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

171–180 of 463 posts

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

#171

Post by helen___keller »

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…

from a distance that's how people feel now. because self-driving isn't something anyone has access to, it's something that a few tesla buyers and a few tech companies (waymo, etc) have access to. So, from an average person's perspective, of course I don't want those rich/greedy assholes killing kids. The algorithms need to be perfect before they're allowed on the road

If every single car were upgraded to have full self driving tomorrow, with algorithms to perform lets just say 1% better than humans perform, I guarantee that acceptance would build overnight.

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

#172

Post by opdahl »

fassssst wrote: post #163

Yea having test driven the Mach E, Ioniq 5, and XC40 Recharge there is no way I’d buy a Tesla either. We liked all of those better than Model Y and Model 3. Going with the Volvo, it just feels nicer to actually drive, and has built in Google Maps with Google voice controls.

Talking from experience you will not be disappointed with the XC40!

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

#173

Post by bsagdiyev »

bartread wrote: post #47
judge2020 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Minimalistic interiors Is this something you see as a benefit? For me Tesla's overall aesthetic, including both their exterior looks and interior design, along with the absence of physical controls that go long with that represent their biggest downsides (outside of build quality).

Yeah it's ugly as shit. Their build quality didn't help any of that either.

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

#174

Post by AlexandrB »

elteto wrote: post #82
samwillis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot [FSD] is a boondoggle that is a distraction from their core mission. They have wasted time and resources on it, when by now they should have a cheaper mass market car and a full suite of commercial vehicles (small vans to large trucks). Edit: yes meant FSD

Wrong. Autopilot is a pretty standard smart cruise control, which many other carmakers have and have had for years. It works and it works well. You are thinking of FSD.

Tesla's naming continues to suck. It's very common to see people confuse Autopilot with Full Self Driving. I'm not sure this is to Tesla's benefit since every FSD snafu gets attributed to Autopilot as well in the mind of someone not following the company closely.

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

#175

Post by shadowgovt »

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…

Someone tried to sell me a Tesla, and had me take it out on the highway to try Autopilot. The salesperson had the misfortune of suggesting I engage right when there was an exit coming up on the right.

It wasn't a great first user experience to have the car immediately drift right towards the guardrail crusher.

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

#176

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hef19898 wrote: post #128
politician wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can competitors source the raw metals required in sufficient quantities to put bigger batteries in their cars?

Yes. And if Tesla would move to block them from doing so, they would set themselves up for an anti-competition suite of epic proportions in all markets, from the US over the EU all the way to China.

> if Tesla would move to block them from doing so

Tesla is in no position to do so. They have a strong position in battery assembly, but zero direct presence in extraction or refining.

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

#177

Post by cmh89 »

helen___keller wrote: post #117
pjdemers wrote: post #88

Tesla, and even more Uber, were priced as if self driving cars are almost here. The idea that services like Uber without the drivers would make car ownership obsolete drove those valuations. Now that self driving cars are many decades away, instead of less than one decade away, is bring stock prices down. I always questions how fast we would see self driving cars, not because of the technology, but because of consume…

> 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 truth is, if full self driving cars actually happened, with safety statistics better than humans and with a low barrier to entry, you can bet that people would change their opinion real fast.

A lot of danger of motor vehicles is when motorist choose to be dangerous though. If self-driving cars force motorists to follow speed limits and other traffic control devices, that will limit their uptake by quite a bit I think

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

#178

Post by elisharobinson »

politician wrote: post #121
tshaddox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that simple? Is there something about Tesla’s technology that enables longer ranges? Surely they just put in bigger batteries and charge more for the car, and competitors could also do that if it was really a primary competitive advantage of Teslas.

Can competitors source the raw metals required in sufficient quantities to put bigger batteries in their cars?

not quite, if you bought it in the open market its 10~20% more $ than having a fixed longterm contract. and ICE carmakers usually have one OEM like samsung and Panasonic who have interest in getting best price for each cell . Tesla has inhouse cell production capacity and uses cells from all oems to get the best possible price / cell . This will give tesla a permanent 5% lead (outside of china) in cell pricing.

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

#180

Post by wara23arish »

graycrow wrote: post #119

Every time there is an article about Tesla, the vast majority of comments here are either too critical, too ignorant, or just FUD. It's too unbalanced, no other company (good or bad) gets such bad treatment here. I see many of the HN audience here are just repeating the media narrative without their own experience or even trying to understand the topic. Yes, Tesla is moving at the forefront of EV development, and yes…

Yeah, some comments here also feel the need to justify that they’re not an “Elon fanboi” if they’re saying positives about tesla which shows how bad it is.

The whole FSD debacle feels like people just arguing semantics and gotchas. I recently watched some videos of FSD operating in tight, hilly and unusual roads in CA. I was very impressed, its obv not perfect, but its fucking cool. People here made it sound like a scam.

Post reply on HN