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

Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

ir.tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#121

Post by topkeks »

abledon wrote: post #94
kolbe wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why many investors don't mind that Tesla isn't generating wonderful cash flow. If there's a reasonable expectation that this data collection will lead to full autonomy, then Tesla should price their cars at whatever level is necessary to move their maximum production into consumers' hands, even if it were a loss (which it's not). And even if they don't use the data to train, they can use it as an argument for h…

Do you think they keep all that data on premise or use AWS/Azure/GCP? edit: probably AWS [1] [1] https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3027077/hackers-hi...

Every big company is "hybrid" cloud. Some business critical stuff is running on premises, AWS has cheap compute and storage, GCP has machine learning and some other cool stuff, and so on...

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#122

Post by tenpies »

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #2

Judging by the nosedive that the stock price is taking in after hours trading (down over 12% from $264.88 at close an hour ago to $236 right now), the outlook of this letter isn't great.

The letter is usually the tip of the Tesla bad news iceberg. The 10-Q won't be released for several days and will almost certainly do more damage because it adds more detail (both intentional and unintentional).

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#123

Post by tomcam »

justapassenger wrote: post #111

Most recent story of Tesla's profitability was built around Musk's manufacturing innovations, that will make Model 3 much cheaper to produce. Experts disagreed, got fired, and alien dreadnought continued. It was such a huge failure, that to this day, portion of Model 3 production is happening a tent. With forklifts, leaking roof and space-heaters. Tesla now has new profitability story - Musk's innovations in FSD, wil…

I could be wrong here, but I believe experts will disagree and get fired.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#124

Post by spookthesunset »

justapassenger wrote: post #111

Most recent story of Tesla's profitability was built around Musk's manufacturing innovations, that will make Model 3 much cheaper to produce. Experts disagreed, got fired, and alien dreadnought continued. It was such a huge failure, that to this day, portion of Model 3 production is happening a tent. With forklifts, leaking roof and space-heaters. Tesla now has new profitability story - Musk's innovations in FSD, wil…

FSD is snake oil and is a distraction. In no way will a Tesla ever be an “appreciating asset”. Ever. Full stop.

Tesla would be wise to focus on being a car company first and foremost.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#125

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

Animats wrote: post #108

"GAAP net loss of $408M" - the number that matters. Tesla isn't doing that badly. But now that they have some production volume, they have to be evaluated as a car company, not a startup. Can they make lots of cars at a profit? They got the production quantity up by throwing people, money, and a big tent at the Fremont plant. That ran up the cost per car. Although it's better than their previous state of low producti…

"they have to be evaluated as a car company"

Take a look at the rate of growth in capacity both of their cars and their batteries. I don't know what it is, but with Shanghai Giga coming online this year, Model Y next year, Pickup + Semi thereafter, the growth in capacity and the capital requirements to install it, is not matched by any other car company, possibly in the history of car companies (Musk's posit, to be fact checked).

All that growth is very expensive, but they may be able to fund it from operations. That is 'super impressive'.

In terms of production volumes, they are still small relative to GM, Toyota, VW, I'd still put them in the startup category. But not for much longer.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#126

Post by AnthonyMouse »

MegaButts wrote: post #93
jklinger410 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thread then goes on to not support this statement very well. Including a Tesla employee disagreeing with him directly.

If we're starting with the assumption that Tesla is lying about shadow mode, which is the entire premise of the claim, it would not be surprising for a Tesla employee to disagree. Obviously this is one of those you-can't-win scenarios, so I fully understand the Tesla employee could be acting in good faith, but that alone is no more evidence than the original hacker's claim that it doesn't exist considering the contex…

> I consider it a very interesting thread where someone went looking for proof of shadow mode and couldn't find it.

This seems to be assuming that it's something that exists entirely within the car, whereas the more sensible implementation is that the car uploads the sensor data and driver choices to a server in a datacenter somewhere and "shadow mode" happens there by running the autopilot code against the data.

That way you can continue to use the data even with newer or experimental versions of the autopilot code that didn't exist when some of the data was collected, compare different versions to see which ones do better and when, etc.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#127

Post by _ea1k »

Animats wrote: post #108

"GAAP net loss of $408M" - the number that matters. Tesla isn't doing that badly. But now that they have some production volume, they have to be evaluated as a car company, not a startup. Can they make lots of cars at a profit? They got the production quantity up by throwing people, money, and a big tent at the Fremont plant. That ran up the cost per car. Although it's better than their previous state of low producti…

> That's nice, but the Model 3 was supposed to be $35,000.

I'm sorry, this part is really misleading. The entry price for a 220 mile model was supposed to be $35k.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/04/the-post-model-3-reveal...

Now a much nicer vehicle than originally announced with 240 miles of range is ~39k and the top end is right around the anticipated 60k.

The base model is $35.5k.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#128

Post by reitzensteinm »

nisten wrote: post #113

In 2017 Intel acquired mobileye( the makers of the autopilot radar in the early Teslas), for 15.3 Billion. That begs the question, if Tesla were to sell their autopilot system tomorrow, , given it's safety record, amount of training data, and new FPGA processor IP, how much would it be worth? 15, 20, 40? This is why I find their delivery numbers completely and utterly irrelevant to company value. This is a just a tec…

Tesla has 11bn in debt, alongside other obligations like warranties.

If they can't make the car thing work, and their autopilot tech sells for as much as mobileye, shareholders are going to be wiped out in the event of liquidation.

How the cars are selling and what margins they're getting matters a great deal, even if you believe that the long term value comes from autopilot.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#129

Post by _ea1k »

eanzenberg wrote: post #57

Sidenote: I can't stand the ipad in the middle of Tesla cars (and other carmakers who choose this path). I got a BMW because of the sheer usefulness of physical buttons while driving / keeping eyes on the road.

Sidenote: I remember when people said the same thing about idrive and avoiding the brand because of it.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#130

Post by topkeks »

mehrdada wrote: post #86
WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #73

I know at least one person that's decided not to buy a Tesla simply because their future is so murky and is not sure if they will be around for repairs. That's a problem they need to tackle now before it spirals out of control. Also, it seems to me that Tesla should work with one of the big three automakers on manufacturing. Tesla has spent a lot of resources reinventing car manufacturing and yet they can't produce a…

> I know at least one person that's decided not to buy a Tesla simply because their future is so murky and is not sure if they will be around for repairs. That's a problem they need to tackle now before it spirals out of control. I’m sure there is one person that made a decision on that basis but I’ve heard many more not-real customers speculating about this as if they were in the market, but they very clearly wouldn…

Google or Apple would buy Tesla immediately. They both have tried already.
Post reply on HN