I don't understand this argument. Not saying Tesla is Theranos, but Theranos ran on hope and dreams for 10 years. These things take time to play out.
I guess that depends on which products you are talking about, right?
Full-Self Driving? Solar Shingles? Battery Swap? Starting insurance companies? Hyperloops? Tesla has made plenty of promises about technology that hasn't come into existence.
I see you've already developed your narative, however: Tesla will only fail because of politics. The atrocious financials, a CEO who is hard to work with, massive exodus of talent, employee abuse, poor product quality...none of that will be the reason.
>You can see what a difference political will makes when you read how Tesla is doing in Norway.
Earth shattering news: when you massively subsidize expensive consumer goods, people buy more. Can you tell me what the Norway data is saying now? (Hint: I know, and it's not good for Tesla).
I didn't say Tesla could only fail due to politics. I said that's a sizable component of their early stage effort not crossing the finish line. You dismiss the many reports of very happy product owners, which doesn't fit the narrative you have developed. Apple was frequently described as a place that had employee abuse, particularly the way Jobs treated some of his engineers, but they made great products. A company could very well be poor in some aspects but can still do well.
And your Earth shattering news is my point. If the US did what Norway did, Tesla would be doing great and a number of our nascent electric car industries would definitely survive the early-stage. This also goes to political will on forcing more automated driving areas like what China is doing by building out.
Sure, there are plenty of other ways Tesla could crash and burn as a company, including being out-competed, but all of this is just side-stepping what was a completely ridiculous analogy between a fraudulent company that intentionally misrepresented their one main product, and a public company shipping product that is routinely reviewed and scrutinized. If you can't see this, you are so wrapped up in your narrative that you are blind.
Amazon ran on losses for many years and it played out in the end. By choosing what company you compare Tesla to, you already choose a particular narrative. It's worthless as an argument and if you have a reason for your belief, it's more useful to discuss that rather than arbitrary comparisons.
It's comments like this that demonstrate just how unprepared some people are going to be if Tesla fails. Brush up on your finance.
If you don't see the parallels between the companies, not sure what to tell you. But I'll mark this comment, because assuredly you'll say, "where were the signs!". Just like some other big name posters about Theranos.
Amazon ran on losses but was cash flow positive. Telsa is not.
Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) issued $16B of bonds across seven tranches on Tuesday in the company's biggest bond deal on record. It was the fourth largest deal of 2017, and one of the 20 largest bond deals on record.
http://fortune.com/2012/12/18/just-how-risky-is-amazons-debt...
On the same day, Moody’s came out with its rating for Amazon’s debt: Nearly junk.
* Highest efficiency motors in terms of cost, weight and HP (compared to BMW i3 and Chevy Bolt)
* A massive charging infrastructure
* 1 billion+ miles of driving data from its ADAS system to get it closer to FSD.
* A software platform that enables OTA updates that improves performance/features of the car that is unparalleled in the market right now.
That doesn't mean they are ultimately wrong, but it does mean that much of the negative sentiment is no more grounded in reality than the positive sentiment.
It is an unfortunate state of affairs.