I’ll bite the bait, and will point out that Tesla sales this Q have been suppressed by people awaiting model refreshes.
I guess I'll do the same? Why have curious conversation when you can assume the worst?
> Tesla sales this Q have been suppressed by people awaiting model refreshes
You're just saying "Tesla had less sales because of bad $X" with fancier words. The importance is not why Tesla fucked up (that's up to them to figure out), but that they're now being surpassed even though they had a huge headstart.
If you are world #2 in your field of work do you consider yourself a failure and that you fucked up? That's a sad existence.
Personally, I wouldn't, I don't care what "position" I'm at, as long as I have enough. But I'm fairly sure that Musk would take that as a failure, especially if you've been #1 for a bunch of quarters and suddenly you aren't.
(Musk has repeated many times that he wants Tesla to be the biggest automaker [by volume] https://dallasexpress.com/business-markets/teslas-goal-large...)
https://sustainablebrands.com/read/behavior-change/tesla-ope...
Their actual pledge: https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled...
States you can use Tesla patents if you agree to let Tesla use your patents, rip-off your products, make counterfeits, and steal your trade secrets.
That is worse than standard patent reciprocity agreements and I think most companies would prefer paying for regular patent licensing over such ludicrous IP overreach. Tesla and Elon Musk somehow proposed something even less open than regular patents and had the gall to lie about being openness advocates.
Not seeing that in your link, can you quote the relevant parts or cite better sources?
“asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of
(i) any patent or other intellectual property right [highlighted for emphasis] against Tesla
(ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment”
Condition 1 states you can not assert any intellectual property right against Tesla. Intellectual property rights include patents, copyrights (protects against rip-off products), trademarks (protects against counterfeits), and trade secrets (protects against insider stealing).
This is explicit and deliberate as condition 2 states only patent rights are protected for others.
Tesla then goes on to reiterate that it explicitly and deliberately protects its own copyright and trademark:
“challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla)“
They literally need that additional “I’m about to screw you” clarification clause to make double-sure that if you try to fight the terms in the future as unconscionable they can point to how they made double explicitly sure that you realize the rights Tesla is extending you are explicitly a tiny fraction of what Tesla is demanding from you.
Those terms are so unfair it is ridiculous and it is insulting that Tesla dares to claim it, in any way, represents a good faith patent and openness pledge. I can find a more honest promise from a used car salesperson.
It's just a matter of when, not if, from where I'm sitting.
Deliveries have more factors involved, and really only useful if full production capacity isn’t being fully sold out (which I believe still is).