61–70 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telsa is going for a certain rough aesthetic with both the Cybertruck and Cybercab branding.
[flagged]
Any ideology that has a body count measured in the millions is my enemy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the software, if the saga around the constantly-broken ice cream machines is any indication.
I was going to mention that but I don’t know about it but assume they have some interesting supply chain, inventory management, marketing type software that no one will see, and just think about the POS, in store displays and web and mobile applications that millions of users interact with daily
The author misses the difference between cashflow and profit entirely. Selling a car today gives Tesla the full profits of that hardware production today. Running that car as a robotaxi means that Tesla eats the costs of the hardware today in exchange for a larger total profit collected over several years. So operating a fleet gives the company access to more long-term profits at the cost of decreasing the bank balan…
If McDonald's was profitable, they wouldn't try to franchise it. That's what this is. You take on operating costs and you understand your local market. They own the brand.
One problem in your analogy, for McDonalds, the franchisee is the one who actually operates the business. For the Cybercab, Tesla is the one operating it via "Full Self Driving", their app, and the Tesla rideshare network. As the owner, the only thing you do is own it, insure it, have a place to park it, and take on the risk of what happens if the vehicle registered to you is in an accident. Clearly, a pretty one-sid…
Also if Elon Musk has a demonstrable superpower it's the ability to raise capital. So they really could order 100,000 of these themselves.
Local owners can deal with local governments easier and with more finesse than a trillion dollar company.
Waymo didn't even bother dealing with any of the small cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, they worked directly with the state of California in order to expand their service area.
If McDonald's was profitable, they wouldn't try to franchise it. That's what this is. You take on operating costs and you understand your local market. They own the brand.
One problem in your analogy, for McDonalds, the franchisee is the one who actually operates the business. For the Cybercab, Tesla is the one operating it via "Full Self Driving", their app, and the Tesla rideshare network. As the owner, the only thing you do is own it, insure it, have a place to park it, and take on the risk of what happens if the vehicle registered to you is in an accident. Clearly, a pretty one-sid…
You need to clean, inspect, repair, insure, secure and charge the cars. To do so efficiently you will need to custom develop premises full of chargers and efficient charging and cleaning infrastructure.
That absolutely is operationally intense. Premises, permits, construction and then significant operations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would be very surprised if the manufacturer would sell you one without you agreeing to indemnify them. Why would anyone other than a fool agree to indemnify Tesla against liability for a vehicle whose driving behavior is controlled by Tesla?
As long as the first two letters in LLC hold up, lots of people would be willing to enter into a new market that appears to have a lot of potential upside and profit, with the downside limited to whatever they invested, or borrowed, to get it going.
They allow 3rd party sellers in their platform and in their warehouses
There's many reasons for this but they include:
Somebody will compete in every segment: building the taxis, operating them, and vertically integrating them. Put another way - some people will buy taxis in this model either way, so Tesla is incentivized to participate in this also. That helps them get economies of scale.
It also of course minimize risk. But not just the obvious kind. It also minimises risk of a niche competitor taking the buy to own robotaxi market and from that wedge becoming a substantial competitor.
But also like Amazon - operators should worry about Tesla taking the data they have about most successful routes and using that to compete directly in the must lucrative identified markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more than that, Tesla owns the brand, the manufacturing, and the software. They are much more than McDonalds. But indeed your comparison is an apt way to reply to this "article".
McDonald’s owns the brand, supply chain and real estate.
The author misses the difference between cashflow and profit entirely. Selling a car today gives Tesla the full profits of that hardware production today. Running that car as a robotaxi means that Tesla eats the costs of the hardware today in exchange for a larger total profit collected over several years. So operating a fleet gives the company access to more long-term profits at the cost of decreasing the bank balan…
Any franchisee contract would also need to have some sort of rules that prevent Tesla from running their own taxis themselves and undercutting their business, if it turns out to be too successful.