Hacker News Reader

Comment by FunnyLookinHat | Hacker News Reader

This might sound ridiculous, but I really just don't want GM to win. The American automotive industry moved ridiculously slowly towards electric and alternative fuel vehicles, and ultimately is only doing so to sell units on what they perceive as a new niche.

If I'm giving money to a company for a new type of transportation, it's going to be the one committing to the broad goals of bettering humanity, not just capitalizing on someone else proving the existence of a market.

I'm not just behind Tesla, there are other companies like Arcimoto (https://www.arcimoto.com/) that are putting significant effort into redesigning transportation from the ground up.

View on HN

This is exactly what Elon has always wanted. This is why he open sourced all of their patents. He's more interested in his larger goal of reducing humanities dependence on fossil fuels than being the biggest EV producer in the world. GM's weight could move things along much faster, I don't see how this is a bad thing. Tesla can't possibly supply all the EV's to the world. We need massive production capabilities. In the end the Gigafactories might be Elons most lucrative venture of all.

You're both right. Elon Musk wants other companies to go electric, and it's great when they do. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong with people rewarding Elon Musk (and others) for taking the initiative in transforming the car industry.

In really don't like framing this as winning or losing. Tesla has already won - they've successfully entered the market, they have customers and are making money (plenty of revenue at least, I don't know about profit)

I want electric cars to win. That doesn't happen if Tesla is the only company making them.

More importantly, multiple entrants into the electric vehicle market will drive development in new directions.

If it were only Tesla doing anything of note - with all the best will in the world - the evolution of products would ultimately stagnate as they refined their own particular flavour of electric vehicle.

A monopoly held by a young, interesting company is still a monopoly.

Indeed. I'm happy to see Tesla succeeding, because I love their moxie and feel like the Big 3 have had a forcible perspective shift coming for a long while now, but I have no interest in buying one of Tesla's cars. The powertrain is great but I hate the cockpit and the "phone home" stuff. I am looking forward to future competition which moves into the market Tesla is prying open and offers a car which I might be happy to drive.

I think they won in the sense that they forced the industry to move towards EVs. The Porsche Mission E just got the green light and I believe Mercedes announced they were releasing 4 new fully electric models in the coming years. I expect more auto makers to do the same now that the Model 3 is going into production, piling up preorders and threatening sales of ICE cars in the 30-40k price range.

I'll echo this same sentiment. On one hand you've got what feels like pieces of GM trying to "turn an aircraft carrier around."[1] On the other hand you have a relatively nimble Tesla investing everything it has into making EVs affordable and desirable. And to me it's bleeding over into the consumer market. One just scored $8.5B worth of preorders, and the other shrugs off the prospect of even offering preorders, given the assertion that Tesla will hit 200k preorders and "suck the air out of the room[2]."

[1]: http://www.wired.com/2016/01/gm-electric-car-chevy-bolt-mary...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4BIoNsAB8s&feature=youtu.be...

> One just scored $8.5B worth of preorders, and the other shrugs off the prospect of even offering preorders, given the assertion that Tesla will hit 200k preorders and "suck the air out of the room[2]."

What is so inherently superior about offering preorders? I'm honestly not sure what point you're making here.

Nothing superior about offering preorders, besides the efficiency of the process (compared to a dealership model). That was me explaining why I thought the consumer market seems to agree. We don't have the numbers on Bolt because they don't offer preorders, but even if only 70% of the pre-orders go through with it, the Model 3 looks like it'll already be the best-selling U.S. car in its segment (small luxury).[1] Will it outsell the Bolt? It'll be amazing and exciting if they go head to head, but my guess is yes.

1: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-22/how-tesla-...

That makes more sense, though I don't think 70% is a conservative estimate given that 1. the deposit is fully refundable, 2. the widely-touted $7500 tax is due to expire soon after the Model 3 is released. Customers are more likely to preorder something that they believe will have a long waitlist, emphasizing the other two effects.

I can get on board with 70% being too high. It's in line with their previous reservations, and $1k is still not chump change, but it is less than original $5k the Model S reservations went for.

To put things in perspective, right now there are more preorders than the annual sales of the top 3 or 4 small luxury cars combined (BMW M3, and Mercedes C-Class, etc). I can't recall ever seeing this kind of production capacity needed for a single car model, much less a luxury-class car. Exciting stuff.

Yep, I have no trouble believing it will do very well and I'm very happy about that. In the past several decades, the auto industry has only experienced minor evolution in fuel sources with most of the focus on luxury and driving dynamics. It's time to shift into a new environment, and hopefully maintain competition from new players as well as legacy automakers that can turn their ship on course in a timely manner.

Tesla might be open sourcing their parents but they are far more restrictive with their cars. For a discussion on this, see: http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://syonyk.blogspot.c...

Tesla is setting a dangerous precedent for the industry. Don't be fooled by their relentless PR machine.

Bluntly: it sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Corporations aren't people (no matter what SCOTUS has to say on the matter). None of the people making the Bolt had anything to do with the decisions of the past. This is a silly way to evaluate a company's current behavior.

I'd be happy to have GM's might pushing an electric car. In the end, the more eyeballs pointed towards electric vehicles the better.

I don't think Tesla will be suffering with more people looking at and buying electric cars.

And if we can push renewable energy to produce power for all those cars, then we all win so I'm rooting for everybody.

> I don't think Tesla will be suffering with more people looking at and buying electric cars.

Agreed - Especially if Tesla's selling batteries, operating systems, and/or infrastructure services to other EV manufacturers. Winning by creating and growing the EV ecosystem sounds like part of the plan.

> The American automotive industry moved ridiculously slowly towards electric and alternative fuel vehicles

Tesla is American; this perhaps isn't the best choice of words.

> ultimately is only doing so to sell units on what they perceive as a new niche.

I don't think I'm cynical to believe that every corporation (including Tesla, etc.) that intends on making profits is trying to sell units in a popular niche.

> it's going to be the one committing to the broad goals of bettering humanity, not just capitalizing on someone else proving the existence of a market.

Fair enough, but for me it comes down to supporting the product that best fits my needs and desires, which I think on a societal level can do a better job of solving the most immediate problems. I would strongly consider any vehicle that fits what I'm looking for when I next shop for a car.

>> The American automotive industry moved ridiculously slowly towards electric and alternative fuel vehicles

> Tesla is American; this perhaps isn't the best choice of words.

I think the point the OP was making was "The traditional automotive industry (Of which Tesla is not a part)"

Clearly that's what OP was trying to say, and they said it very wrongly.

Good luck with that. Because if they lose, then you pay to bail them out again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com