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

Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 377 posts

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#301

Post by rayiner »

varjag wrote: post #280
rayiner wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota offered an electric version of its RAV4, an extremely popular crossover SUV, a decade before the Tesla roadster came out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV . But in 1997, gas was cheap and the government wasn't subsidizing EVs to the tune of $7,500-$10,000. It's hard to say what would've happened in a hypothetical timeline. But Tesla didn't invent the underlying technology, the traditional car maker…

I honestly don't remember anyone saying Musk/Tesla invented electric car, this is quite obviously a point argued by zero people. Sure there was that Toyota with NiMH batteries. How many of them were sold for enirety of its production run.. 2000? 4000? With Toyota resources and vast marketing force? My friend had a 1990 VW Golf electric smallseries with lead batteries. It was also fun to ride.. as an experience. Like…

But Tesla didn't make electric cars mainstream either at least not alone. The Roadster was not mainstream, selling 2,500 units. More than the ~1,000 EV1 or 1,500 RAV4 EV, but in the same ballpark.

To the extent that any electric cars are mainstream (and I would ague they are not--Toyota sells more RAV4s each year than all the cars Tesla has ever sold in its history), several mainstream models were released around the same time. The Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf came out in 2010, and the Model S in 2012. The Volt and Model S have sold a similar number of units, with the Leaf selling about double that.

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#302

Post by tomp »

rayiner wrote: post #297
tomp wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Oil was pretty expensive since 2005. 2) Everyone could capitalize on that. 3) Existing big car companies could finance R&D themselves. 4) According to Wikipedia, incentives started around 2011, way after Tesla was funded and probably before other car manufacturers started moving. The fact remains that none of the existing car manufacturers decided to even try to compete with Tesla until it was painfully obvious th…

> 1) Oil was pretty expensive since 2005. 2) Everyone could capitalize on that. 3) Existing big car companies could finance R&D themselves. 4) According to Wikipedia, incentives started around 2011, way after Tesla was funded and probably before other car manufacturers started moving. You're just completely wrong on the chronology. The federal tax credits were in place for the 2009 tax year: https://www.tesla.com/blo…

My props to GM and Toyota. I wonder what went wrong for them. They even look decent (unlike BMW i3), especially Chevy Bolt!

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#303

Post by rayiner »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #298
rayiner wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If marketing EVs as "cool" was "a huge part of the EV success," you'd see other car manufacturers trying to ride that wave by engaging in similar marketing efforts. But you see the opposite. Nissan, Toyota, Chevy, BMW, are all mainly focused on "cute and practical." People here in suburban Maryland don't give a shit about high performance, "cool," cars. But they love RAV4s, and Nissan Rogues, and Honda CR-Vs. Each of…

...because its not so nerdy to own one, now. Because of marketing. And of course old ICE designers are incapable of marketing their EVs as anything but cute. That's why they never could have made this market what it is, on their own?

That's some crazy grasping at straws. It is ridiculous to say that Tesla marketing high-performance sports sedans somehow paved the way for cars like the Nissan Leaf, which are cute little EVs that look like EVs. It is even more ridiculous to say that Tesla somehow made the EV market "what it is" by marketing high-performance sports sedans, when the majority of the cars in the market are cute little EVs like the Leaf.

People don't give a shit about sports sedans. The Prius proved there was a market for a cute little car that was environmentally friendly, and that's what's driving most of the EV market right now. When someone releases a sub-$30k cross-over SUV (you know, the cars people actually buy), then you'll see EV sales really take off.

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#304

Post by kitsunesoba »

_bxg1 wrote: post #233
dingaling wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that it was mass-production hybrids in the late 90s that moved us towards the renewables-based future. People could buy them without fear of running out of charge, yet they gamified energy-effiency for drivers who had never really considered that beyond the price of petrol at the pump. Without hybrids having shouldered the door open, I doubt that pure EVs would have fared much better than in previous decade…

Before Tesla, electric and especially hybrid cars were (needlessly) seen by society as dorky and lame. In a culture like America's, for a category of cars, that's a death knell condemning them to living in a niche forever. Silly as that barrier was, Tesla managed to change it.

Yes, I think it’s largely thanks to Tesla that conventional automakers are finally starting to create EVs that aren’t bizarre space bug things and have a reasonable range.

Tesla is still lightyears ahead in terms of charging stations, though, which is mind boggling — charging infrastructure is easily the biggest bottleneck in mass EV adoption at this point, yet the traditional automakers are doing jack shit about it. They could be setting up a brand new market for themselves, but instead they’re willingly handing this advantage to Tesla. It makes no sense.

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#306

Post by JoeAltmaier »

rayiner wrote: post #303
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...because its not so nerdy to own one, now. Because of marketing. And of course old ICE designers are incapable of marketing their EVs as anything but cute. That's why they never could have made this market what it is, on their own?

That's some crazy grasping at straws. It is ridiculous to say that Tesla marketing high-performance sports sedans somehow paved the way for cars like the Nissan Leaf, which are cute little EVs that look like EVs. It is even more ridiculous to say that Tesla somehow made the EV market "what it is" by marketing high-performance sports sedans, when the majority of the cars in the market are cute little EVs like the Leaf…

Still I can't get over how, none of this took off until Tesla got in the news.

And the stats I read show the Tesla model S leading the Leaf?

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#307

Post by pastor_elm »

alkonaut wrote: post #191
travbrack wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're struggling to meet production goals even with the staff burning the candle at both ends, and using a highly automated assembly line. What could they do to be more efficient? I'm sure Musk would love to hear if you have an idea.

They could set more realistic growth/production goals. I’m not sure if it’s financially viable to do so, but the “normal” way of growing production from zero to several thousand cars a week is the pace that VW and Toyota did it - over say 50 years. This idea of taking companies from zero to massive within less than several decades of organic growth I think is doomed unless you accept a lot of burnout (which you shoul…

Where's the proof that would work? The auto industry has kept virtually all new competitors out of the market for the past 100 years.

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#308

Post by mattmaroon »

akmiller wrote: post #251
mattmaroon wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has come really close on several occasions to buying TSLA puts (the options version of shorting) I think I can answer: the shorts aren't haters. The shorts don't want Tesla to fail. The shorts don't even think Tesla will fail. The shorts just think the market cap of Tesla is insane. It's higher than much larger, profitable automakers who can provably make and sell cars at scale. For Tesla to be worth i…

Perhaps their initial reason in shorting the stock was not inherently evil. But at this point they risk losing billions of dollars so their only incentive is to ensure the company fails. I actually don't find their share price to be out of control at all. They have assets other companies would only dream of at this point. The data alone on miles driven is extremely valuable in the race to self driving cars. Their sup…

I would consider data to be an argument in favor of the big three. Tesla only sells about 100000 cars a year. Ford's top-selling model, the F-series, is almost eight times that. I'm assuming you mean some data that Tesla is currently collecting that Ford cannot, but it would be a matter of not much money for them to do so. They can add whatever sensors they need in the next year's F150 and within a few months have more data than Tesla has collected in its entire existence.

It's not clear to me that Tesla is in the lead on driverless cars, or that driverless cars will initially be all electric. The economic benefit of being electric might outweigh the fact that it will spend a quarter of its time charging, or it may not. If we move to an Uber Style On Demand model of car usage rather than ownership I am not sure.

And I'm still not saying that Tesla won't succeed, or even that they will not at some point be the most profitable automaker. But their share price is so inflated that you have to believe they will do it very quickly to pay it. There's a very strong chance that the market as a whole is going to outperform TSLA even if they succeed for the next 5-10 years first

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#309

Post by cepth »

pas wrote: post #156
cepth wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saudi Arabia has the whole Vision 2030 plan in motion. The general thrust is they want to diversify the country away from being a petrostate. The headline numbers for state investment in renewables are nothing to scoff at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/saudi-ara... I can’t find the link right now, but Bloomberg did a short ~30 minute documentary 4-5 years ago on Saudi efforts to build a biofuel r…

> Aramco IPO going nowhere fast Why? Could you elaborate on this please?

There are a bunch of reasons, but the basic background is this.

-Vision 2030, which first mentioned the IPO, was announced back in 2016

-Oil prices sit around $66/barrel today. This represents a recovery from the low-point of ~$40/barrel. However, Aramco’s valuation is obviously tied to the price of oil, and the Saudis want to wait (hope?) for higher oil prices

-Even at today’s depressed oil prices, the Saudis have slapped a $2 trillion valuation on Aramco. Keep in mind that Aramco has always been private, and specifics on the size of the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia are still opaque.

-The Aramco IPO proposes to sell 5% of the company, which would mean raising $100 billion in public markets. This would easily be the largest IPO ever. It’s unclear if there are enough institutional investors to buy into this.

-The Saudis can’t afford to discount the valuation too far, since to make the math work for their renewables and diversification projects they are counting on the IPO proceeds

-Take a look at this link, and select the 5-year view to see how far the country’s foreign exchange reserves have been depleted: https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/foreign-exchange-r.... 1 USD is roughly equivalent to 3.75 SAR at today’s exchange rates.

This is decent commentary on the whole fiasco: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-07/saudi-ara...

TL;DR the Saudis are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need the cash from the IPO, but can’t give away the crown jewels too cheaply.

Re: Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year

#310

Post by mikestew »

that_jojo wrote: post #241
fabizeid wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be the current version of Musk to be a better version of Musk? Why can't we consider that Musk or his type was instrumental to launch Tesla but at this point a different person is better fit to grow it? Maybe skills needed to sustain a company might be different than the skills needed to launch it.

Completely just to play devil's advocate, here: When has a major innovative company ever done better after ousting a visionary but perhaps somewhat toxic founder? Maybe we could look at Uber, but it's too soon to tell. And The new management there seems earnest, but I'm not sure they're looking so hot from an actual business perspective.

When has a major innovative company ever done better after ousting a visionary but perhaps somewhat toxic founder?

I don't know, how visionary and/or toxic would you consider the founders of Tesla to be before they got the boot?

Post reply on HN