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

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#211

Post by mncolinlee »

mncolinlee wrote: post #187
nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

All of this complaining about the difference between 40 kWh and 60 kWh ignores the fact that most people rarely take trips of that length anyway. I've always had to explain this to people who do not understand why range anxiety is not very important. If I need to take a long road trip, I will rent a car. The 2013 Nissan Leaf is the second cheapest car in America after five years of ownership and it has a great featur…

Okay, that was really a COMPLETELY ridiculous downvote. It's almost like people are assuming someone who owns an $80,000 car doesn't choose to fly anywhere.

No number of fools moaning will change the fact that someone who has earned $80,000 can spend it however they choose, including purchasing an energy-efficient automobile that won't go over 200 miles in cold weather without stopping to charge. Is that really any worse than buying a $21,000 Linux rifle to shoot deer at twenty yards?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#212

Post by mixmastamyk »

johnward wrote: post #189
mncolinlee wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this complaining about the difference between 40 kWh and 60 kWh ignores the fact that most people rarely take trips of that length anyway. I've always had to explain this to people who do not understand why range anxiety is not very important. If I need to take a long road trip, I will rent a car. The 2013 Nissan Leaf is the second cheapest car in America after five years of ownership and it has a great featur…

Some people do travel that far though. I travel at least 120 miles daily. I'm probably not the target market for these vehicles yet.

"most people rarely..."

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#213

Post by marshray »

marvin wrote: post #142
marshray wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it says to me as a consumer is that the vendor doesn't value the product, and so I shouldn't either. For example, a pet shop: "Sorry, someone else already adopted that three-legged dog we advertised on discount to a good home. But we can give you one of our regular puppies at the same price. Of course, we'll have to 'adjust' it first ..." Yes, it's a perfectly rational decision of the kind which gives MBAs a bad…

You are being incredibly mean to Tesla here. It says right in the article that producing the 40kWh pack didn't turn out to be economically viable due to investment costs. Your view gives two possibilities: 1) Lose money on the 40kWh model by investing millions in production equipment for a product that almost no one wants 2) Lose money on the 60kWh model by selling it for less than it costs to produce None of these a…

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be "incredibly mean" to a car company. I'm trying to express how I, as an aspiring electric car buyer, feel about crippleware adding 300 lbs of mass to a vehicle for which I would have to pay the energy costs to haul around.

Tesla's obligation was to deliver cars at least as good as were pre-ordered at at least as good a price.

Tesla has chosen your option (2) here, shipping the heavier 60 kWh battery for the 40 kWh price. They have chosen this option because it benefits them economically.

However, to ensure that it does not benefit the customers who preordered the 40 kWh battery, they are artificially restricting the capacity. As a result, the customers who ordered a 40 kWh battery are receiving a heavier car with no additional range to account for it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#214

Post by marshray »

simonster wrote: post #197
marshray wrote: post #36

"but range will be software limited to 40 kWh" DRM in my car that will leave me stranded by the side of the road. Wow, this is a new low even for DRM. No thank you. Tesla, you were kinda cool.

I don't think you can call any artificial technological limitation "digital rights management." "DRM" has generally referred to limitations that prevent you from transferring media from one device to another, preventing both illegal and legal uses of that media. The obvious alternative is to let people transfer the media freely. People hate DRM because it's an annoyance that doesn't prevent people from pirating thing…

OK, we could just call it "crippleware".

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#215

Post by saraid216 »

marshray wrote: post #60
peteforde wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you lose sleep over cable/satellite channels that could be available if only you paid for them? Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30? Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter? Tesla is being smart by constraining the number of products that they have to produce. Removing complexity directly trans…

> Do you lose sleep over cable/satellite channels that could be available if only you paid for them? No. I decided cable TV wasn't a good value and canceled it years ago. > Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30? No. My switch is 1 Gb. > Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter? No. Would you buy a ca…

> No. I decided cable TV wasn't a good value and canceled it years ago.

And I decided not to get a driver's license because having a car is pretty useless. Obviously this means your argument is invalid.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#216

Post by nradov »

ollysb wrote: post #134

Will be interesting to see if car features become subscription based. Currently manufacturers derive the majority of their profit on the initial sale. Once the cars are on the road they don't see a penny of profit for most of them(ok, there's parts and servicing but the competition is generally cheaper). If they could derive profit throughout the lifetime of the vehicle it would encourage a decrease in the churn rate…

GM has been doing that for years with the OnStar subscription service. Certain features stop working if you don't renew your subscription.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#217

Post by IheartApplesDix »

tiziano88 wrote: post #126
IheartApplesDix wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anti-feature is just bad engineering, no matter how marketers spin it.

Maybe the other way round. I consider it good engineering (why waste an entirely separate production process to make a lower-grade version, when most of it can be shared?), but people are irrationally led to believe they are entitled to the full thing, just because it's potentially there. Proof of this is that if no one told you, you would not even suspect anything at all. If you want to "unlock" your car to get that…

This is not about entitlement, and destroying value is not a wise thing to do for short term economic gains. I think it's pretty obvious and intuitive that even in CPUs, this kind of design is a failure of imagination and exploitative to the market, both supply and demand.

I couldn't say that it's something to make illegal in this exact execution, but the same actions could be a huge negative PR hit in different circumstances, and it's certainly wasteful and arrogant. The fact that these companies are even doing it shows that it's about time for someone to challenge them in their market. It's a huge market failure sign. Basically, because of Intel's and Tesla's near monopoly, they can do this kind of thing.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#218

Post by ChuckMcM »

I love how this readership is spending all of its cycles discussing whether or not the software hack which will allow Tesla to ship a car they aren't going to build. Rather than the fact that they actually surpassed their production goals and have, for the moment, proven a lot of people wrong. People who were held up as the experts in what it takes to create a new car that people will buy and what won't cut it.

So they turn off the '40kWh' option in the buying screen and just give everyone 60kWh cars? That is a known amount of capital downside, one time charge, etc etc. This way they can 'credibly' say to 60kWh customers that they have prevented those people who paid 40kWh prices from getting the same benefit.

Now about that profitable quarter, is that cool or what? Can you imagine how amazing it will be if they turn in a profitable year?

[Disclaimer: Back when their stock was $30 I bought some because I figured Elon was going to either kill himself or push this thing out to market, and now debating on whether I should take my profits. Decisions, decisions.]

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#219

Post by smackfu »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #218

I love how this readership is spending all of its cycles discussing whether or not the software hack which will allow Tesla to ship a car they aren't going to build. Rather than the fact that they actually surpassed their production goals and have, for the moment, proven a lot of people wrong. People who were held up as the experts in what it takes to create a new car that people will buy and what won't cut it. So th…

Hacker News is more focused on the technical hacks than on the business side? Well, I never!

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#220

Post by smackfu »

tiziano88 wrote: post #126
IheartApplesDix wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anti-feature is just bad engineering, no matter how marketers spin it.

Maybe the other way round. I consider it good engineering (why waste an entirely separate production process to make a lower-grade version, when most of it can be shared?), but people are irrationally led to believe they are entitled to the full thing, just because it's potentially there. Proof of this is that if no one told you, you would not even suspect anything at all. If you want to "unlock" your car to get that…

People don't like to be reminded that price is decoupled from cost.
Post reply on HN