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

201–210 of 463 posts

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

#201

Post by jeltz »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #139
eatsyourtacos wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course some do. The point is the vast majority do NOT want the interior of a Tesla. They want everything in the same darn place that 99% of cars have it, with physical switches to be able to change things so you can just feel what you are doing without taking your eyes off the road. Most people see the interior of a Tesla as a complete gimmick.

I trust HN's opinion on many things, but definitely not on their opinion of what the vast majority of people think is fashionable. HN is solidly "overstuffed black leather couch" in their fashion sense.

I would say the other way round. Hacker News feels like a Danish modern crowd. Personally I am all for minimalism but Teslas are plain ugly.

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

#202

Post by xorcist »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #29

What happened in 2020 that made investors think Tesla was a tech company instead of a car company? Based on the graph in TFA, it seems like investors maybe used to price the valuation right. (Caveat: I have no idea if they did, but the valuation used to be in line with other car companies, I guess?)

That was the year when major central banks said publicly that low interest rates were here to stay for a long time.

The companies with the most debt were the ones to gain the most. Those promises did not age well however and valuations are still correcting from that.

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

#203

Post by mynameisvlad »

bsagdiyev wrote: post #167
usrusr wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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…

That's the point of assistance, it shouldn't need double checking by a human every time. It should just work.

That’s the point of a Level 4 driver assistance system. Tesla’s Autopilot is 2 while Mercedes’ Drive Pilot is 3 in limited areas. Waymo is an example of a Level 4 system, albeit very limited in geographic area.

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

#205

Post by addisonl »

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…

> Now that self driving cars are many decades away

So when I see these driverless cars in my neighborhood with no one in the driver's seat, is that just my imagination?

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

#206

Post by humanistbot »

macspoofing wrote: post #143
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…

>The idea that services like Uber without the drivers would make car ownership obsolete drove those valuations. Huh? What? No. That's not where the valuation came from. To be fair to Uber, they created a new type of market for which there was an immense demand for. Their self-driving initiatives were a moonshot and maybe got some people excited and therefore invested in Uber (see Tesla/Musk), but not quite the same a…

You must have missed part of the huge hype bubble when Musk claimed that Teslas with FSD would be "appreciating assets" because owners would be able to rent them out as robotaxis when not using them. He said they should be worth up to $200k because of that, and also this p2p robotaxi fleet would make Uber and all taxis obsolete. If FSD was actually full self-driving, then the idea makes a lot of sense.

Yes, Tesla customers and investors believed it because of the personality cult of Musk, but there was an actual (albeit wrong and likely deceptive) business proposition that gave investors a reason to value it as being worth more than all the other auto makers put together. That proposition depended entirely on FSD being only X years away and that Tesla would produce the best FSD product.

https://electrek.co/2019/07/16/tesla-cars-worth-100k-200k-fu...

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

#207

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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.

I am intrigued by the V60 cross country, but it seems that it's one step behind the various XC (40, 60, 90), in terms of hybrid engine, etc.

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

#208

Post by phreenet »

nradov wrote: post #58
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…

Most car buyers don't actually want minimalistic interiors.

I know it's personal preference but I think a good number of people don't know they will be fine without 15 buttons on the steering wheel or 10 different buttons for climate control. I haven't missed any of that moving to a Model 3.

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

#209

Post by ancientworldnow »

tshaddox wrote: post #79
cainxinth wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Minimalistic interiors, modern infotainment, mobile app performance None of that is why Tesla was ahead of everyone for so long. It's because their cars have better range, and Tesla is still the range leader. They held four of the top six spots in 2022, and the number one is the Lucid Air (only 3k of them have actually been sold): https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/g32634624/ev-lo... Also, I just want to…

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.

Tesla's range advantage exists primarily in advertising. In real world tests it ranges from barely higher to moderately lower to equivalent competitors.
Post reply on HN