A few more years of this amd they may be bought out by the likes of BMW. The tesla brand is worth something, even if on the hood of a german car.
They are basically the only OEM pushing self driving without lidar.
Their manufacturing facilities are childish compared to other large automakers.
Solar City, powerwall, and the solar roof are huge money losers and barely make a dent in the P&L statement.
Maybe just the brand name? But will the brand have the cache once it suffers bankruptcy? Maybe it will.
Looks like a pair of cheap cameras with good stereo separation (distance between the cameras) provides very similar data to Lidar. All without the giant domes on the roof (like the waymo cars).
I'm struggling to think of any individual car manufacturer that has driven other manufacturers out of the market. The market doesn't really work in a way, capital requirements are too high, lead times too long, to make that possible. Its still reasonable for them to forgo short term profits, just not quite to the same extent as the winner takes all nature of the internet.
But after that, they turned a profit almost every quarters, generally very small compared to their revenue, but a profit, and when they lost money, it was also quite small compared to their revenue (apart from 2 isolated quarters in 2012 and 2014).
Basically, apart from it first 2 or 3 years, and some isolated losses, Amazon was, for most of its existence, targeting a slightly above 0% net margin, and succeeded at it, proving it was self-sustainable.
It's not the same as Tesla which is consistently losing around 10 to 20% of its revenue for nearly the past 10 years.
Amazon had losses for 5 years in the beginning of their existence, and then showed profit
Licensing/partnership contracts are often written so that they don't automatically survive changes of ownership, which makes buying into such a partnership by acquisition less than reliable.
$10 billions is a pittance, it gives you two thirds of Whatsapp or the entire Skype before it was acquired by MS (adjusted for inflation), so I don't think I'm delusional when I'm saying that it is not a great sum to pay when the future of your entire industry depends on you being best at building EVs (and Tesla now is the best).
I've had the same discussion on places like /r/cars, i.e. that Tesla doesn't sell cars, it sells batteries and the accompanying software (with some wheels attached to the whole thing), while companies like VW, MB or BMW have almost no clue on how to build the best batteries, never mind the best software, they're only good at building cars (and lately not so good even at that), which is an industry on its way out.
[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/tsi-engine-problems....
Outside car manufacturers there's a lot of cashed up companies that would like to take a punt in this space.
Anything that comes out of the mouth of Elon is an instant fact, and is repeated as fact until it's proven false. Then it was merely a prediction or plan.
He just went on stage and told investors that their non-existent, full self-driving robot taxi fleet will cut the cost of personal transport by 90% over Uber, and will make the car owners $10-$30k+ ("in some cases more!") in annual income. It's a pipe dream, but now it's talked about like it's already happening.
Remember Solar City and the solar shingles? Their solar deployment is 25% of what it was the quarter he made that announcement. "Synergies!". Meanwhile, they are winding down the company. In a year people will forget it was ever a thing.
I don't understand how you say it's a pipe dream unless you don't comprehend what they're sharing. If they're outright lying about the operations per second speeds (TOPS) they announced then that's one thing, however I doubt they would.
Another thing to realize is Tesla will be self-interested, as they should be to some degree, so how much profit they will allow non-Tesla owned vehicles to operate in the Tesla Network could heavily be dictated by them - so I wouldn't necessarily go out and buy 20 vehicles to inject them for full-time Tesla Network usage, however some people may take that gamble and then it also fronts money to Tesla. Even if the improvements are 1/4 of what they announced, it is significant.
Re: Solar City - they've had to redirect battery and other resources to focus on the vehicles. You're making a lot of assumptions. It might help to balance that out with they're working very hard, have very intelligent people on board, their work and effort has already lead them to this level of success, they're working on creating a whole ecosystem on limited resources that they have to manage, and they have the semi and other vehicles lined up for next year - which they already have pre-orders in for as well. I'd say you're a bit too hyper-focused on certain things, and no, I'm not suggesting to not be skeptical and understand they may not meet their goals and on time the 100% that gamblers-as-investors are betting on them to have.
Yeah, I did. It was very interesting, but it was also Computer Vision 101. Karpathy essentially explained how neural nets work to a non-technical audience. It was nice.
But did you not assume this was exactly what they were doing? I certainly did. Do you think no one at Waymo/Google/Uber/Apple/Lyft/Ford/GM/VW understands this or is trying to do the same or similar? Tesla does have a fleet data advantage, but Elon's "simulated data won't work" is nonsense.
>If they're outright lying about the operations per second speeds (TOPS) they announced then that's one thing, however I doubt they would.
They weren't lying about the specs, but it isn't industry leading, like they claimed. So now they have a second best chip that they have to produce themselves in small volumes.
>Re: Solar City - they've had to redirect battery and other resources to focus on the vehicles. You're making a lot of assumptions.
No, you are making a lot of assumptions. I am looking at the data. Since the solar shingle reveal, solar revenue has decreased every quarter. It is now 25% of what it was then. The reviews on Yelp and other sites are terrible. The Buffalo plant is in trouble, and hasn't fulfilled employment requirements. What does any of that have to do with batteries going to the Model 3 in volume in 2018?
Again, your whole argument revolves around "Tesla says..."
Citation needed for it not being industry leading, for their specific use case - hoped for TOPS along with maximum energy usage considerations? TOPS alone isn't the only factor, doing operations efficiently is required to keep energy usage as low as possible. Unless the lead engineer and whole chip team is pulling a fast one over Elon's head - he's not an idiot and not going to move forward in a direction he's not confident in.
I wouldn't say ~1MM chips per year is small volume, and that's fine that they're producing in small volume - especially because they have the next version coming out in I think Elon said 2 years. They're likewise not building the facility to produce them themselves, they're outsourcing it - I think they said to Samsung in Austin, TX?
I'm not making assumptions, and wasn't referring to that data you were referencing. Elon has said they had to divert resources from battery-related production; yes, it could be a convenient false story, however we can agree they're under a lot of pressure and have limited resources - so it's believable enough.
My whole argument doesn't revolve around "Tesla says" of your generalized statement - however it does try to put down my argument to elevate yours. If you don't want to give any amount of trust to what Tesla says - yes, they've not been honest/straight-forward in all situations which isn't ideal - then the foundation for your arguments aren't taking into account a lot of the proof points. Just like now I believe you're being genuine in your belief, and that we just have different experiences, understandings, analysis - I suppose it's possible you have financial interest in Tesla failing and haven't disclosed that, however I won't make that assumptions - and will assume you're speaking in good faith.
I don't really get what you're defending or your point is? Do you think Tesla will completely fail? Do you believe their stock is overvalued? That all auto manufacturers are now investing shittons of capital towards EV vehicles and infrastructure is perhaps the strongest signal that the market is there, and Tesla is leading it - and Elon believes they're 3-7+ years ahead of everyone else; and during even only 3 years they get get much further ahead in the race.
You wrote in this single reply:
Elon wanted...Elon referenced...Elon said...Elon has said...Elon believes...
This is the foundation of your argument.
Elon also said he was taking Tesla private and had a buyer at $420, and settled after being accused of fraud. Things that Elon says, wants or believes are not facts. That is my point.
>Citation needed for it not being industry leading, for their specific use case
Go look at NVIDIA’s products, or the press release they put out after the Autonomy Event. Do you think NVIDIA knows a thing or two about autonomous vehicle tech and this use case? Because Tesla’s entire program up to this point, the one I’m sure you believe is best-in-class, is built on NVIDIA product.
Can you provide a single citation that the Tesla chip is industry leading?
>I wouldn't say ~1MM chips per year is small volume,
First, 1 million is small. Second, you assume that they'll be building 1MM cars a year anytime soon, probably because "Elon said". Tesla produced ~70,000 cars this quarter. That's the reality. There is no evidence whatsoever that Tesla can produce, nor that there is demand for 1MM of these cars annually.
>I suppose it's possible you have financial interest in Tesla failing and haven't disclosed that
Ah yes, baseless accusations. You "won't make assumptions", but you'll throw that out there anyway. Just in case. If anyone disagrees about the future of Tesla, they obviously have some agenda. Elon said as much. If this forum had any neutrality, the admin would be warning and/or banning people making these accusations, which violate a number of the HN guidelines.
I don’t short stocks. I buy the odd put. I'm long everything, including Tesla through various funds. I don’t get paid by the oil industry. If Tesla went belly up tomorrow, it would harm me financially. How about you? I’m willing to bet you own a Tesla car or stock, but didn’t disclose that, while speaking with vehement positivity about the company. Why not, if you expect it of others?
I am interested in this subject matter because I find it absolutely baffling and mind-bending that there are so many red flags with this company, and yet there are segments of the population that simply cannot or refuse to see them. Of note: there seems to be a large overlap between that segment and the one that likes accusing other people of financial malfeasance or astroturfing.
>Do you think Tesla will completely fail? Do you believe their stock is overvalued?
No idea, but I doubt it fails completely. There's value in there somewhere. Probably selling high-end, high-margin EVs to wealthy people, the market they probably should have stuck to.
Is the stock overvalued? Of course.
My saying "I suppose it's possible you have financial interest in Tesla failing and haven't disclosed that" isn't a "baseless accusation" - which you claim, which then wrongly lets you build your anger and is a bad foundation giving you the argument that I'm being hypocritical and also making assumptions. I didn't accuse you of such - realize there's a difference between an accusation and brainstorming through possibilities.
In the end we'll see how Tesla and Elon does. I believe most people are terrible at understanding exponentials, terrible at foresight at the holistic level - and only believe something once it's been 100% for X years; part of the whole Product Adoption curve: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards (or other labels: tech enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, skeptics).
Translation: you have no idea what you're talking about.
>I didn't accuse you of such - realize there's a difference between an accusation and brainstorming through possibilities.
Bull. You were implying I was a short-seller with an agenda, just like Elon does to all critics and whistleblowers, just like happens in every Tesla discussion on these boards.
It's hilarious, because the critics are "evil shorts", but the proponents are innocent "good people" who would never talk their book.
They lie about autopilot and fsd being driverless, while they are irresponsibly deployed driver assistance technologies.
Their whole argument for feasibility of driverless cars is that humans user only their eyes too, and they have a lot of data. That is like saying that if you outfit a million gopro on people, they'll have better humanoid robots than Boston Dynamics.
This whole convoluted scheme about fronting cash, wow. If they are so confident about their cars earning 30k$ a year, they should have no problem raising money via equity or debt, and pivoting from a car manufacturer to a taxi company. Later they can fire the drivers and be driverless taxi company.
Solar City, another wow. I didn't know solar panels are made of batteries, or that Tesla is the only company that makes batteries in the world. Are you just closing your eyes and denying that they laid off solar City personnel? That the 2 billion dollar was nothing but a family buyout, and infact a spacex bond bailout?
According to Elon musk and Tesla fanboys, Tesla is an amazing company. They have the most performing and cheapest batteries in the world. They have the best AI chops, not just to make the best chips, but also use it to make the most automated factory, and have the technology to have their cars be fully driverless. Their factories are so advanced that air friction is a problem, and they use strobe light to see robots. But after all these advantages, they don't sell batteries, direct AI products, manufacturing expertise, driver assistance technologies, EV drivetrains etc. They only sell cars at luxury prices, that too at a loss, while having shitty interiors, fit, finish, panel gaps, paint etc.
And I'm not sure why Apple would buy a car company, it's too far of their core business (aka selling computers ranging from phone sized to desktop size).
The other car manufacturers are not blind idiots, they are seeing EVs are becoming a thing, but it's also in its early stages. The question for them is when should they start switching their line-up, and that's the difficult decision. Too early, and they end-up with too expensive and less convenient cars compared to IC vehicules, too late and you have basically miss the bus.
Everyone knows Apple is workin on a car.
The other car companies have so far looked like blind idiots. How does being early lead to "too expensive and less convenient"?
https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-car/
There are loads of companies that could be interested. If only for automated delivery like Walmart, Alibaba, Amazon etc.