Tesla and Tucker – Similarities Between Automakers | Hacker News Reader

Tesla and Tucker – Similarities Between Automakers

popularmechanics.com

33 pointsjonbaer25 comments

The law here is the FTC's "Mail Order Rule".[1] Properly, Tesla allows consumers to cancel your order at any time and receive a full refund. The other requirement is that if Tesla misses their ship date, they have to send the consumer a letter with a new ship date and an option to cancel. That part is "opt-out". If, 30 days after the original ship date, the product hasn't shipped, a refund has to be sent unless the customer explicitly requests otherwise. That part is "opt-in". The seller can't just keep the money at that point.

This is why, if you're selling online, you have to make sure not to take orders you can't fill in time. In the early days of the Internet, this was a big problem, because many sites had online ordering systems that had no connection to inventory control. By now, everybody with a clue knows to check inventory in the shopping cart program.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus...

I seem to remember hearing in one of Computer History Museum interviews that in the early days of home computers it was actually illegal to sell Computer by mail :o !?

Given Musk's legal jujutsu w/ SpaceX and ULA I think Tesla is much less susceptible to similar issues.

It's just anecdotal evidence but it seems like Telsa has plenty of momentum and real tangible products.

Tesla has also delivered the Roadster,Model S, and Model X already. Worst case they will probably be scooped up by a competitor, though based on Musk's record that likely won't happen.

From the armchair.

Worst case they will probably be scooped up by a competitor, though based on Musk's record that likely won't happen.

What record is that? Musk has shown he's willing to sell his companies in the past. Between starting PayPal and selling to Ebay was only 3 years.

He owns less than 30% of tesla. So if another company wants to take it over, he may not have a choice.

Musk is a tangable asset to Tesla. A Hostile takeover would be a real bad idea IMHO

I think he'd be open to a reverse talent takeover (in the same way that Pixar talent took control of Disney Animation when Disney bought Pixar).

I could see Ford merging with Tesla in a few years after Elon isn't running the day to day and is just on the board of Tesla (and running space x) vs ceo of both

I've seen a couple of people now suggest Ford as possibly taking over Tesla in a similar manner, and the more I think about it the more it makes sense. As soon as Tesla makes electric cars available in quantity with the Model 3, their best option for continuing to drive down prices and scale out to even lower cost segments is to pair up with an established automaker with the knowledge and history of building <$20k market cars. Tesla management could mostly take over, and Tesla could stay an upmarket badge while trickling down the technology to Ford-badged electric cars. It would really be pretty brilliant I think, and could dramatically shorten the time it takes for mass adoption of electric vehicles.

Any speculation on what Ford would pay for Tesla?

Market cap is about $32B, so $50B or so is probably a reasonable ballpark estimate.

that would by a LOT of rockets :-)

In terms of legacy strictly from an USA auto industry standpoint, I think Elon would find a Telsa led Ford appropriate.

In terms of Elon's long term goals, I think a merger and revitalization of Ford would win him huge political points which he can then use for cutting through red tape for SpaceX.

If they do that, they need to retire the old Ford logo finally and come up with something more upscale-looking. The logo is the worst thing about Ford cars; it looks goofy, compared to the badges seen on all the Japanese brands and on Teslas.

Ford? Is that a serious suggestion? Ford is not even in the same ballpark as Tesla in EVs right now, and Ford's company culture would probably choke the Tesla culture to death. Tesla would have nothing to gain from Ford.

You must be thinking that Ford would help with "scaling expertise" and whatnot, but Tesla doesn't need to be acquired to do that. It just needs to hire a few good people to set that up. Also, I think Elon Musk even said in a recent interview that Tesla's cars use like 5% of the components of other cars. Musk prefers to "rethink" everything from scratch, and he has done the same with SpaceX.

In that context, Ford would be more of a hindrance, and not in any way helpful. What Tesla needs most is resources, so it can build its new models faster, hire workers faster, pay them more, install 10x more superchargers, start building 2 more gigafactories (which it will probably need by the time they are finished) and so on. It can't do all of that right now because it requires tens of billions of dollars, which it doesn't have.

I'd much rather see Apple acquire Tesla in 10 years. Then Tesla would have all the resources it needs to accelerate the growth of its car sales, infrastructure, and the Tesla Energy business.

If Elon stays as CEO of Apple after Tim Cook, even better, because he'd probably actually use Apple's cash reserves instead of keeping them in the bank.

From everything he's said, his motivation with Tesla isn't to become the next Ford, but to force the existing auto industry to switch to electric. So while a profitable Tesla will be high on his list of priorities (purely because that profit enables him to work effectively on his other goals) I don't think he'd worry overmuch what the badge is on the front of cheap ubiquitous EVs, as long as they're cheap and ubiquitous.

I could see Mitsubishi scooping them up before Ford would. Mitsubishi is already developing electric vehicles, has a strong global manufacturing base, and could use the extra presence in the US. Ford is more about pickup trucks than anything else.

GM and Ford are drastically less powerful today than they were in Tucker's time. By 1945-1950, GM was already the global leader in auto sales, and of course Ford had been a juggernaut for some time as well.

That's the biggest difference.

Toyota, Honda, BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda - the combination of those companies effectively neutered the old GM / Ford political monster. It sucked the money out of the old Detroit political machine, making it far less fearsome and influential in DC.

The GM / Ford that Musk is facing off against, is a joke compared to what it used to be able to bring to the table in terms of abusing the system to stop competition.

However as GM has proved that they can pivot quickly and bring a product to market faster than Tesla. They have the supplier relationships needed as well as the manufacturing and testing expertise to do so. They key is having management that wants to do it.

I suspect Ford could as well but their leadership isn't as willing to change direction as GMs does.

Perhaps, but GM also has a worse reputation than Ford among buyers. Ford's reputation among the American brands is the best, while GM's is not that great, though Chrysler's is even worse.

If I want to buy a reliable, high-quality car that I know is going to last 10 years and not have the interior plastics all looking nasty and faded and falling apart after a mere half-decade, GM is one of the last brands I'd think of. No one thinks that Cadillacs are serious competition to real luxury cars like Mercedes.

I think Tesla would do much better partnering with a Japanese automaker. They know how to build high-quality cars in high volume, and they have great reputations too, which is important if you're trying to sell $100k cars.

I'll also add that if they have to partner with an American automaker, Ford is surely the best choice as long as they don't stick that ugly blue oval logo on their cars. Ford has a lot of experience partnering with other brands in mutually-beneficial relationships: they did it before with both Volvo and Mazda. In both cases, it seems like all 3 companies benefited from the arrangement.

The article is ok I guess. Although I think this is more a book plug than true analysis. I've often thought of the tesla/tucker parallel and how hard it is to get a foothold in a capital intensive business as a start up. However I don't think the parallels stick. Tesla has built and delivered a sizable number of cars. I think the political influence of the big 3 is much lower now as well. For tesla, I think that it's survival hinges upon delivering the model 3 on time and at high quality. Along with a lot of other things going right as well. I probably make about 50k too little to comfortably afford a model x but I would love to own one some day. Quirks and all.

> I think that it's survival hinges upon delivering the model 3 on time and at high quality

... and in sufficient quantities. They have proven the technology, the approach and the readiness of the market. The last thing they need to prove is their capacity to scale.

If they achieve their target (i.e. Model 3 generally available in 2018), they will have built a serious lead over the competition - meaning several years (at least 2) on that sweet sweet market unchallenged.

Of course, Tesla has failed to deliver in time, at expected price or in expected quantities before. Time will tell.

Agree. This is the biggest risk. Right now I think they have enough cache that I would jump to electric for them where I may be too skeptical to buy an electric ford. Delivering high quantity with high quality on time will almost guarantee success.

Public perception is big factor too. In Tucker's time info is disseminated via radio. If the radio host is bias and hostile towards your business, then good luck. Now we have internet.

"Tucker: A Man And His Dream" was a good movie. I too thought of the Musk parallel many times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com