Tesla Profits Drop 55%
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
"Elon Musk Lost Democrats on Tesla When He Needed Them Most"
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/elon-musk-turned-democrat...
There is no wiggle room here, dude claimed afterwards "That's not anti-semitism" yeah right, read the tweet and come to your own conclusion.
This alone should be enough for Democrats to stop supporting this guy.
If somebody said that about "Russian communities", "Russians" or "Russia", would that also be wrong?
In addition I think you are making a false equivalence here. As a German citizen, I can only emphasize that grouping people along the "Jew" line and drawing hateful conclusions from it is a path to a dark place. I don't care what other scenarios might also be problematic, I can say without a doubt, the sentiment he endorsed is anti-semitic!
BTW my grandfather was in a Nazi concentration camp. I guess that says enough about what I think. But my opinion is not the matter here.
Why does it matter in this conversation?
If you want an ethical discussion about a mildly related topic, please find someone else to have it with. I'm not interested in having that discussion with you here.
But the delayed purchase has given me time to reflect.
I'm in a city and have simply moved beyond wanting a new car. I've embraced tuning and maintaining my current vehicle and using it very rarely. Lower insurance, more satisfaction.
I've just purchased (very cheaply) another classic car just fool around with and restore.
I'll bet my net carbon emissions and costs are an "order of magnitude" less than buying any damned Tesla. And I'm enjoying learning new skills and ... it becomes almost creating a new art piece.
So, I'll say, thanks Elon ... for ensuring you delayed my purchase enough for me to open my eyes to something better.
Ars did that analysis and concluded that "In two years, the EV will have caught up to the used car in terms of ecological footprint". After that, the EV is much better for the environment.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/new-ev-vs-old-beater-wh...
In light of that, and their distaste for Elon, Democrats face a tough choice. Do they care more about the culture wars or climate change?
You can do both and buy an EV from another manufacturer. Placed an order for VW Id.7 days ago, would not even consider Tesla until they fire Elon.
One to obsess over and restore. One if I absolutely need one.
No way any EV is catching up with that.
And as someone else said, the alternatives are compelling enough now for me not to have to choose Tesla should the time come. To me, the ioniq 5 looks better than any car Tesla ever produced. In the right colour combo, it's gorgeous. Anyway, that's moot at the moment ...
I have recently bought an e bike and they are great fun and pretty good for getting around. Fun facts.
- Lower CO2 emissions per mile than any other transport apparently including walking and pedal cycling - humans eating food to cycle emit more it seems. Not that it's necessarily more environmentally friendly as you have batteries to deal with but even so it's good.
- Probably the fastest way of getting around central London. On google maps bikes usually beat cars and tube and ebikes tend to go faster than regular ones.
I'm not sure how long it will last before been stolen but it cost me about the same as two tanks of gas for the car (second hand).
If he made a steam powered car out of bronze and wood, I can't imagine him tweeting anything that would encourage sales, but I can easily imagine a variety of things he could tweet which could discourage sales — in my imagination, this would be things like "antiques are for losers".
If a) isn't true then it isn't possible to lose sales because there aren't any. This is the "any publicity is good publicity" scenario because your baseline sales are zero. If a) is true then it's about saying things your target customers approve, and then we're back to "target customers for trucks are typically not environmentally conscious libs, and like to see them criticized."
Which was the other problem with your analogy: If he's selling some steampunk thing then he'd be criticizing whatever the opposite of that is, not its expected customers. Then the risk is alienating some other customers for some other product, but in a politically polarized environment the only way to please everybody is to say nothing. And then nobody is paying attention to you and that doesn't drive sales either.
Reservations are not the same as sales but there seem to be buyers out there who don't think it's too stupid looking.
Why? Lefty eco-conscious plant-based-diet types like me switching away from ICE cars is not sufficient to fix greenhouse emissions, and the only way to get everyone on board is for someone to make vehicles for the political tribe that wants to own and drive the exact sort of vehicle that people like me want kept off public roads, vehicles like Cybertruck.
So, if we're having a big fight left/right battle over "is Cybertruck bad" and that battles leads to all the Republicans in the USA buying one as a status symbol just to "own the libs", that's great, because now everyone is going electric.
Instead Democrats are apparently choosing to buy hybrids instead of electric cars. (I guess they aren't that worried about climate change.)
This also applies to putting PV on the cars themselves: 80% of the mean daily milage is still really useful, even though it really isn't going to be enough for everyone.
It's environmentally disastrous to manufacture, tears up roads, chews through tires, and gets abysmal mileage when compared to other electric vehicles.
It's just an emotional support truck for cyrpto bros.
I was considering describing it as a "penis extension" in the original comment, but sure.
> It's environmentally disastrous to manufacture, tears up roads, chews through tires, and gets abysmal mileage when compared to other electric vehicles.
And compared to ICE trucks? Because that's what matters.
Not being a truck person, I'll have to just assume you're correct about it only lasting 10 years or not being able to tow, despite these being surprising claims.
But honestly it's not about politics. Musk sounds and acts unstable. He is a splitting his time among 4 companies and pushing a vanity project (Cybertruck) that really no one wants (those 2M signups were for a 40k or 50k vehicle).
He's a horrible CEO and politics aside, his departure will be a sign that Tesla is ready to move forward.
I cautiously, tentatively agree with you.
However, the cybertruck is not the correct aesthetic for achieving this and is, therefore, a huge missed opportunity.
An electric vehicle that looked like this:
https://www.mercedes-benz-trucks.com/en_GB/models/unimog-imp...
... would be much closer to the mark and could, theoretically, achieve the outcome you're describing.
1. Won't Tesla need to get permission city by city to drive around autonomously ( like Waymo, Cruise )?
2. I am not well aware of US laws, but where I am from personal vehicles have different registration from commercial registration. Expectation is every Tesla owner does the leg work to upgrade their registration?
3. Who cleans up the car if a passenger has made it dirty ?
4. I would guess that most people want to go to work around the same time in the day and come home the same time as well, including the Tesla owner. Which leaves the Tesla to become a taxi only during the non-peak demand times ? Won't there be a supply-demand mismatch?
I could go on and on. Can't really fathom what potential did the market see to have their shares go up post-market. Anything I am missing?
It seems that you don't like Tesla for other reasons, so you're bringing up easily dismissed business challenges that have already been solved.
You are imagining one way for this to work and then claiming it wont make good business sense, when that is clearly not the only option.
Airbnb isn't trying to revolutionize home ownership. They can have a successful business even if 99% of homeowners have no interest in renting out their place to strangers.
But when Musk talks about robotaxi, he doesn't describe it as a feature that some small percentage of Tesla owner will take advantage of and that Tesla will use to pull in some extra revenue. Instead, it's used as a justification to treat Tesla as a tech company rather than a car company, since robotaxi is going to completely change how society looks at transportation.
Even if Tesla successfully delivers robotaxi (a hard task in itself), there's no reason to assume it's going to cause the seismic shift that Musk seems to assume it will.
If the vehicles can generate revenue people will buy them looking to make money for themselves. Tesla makes money on the sale and the recurring ride hailing revenue. If 1% of consumer vehicles sold are autonomous robo-taxis that alone makes a significant bump in Tesla's bottom line.
Just did a quick search for ride sharing TAM ~100 billion. If Tesla can capture some of that at high margin (bc no driver). It's a lot of money.
I suspect the plan with cars is similar: subscription-only or on-demand vehicles.
2.Not true in the U.S. No special registration needed to drive an Uber.
3.Obviously the owner like with existing ride sharing networks.
4.Yes, existing ride sharing networks handle this with surge pricing.
There aren't a lot of problems. Ride sharing exists and some of them even operate autonomously, all be it with extreme geo fencing.
Depends on the state/county, the driver and/or the vehicle may need additional paperwork
Tesla shares are actually up because the earnings call seemed to deprioritize the pie in the sky robotaxi plan in favor of shipping a cheaper car ala Model 2, much to the relief of every investor listening to the call.
If Tesla doesn't release a cheaper model they have no hope of competing in China, especially as BYD is completely relentless with both their pricing and their internal efficiencies (they are selling EVs for 10k USD and turning a ~20% profit according to last BYD earnings).
Technology wise Tesla still has a lead on non-battery components, especially in terms of simplified wiring harness/better vertical integration of electronic components and software but none of those are important if they can't translate into operational efficiency. My theory is they actually do translate very well but other fuckups Tesla has made means that on net they are still losing ground.
China is the world's biggest EV market by far, not just in terms of volume but also by $ amount. Tesla's very strong valuation for the last several years was based on their strong market position there (and the growth it implied) which has now quickly eroded (and their future revenue potential with it).
Unless their market share numbers get back on track in China expect the stock to continue to decline.
It'll hurt if Tesla can't keep selling ~600,000 cars they sell in China in a year, but they almost certainly can't grow that number.
EV growth for all brands will come from increasing the share outside of China.
Popular opinion seems to be that doubling down on self driving will not "rescue" the stock because self driving cars are 5 to 10 years away.
To me, that seems not that far away. At current interest rates of 5%, that means the robotaxi business would be devalued by 28% if it manifests in 5 years and by 63% if it manifests in 10 years.
Given the size of the opportunity (2 billion cars on the road, so about 700 billion yearly manhours that can be automated), a devaluation of 28% or 63% seems to be not too much to make it unreasonable as an investment.
One robotaxi would add something like $5k per year to the bottom line. So every million robotaxis would add $5B. Give that a p/e ratio of 30, and it increases Tesla's market cap by $150B.
Can Tesla bring one million robotaxis to the market by 2029? Assuming the numbers above, that would increase their market cap by $150B. Or in today's dollars by $100B. Even if they never get beyond 1 million robotaxis.
If one assumes that from 2029 on, they add one million of these every year, today's value of that future business probably exceeds all of the current Tesla market cap.
Tesla FSD is already being used for on a billion miles per year. Search for "Cumulative miles driven with FSD":
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/...
Usage will continue to grow as it gets better. And it got a lot better over the last months.
And then there is Waymo which proves that with geo-fencing, high resolution maps, additional sensors and remote operators on standby, robotaxis are already possible today. Tesla could add some of these too, if it wants to accelerate meeting regulatory requirements.
There is a big, hell a gigantic, difference between that and robotaxi. You need the car to be able to handle from start to finish, the entire trip, not parts of it, not even just 99% of it.
Also, the car cannot stop or be unable to deal with some situation and require help. If owners randomly have to go help their car miles away because the "taxi" got into a unknown situation, they're quickly going to get out of that deal.
And then you have all the regulatory and insurance issues. Is Tesla or the owner insuring the commercial part ? Are they required to get commercial license ? What happens if the car hit and kill someone during a robotaxi trip, who is responsable ?
Each issue Tesla can't solve in a more efficient way, they can solve by copying the competition.
2: If they want to rent cars from individual owners, they can make the conditions as comfortable as needed. Monitoring and insurance for example would most likely handled by Tesla and not be paid by the individual owner. The owner would just get a fee for every hour Tesla uses their car.
Legislators already allow robotaxis. Look at Waymo and Cruise.
Also- if I am wrong and robot taxis become super successful- would that affect sales of Teslas to private customers?
This was my thought too when it was first discussed, but now he wants to use the same AI to power a humanoid robot, which (if it worked) would make this easy.
My guess is that the performance of AI necessary for humanoid robots will not be available in a fully independent form-factor for at least 5-10 years after level 5 full self driving… but that belief is due to the electrical power envelope, so a humanoid robot whose sole purpose is these kinds of non-driving taxi related tasks, that I can believe may come sooner.
Examples here at EO 2023.
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/record-low-ev-battery-p...
That's never going to happen, I'm not that good at physics but there must be some deep thermodynamically principle involved or similar to that. Something on the lines of what Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen [1] war writing about.
Never say never, there is a clear theoretical possibility that we might one day properly price in all externalities (such as cost of dealing with climate change and conflicts related to hydrocarbons) into the cost of goods and services. That said, those chances are unfortunately small.
Eh? Not totally sure what you're getting at; do you believe that there's a fundamental law of physics that says that batteries can never fall in price below where they are now, or something?
Carbon-based energy is basically condensed and stored solar power, i.e. some of the cheapest things there can be, taking into consideration that the "condensed and stored" part happens by default, the only money that we spend is in trying to get to those condensed and stored" resources and to transport them (oil wells, digging coal-mines etc)
> the only money that we spend is in trying to get to those condensed and stored" resources and to transport them (oil wells, digging coal-mines etc)
That's a huge "the only"; we're already seeing solar beat gas on pricing in some cases.
> we're already seeing solar beat gas on pricing in some cases.
That's why I also added the condensed/storage part, which with carbon comes by default (or at low enough prices). Forests (including geological ones on which current carbon-energy is mostly based) are (were) world-wide solar farms which come with no costs, a human-made thing will never be able to compete with that, price-wise.
It's already happened. The $10,000 (in China) BYD Seagull is superior IMO to any <$20,000 ICE vehicle.
You can lease a bZ4x for $169 a month. Many people can save more than $169 in fuel costs by switching to electric, making that bZ4x essentially "free after estimated fuel savings" to use the silly Tesla phrasing.
- Total revenue is down 9% yearly and worse quarterly.
- Service revenue is up 25% yearly. Milking current customers. Nice.
- Quarterly profit down 55% yearly and 80%+ quarterly. hmm.
- Operating cash flow disappeared. Free cash flow at -$2.5 billion. It's not like interest rates are low...
- Stock is up 11.5% pre-market because Musk said that Tesla is moving to the tight margin market (low cost EVs). Makes sense huh?
The stock market/US economy is now a confirmed meme/ponzi scheme.
My belief is that Elon himself is in a tight spot now, if Tesla's financials continue to falter he will lose the last bit of trust which will probably unwind it all, probably including ouster him as CEO. He keeps promising dreams (FSD and robotaxis, Cybertruck, etc.) and not delivering them, instead he's losing public trust and respect, at some point the chickens will come home to roost.
I mean, I'm not sure how you can go from "the stocks of this one weird company behave irrationally" to "the US economy is a Ponzi scheme". Bubbles are basically as old as markets; meme stocks (which arguably Tesla is now an example of) are a somewhat newer concept, but are not a _big_ part of the market.
The existence of things like TSLA demonstrates that the markets aren't the sort of spherical-cow perfect efficient markets that, say, the weirder varieties of libertarians believe to exist, but everyone pretty much already knew that anyway.
Given that the Cybertruck is a laughing stock and growth/profits from China are in bad shape, they may actually be doing the right thing if the only goal is to stay in business for one more quarter.
TBH, it doesn't matter too much what their intent is because they can't make a cheap car. Battery prices have not dropped fast enough.
>Battery prices have not dropped fast enough.
Irrelevant. It is about if they actually want to compete in that segment.
More discussion on the earnings post:
If you are middle class on W-2 income, sure.
The rich have moved onto other brands such as Porsche, Mercedes, Lucid, and Rivian.
You can probably worry about big and small problems at the same time, it's not like because the world is burning that you will allow or ignore a company contaminating the groundwater you and your neighbours use.
No, it certainly wasn't just that. It was also a general attack on Tesla among the reasons listed it was about what cars they were building.
Specifically they complained that Tesla makes "SUVś[sic], killing machines and Monstertrucks".
He is saying[1] that this robot will be in production before the end of this year, and:
"Will be more valuable than everything else combined because if you have a sentient humanoid robot that is able to navigate reality and do tasks at request there is no meaningful limit to the size of the economy. So that's what's going to happen"
How does anybody take him seriously as this point?
[1] https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/1782892725521535437
Further context - https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-could-start-selling...
this characterization is laughably far from the truth. there was no attempt at deceit here, it was a "let's have fun with it" moment. there was no promise or suggestion that there was supposed to be a real robot.
elon derangement syndrome is alive and well
On the earnings call he said the robot should be in production by the end of this year, and being sold by the end of next year. And implied it will:
- Be more valuable than everything else combined
- A sentient humanoid robot that is able to navigate reality and do tasks at request
- There is no meaningful limit to the size of the economy (whatever this means)
And finished up by saying "So that's what's going to happen"
I don't think I have Elon derangement syndrome, but I just can't take him seriously with how wildly inaccurate so many of his claims are.
"We are able to do simple factory tasks in the lab"
"We think we'll have Optimus in limited production in the factory doing useful tasks by the end of this year"
"We may be able to sell it externally by end of next year. These are just guesses"
For the first quote, they literally have a PR video on youtube showing this. Go see it for yourself.
For the second, this is a no-brainer. They already have robots in their factories doing useful tasks. It's not really a stretch that a humanoid form-factor robot could be doing the same.
For the third, he clearly said "may" and made it super clear this was a guess. He's also not saying it will be doing your dishes by end of next year, he said selling it externally. Which may be for external lab purposes or for other manufacturers.
"There is no meaningful limit to the size of the economy (whatever this means)"
I think it's pretty clear what it means - autonomous robots that can intelligently do human tasks are going to massively change how the economy works. And it's very, very likely that we will (at some point) get to here. He's not promising when that's going to be.
You're continuing to prove my point - people take the things he says and wildly misconstrue them and then act like he's literally Hitler. Don't get me wrong, Elon is an asshole and a transphobe and has some weird stick up his ass about immigration. But it's a pet peeve of mine for people to make up shit to be critical about while ignoring the real problems (like transphobia). It's also attacking the amazing talent and teams at Tesla/SpaceX for people to keep acting like it's a total shit show when it's really just Elon not shutting up sometimes
However, I in no way, nor ever would, say or act like he is literally Hitler. I’m not sure where you got such an extreme comparison from my comments about calling him out for unrealistic & hyperbolic statements.
I think at this point we can agree to disagree and see what the future holds for both Tesla and Elon
I hope the best for everyone, including Elon and the people around him
Have a link? The stories I read said they specifically declined to comment on Model 2
> but it assured investors that it plans to move ahead with a cheaper model due out next year.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/business/tesla-report-earning...
>The results, posted after markets closed Tuesday, sent shares up as much as 12% following the release as investors appeared to be more focused on Tesla’s forward-looking remarks about future products,
This will result in some vapid marketing about price reductions and production increase and readjusting to market demands. Then a fat finger pointing at someone else. And some hype about battery technology. That will cause a temporary gain which can be used to sell more interest quickly and it'll tank again.
I know a couple of "faithful" investors who put money on late last year who are still telling themselves it's only temporary.
Tesla customers were willing to overlook that due to the focus on software and cutting edge tech at the expense of quality but people later realized quality also matters in a object you sit in and your life depends on it, since a car is more than an iPad.
Not coming from that kind of family background personally this was somewhat of a surprise to me when a friend first explained how they were expecting a vehicle to hold its value.
The Tesla’s seats were already worn down so I could feel the steel tubes beneath the upholstery. The Benz was still fine.
That’s better finish which I would care about without being a car enthusiast.
The model S had paint runs and the drivers door didn't shut properly.
Your car enthusiast might care to a different sort of extreme or niche (like wanting real leather not PU; or not wanting leather because the '66 never came with leather) but it's still caring about finish IMO, just different aspects.
I absolutely bought a Lexus because I perceived it as high quality - reliable, assembled properly, good finishes. Same for my BMW, though it’s almost certainly less reliable. My Honda truck, I expect reliable utility, not luxury.
Fit and finish are absolutely things that non-geeks care tremendously about.
Cars have no network effect as the roads are open standard accessible to any vendor and Tesla never had any secret sauce that kept well funded competitors from competing.
Once the big traditional manufacturers started taking electric cars with diver assist features seriously they had the skill and money to match(and in some cases exceed) Tesla and that means Tesla will have to price their cars competitively.
put another way, it's not just making cars, it's making the ecosystem. every phone after the iphone was trying to be the iphone, for example.
for Tesla, it would have been something like getting charging stations everywhere, and getting the 3 price so low that they become ubiquitous. then the Hertz buy might have made sense, you'd see taxis everywhere switching (and they kind of did in some cities), and stronger adoption outside of tech-bro cities.
Models 3/Y are literally one of the cheapest EVs available in EU/US?
> Hertz dumping them due to ROI problems
Hertz frankly had a pretty terrible strategy going in. Buying a ton of cars without any infrastructure for them (Hertz locations without chargers).
BYD Dolphin is 34 990 € and a Tesla Model 3 is 41 990 €. And both are pretty high up there in comparison to like a hybrid Toyota Corolla.
Tesla is anything but the cheapest EV.
They aren't (in EU)? Dacia Spring, Citroën e-C3, Fiat 500e, BYD Dolphin, ID.3 & Peugeot e-208 to name a few are quite a bit cheaper.
Er, no. Peugeot, Renault, Volkswagen etc. all make (way) cheaper models. Heck, even Volvo now has an EV (the EX30) that is ~EUR 8k cheaper than a Model y. Not even mentioning the Asian brand like Hyundai etc.
In part because the carmakers were probably unsure about its long term performance with a totally new technology, but the main reason was other.
It just happens that the environmental emissions of a car maker fleet was calculated as the average of emissions from all their models in the current market.
Those tiny, squared EV that looked like toys were built with the only purpose to decrease the brand average value. Thus they could have models contaminating more in the upper categories. (Plus painting the brand in green for PR purposes).
All of this changed after Tesla started to show its claws and to be taken seriously.
Right now VW is even protesting suggestions that the coming ICE ban should be overturned.
Things have totally changed though VW-group dealerships now really push electric cars and its the ICE cars that are stuck in the back.
>Things have totally changed though VW-group dealerships now really push electric cars and its the ICE cars that are stuck in the back.
Yes. The e-Golf was essentially a Beta Test, a Golf 7 built into an EV. Nowadays VW EVs have their own dedicated platform.
Of course sellers can have their own reasons to sell you this and not that.
The maker tells their dealers how much cars of each model they must sell to keep the relationship as official dealer. If the seller is reluctant to sell a particular model you can expect that this model has not been assigned a high priority in the list of X cars that must be sold yearly to fill the objectives.
But the flagship for self-sabotage EVs, back in the 90s, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 : they were never even really sold, but leased, and almost all the few thousand produced were destroyed.
Absolutely Tesla is almost single handedly responsible for getting the EV market from where it was 10 years ago to where it is today. Without Tesla the EV market would almost certainly be years behind where it is right now. No argument from me on either point.
The question is any of that relevant today? Tesla paved the way, but now the market is wide open and 'everybody' is jumping on. Does Tesla still have anything special to offer or will they just be another midsized 'luxury' car brand
I hate dealing with POWER8 systems, but the idea that IBM isn't relevant ain't true.
arguably there is a Ship of Theseus argument that the company that built the PC is long, very long, dead.
I don't care what signal you want to send, i don't care if you were lied to or you are conscious you're doing it. Stop.
It's like the "We invented the first mouse" used by Apple stans to prop up their favorite brand against Microsoft: nice for the brand war argument (no one cares, really), but now most people actually believe that and it's almost a truth. If you are USian, well, maybe improving your country political discourse start with improving your own discourse on social media, and if you're not: why are you pushing a foreign country narrative?
The early history of EV in European carmakers are plenty of WTF were they thinking?. Have you seen the Citroen Ami?. Later the brands gradually changed its mind, in part by the Renault success but mostly for Tesla. We could say many things about Tesla but at least they tried to build cars and not toasters from the start.
I don't think you can call 31% growth lacklustre.
How is buying an electric Not-Tesla slowing down the transition to sustainable transportation compared to buying a Tesla?
A couple Chinese automakers like BYD and Xpeng might survive the next couple years, they did it by relentlessly copying Tesla.
Everything. Guy's a prick.
Specifically, he's a huge narcissist surrounding himself with yes men to stroke his ego. Not a good environment for push back (resulting in obvious failures like the Cybertruck, Twitter-to-X rebranding, 'FSD is ready!', The Boring Company, etc.)
> why is punishing Elon by boycotting Tesla worth slowing the transition to sustainable transportation?
Even if we take the Elon factor out of the equation and just decide not to buy a Tesla for any other reason, it isn't 'slowing the transition to sustainable transportation' because I can buy a (much of the time) cheaper, better build quality, modern electric car from Rivian, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, BYD, Volvo, Ford, Lucid, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Fiat, GMC, Honda, Jaguar, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Polestar, Porsche, Ram, etc.
Tesla is clearly the industry leader in terms of volume, technology, and efficiency. The market wouldn't exist without them. Most of those companies your listing can't/don't produce in volume because they have massive negative margin and range/dollar is inferior to Tesla. Only a few companies are in a place where they can make money on selling electric vehicles such as BYD and they did it through relentlessly copying Tesla.
Are you under the impression that Tesla is the only company who makes electric cars, or something? They're about 10-15% of the global market.