on a good clear day (not too sunny, though, in case you blind the vision sensors!) on good roads.

Totally ready "this year".

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

#365

Post by russellbeattie »

I went to CES in 2020 and there were almost no electric cars. This year, there a ton (from what I can gather from news and video coverage). Additionally, there are companies like Nvidia who are building out all the tech needed as off-the-shelf parts for the tech that Tesla has had to build itself. Cars are becoming like PCs.

Tesla had its decade head start, and it did amazingly. In my opinion, however, there is no way it can compete with the entire ecosystem of high-tech plus the manufacturing knowledge of the major car companies.

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

#366

Post by FireBeyond »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #360
LarryMullins wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet if Tesla were in Detroit instead of California, they'd remember that winter exists.

The place where Teslas form the largest fraction of the car population is Norway. They don't seem to have more problems with winter than any other car brand. I have driven my 2015 Mode S 70D at 1000 m altitude, -20°C, on numerous occasions with no problems at all. My Model S is certainly better at handling the winter than a Nissan Leaf of the same vintage.

Most Norwegians in my experience are a lot happier wearing a woollen jumper or layers to cope with their weather, whereas many Americans are not happy unless their car is cranking to keep the interior at 72 while it's in single digits outside.

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

#367

Post by freejazz »

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…

Thanks, dad!

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

#368

Post by tshaddox »

NickM wrote: post #164
l33tman wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

> it's really frustrating how hard it is to compare charge speed from different manufacturers

Is the discrepancy just the inefficiency (i.e. waste heat) of the charging circuitry and/or battery chemistry? And if so, do different EV battery+charger systems have significantly different efficiencies?

I would have expected that the consumer-facing spec is always the power taken from the grid, that there is always some inefficiency (you can draw less energy from the batteries than came out of the grid), and that the level of efficiency would be roughly similar across all cars.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be much of a problem to compare charging rates across cars. But perhaps one or more of my expectations are wrong.

Oh, and EVs presumably vary wildly in their "fuel economy" (miles per kilowatt-hour or whatever unit EV folks use), so even a "fair" comparison of charging rate presumably wouldn't paint the entire picture.

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

#369

Post by freejazz »

giobox wrote: post #334
NickM wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is this deceptive? Anyone who has ever charged a phone is probably familiar with the concept that a higher wattage charger provides faster charging speeds - electric cars are no different. Higher power chargers charge faster is not some secret. The car simply states the fastest DC connection it supports - 350kw. It works with any charger up to this wattage, just like my laptop charges from any USB-C source up to…

"Anyone who has ever charged a phone is probably familiar with the concept that a higher wattage"

I assure you that my mother has no idea what a watt is.

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

#370

Post by oblio »

diblasio wrote: post #270
oblio wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also have by far the best charging network. In the US. And the US drives these crazy valuations.

Supercharger network is also much better than the other networks in Europe as well in the current state.

Yeah, but there it doesn't matter. You can take your €15k Dacia Spring there and use the Tesla chargers :-)
Post reply on HN