If you got a Tesla you'd get a better sense for how many superchargers there are.
What you're saying is relevant though and why until recently I didn't really consider non-Tesla EVs an option to recommend if it was your only car (though now that Tesla has pivoted to opening up the superchargers to other car companies this is less of an issue).
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/an...
Even better, strategically Tesla created the "NACS" or North American Charging Standard which is a clever name for their far superior Tesla charger. They also pivoted from the superchargers being an exclusive reason to buy a Tesla to licensing them for other EVs - now Ford is onboard, Electrify America is switching to NACS, GM too.
They pulled off this switch perfectly in a way most companies fail to do (ex: blackberry bbm) and as a result their investment in these will remain dominant and everyone will be unified around a superior standard (the EU charging standard CCS plug is a committee designed monster that's worse categorically). They're also continuing to expand.
I love manual transmission sports cars, but EVs today are just superior for regular use and Teslas are the best option for most people (especially when considering their lower cost), putting subjective opinions about their mercurial leader aside. There's a reason the Model Y was the best selling car in 2023 Q1 across all categories globally [0].
HN has historically been poor at objectively evaluating this sort of thing especially about Tesla.
[0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/05/31/best-selling-car-worldw....
Are they collecting fees or is there some reason bp or Shell or Exxon couldn’t just add NACS chargers to all their real estate and steal share from Superchargers?
I have yet to see any explanation as to how the switch to NACS is actually good for Tesla, other than testimony to the standard design being better than CCS?
They also charge a higher rate to non-Tesla EVs.
The other benefit is if they continued to refuse access they could have ended up like blackberry. The other companies would have adopted the CCS standard and (eventually) would have a competitive network. Then what was once a Tesla advantage would become more of a liability as the transition to EVs gets more complete.
Few companies make this strategic shift at the right time imo and I think Tesla did. By leveraging their advantage now it’s a win win.
I agree that the alternative was worse, but that doesn't make this a particularly good outcome?
Even ignoring that, I think it's still a good outcome for Tesla - they effectively own and control a large percentage of all charging infrastructure in the world. Every other car company adopting their standard means they have a lot of customers that will pay them to charge at their stations (even independent of the licensing).
That plus avoiding a future where without making this transition they could end up isolated with an obscure and incompatible charger that would eventually become a liability rather than an advantage.
> they effectively own and control a large percentage of all charging infrastructure in the world. Every other car company adopting their standard means they have a lot of customers that will pay them to charge at their stations (even independent of the licensing).
This is the argument I find interesting... IMO if everything does centralize on NACS, nothing (AFAICT) is stopping the really big players like bp, Shell, Exxon, etc from just outfitting their already-existing real estate, already-existing infrastructure with NACS. The petro-companies are ludicrously well capitalized, very sophisticated, and have tons of baked-in advantages. Memes aside, they're also already the biggest players in the energy transition anyway. Basically if I were investing in Tesla, I'd be curious why this doesn't just create a great opening for the huge huge players to mop the floor.
Again, consumers (and the environment, probably) win here, so I'm happy about it!
P.S. Also thank you for entertaining a thoughtful convo. Usually this question just attracts zealots and it doesn't get me closer to an answer. You did -- so thank you!
Fair point about existing players, I just tend to discount old large companies being able to execute for the same reasons startups tend to eat their lunch. Why haven’t they done it already? Why haven’t they started even now?
Why did it require Tesla to build EVs? Why did existing car companies ignore Tesla for 20 years until they were way behind?
Probably the innovators dilemma - it’s rare existing providers are much of a threat.
It's good for Tesla because it costs them a lot less to have everyone else shift to NACS than for them to redeploy ten thousand Supercharger stalls with CCS1.
Honestly the only losers in the continental shift to NACS are those with significant existing CCS1 investments, like Electrify America. And I don't see why they deserve any sympathy from the likes of Ford and GM. The poor reliability of many CCS1 networks has been an albatross around the neck of Tesla's competitors.
I agree, I have no sympathy for CCS1 investments etc, NACS seems superior and it looks like consumers writ large will win etc etc., I'm just wondering how any of this adds up to a bullish case for Tesla and I'm afraid your comment doesn't clarify that. It just illustrates that the alternative would've been more bearish than this one (which I agree).
It also plays into the perception that Tesla are technology leaders the EV sector. Which is a big deal if EV technology is the future of the the automotive sector.
I’ll probably take 10 long car trips a year often for camping but sometimes visiting friends. I know that most of the areas I’m driving through when I go east do not have the infrastructure at all and even if they do they’re still a hassle to use and add a bunch of time to a long drive. My mom had an EV so I have experience with range anxiety and the inconveniences of not running the AC, etc.
It’s a bad purchase in my opinion much better to get a hybrid
Or they just don't road trip when they get out of town, or "getting out of town" to them is within 100mi or so, or the corridors where they do tend to travel is well served with chargers, etc.
I don't know about you, but I don't usually tend to pack my car with me when I go on an airplane. Maybe you do?
I definitely understand though that EVs don't currently cover everyone's use cases, and I'm not entirely certain they'll cover everyone's needs in the end. But most people are pretty bad about actually thinking about what they actually need, and many car buyers aren't buying based on their realistic uses.