71–80 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this so much worse than disabling cores in CPUs and selling them as cheaper models? That practice seems to be nearly universally accepted.
Yes. CPU cores are basically software, whereas battery weight is generally proportional to its capacity and would seem to have a big effect on the efficiency of an electric vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say a lot of them. The reason is that we are early adopters not trend setters or followers for that matter. When we see the future we buy it and use it. Were the people waiting in line for the first iPhone setting a trend? No, they just wanted the best phone ever and the model for all future phones.
It's funny - the two things that made friends of mine wary about the original iPhone, are also relevant about the Model S. Cost, and battery life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Tesla can later offer a $5,000 upgrade to the 60kWh version. Customers are still getting a better car that has the potential to be software upgraded. Win-Win.
So we're entering a phase of micropayments on material objects now? In-app payments, but for your car. I'm not sure how I feel about it, to be honest.
> 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.
I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures. 4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery. It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave…
I mean if Tesla wants to have lifelong customers that's where you start. But then again they seem to be going into the marketing of their tech so maybe not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So next time, a large number of people won't choose the lower option hoping to be "upgraded" for free and end up being unhappy with their purchase when the lower capacity option really does go into production due to demand.
"meh, we're upgrading the 4% who didn't choose that way" isn't going to work if a ton of people 'hope' for it. "30% of people chose the lower option, so there's still demand". If you get grumpy because you try to game the system and fail, it's your own fault.
They've got Google employees to thank for this blessing. There are fields of Tesla Model-S vehicles at Google HQ in Mountain View.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures. 4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery. It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave…
Uh... I don't really get this. Why not lower the price for everyone and get a better rep among customers? I mean if Tesla wants to have lifelong customers that's where you start. But then again they seem to be going into the marketing of their tech so maybe not.
> 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.
> ... and can be upgraded to the range of the 60 kWh upon request by the original or a future owner. Does anyone remember Intel's co-processor "upgrade" for turning a 486SX into a 486DX?
What's the relationship to Tesla's crippleware strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
This looks like a precursor to asking for more money--scale back development costs for a few quarters to achieve profitability, then go back into the red to pay for future models. I am curious to see if Tesla goes back to the public markets for more money this year.