Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Vendors missing deadlines on contracts is a valid reason for contracts being terminated, renewals being cancelled, and even litigation over breach of contract or even misrepresentation (depending on how angry the customer is).

There's a reason why PepsiCo partners are moving to Daimler now.

View on HN

The argument that it's just "missing deadlines" which as true as it is, is also a strawman.

Musk hasn't just "missed deadlines". He's outright lied.

For example, in 2016 he claimed Tesla already had self driving capabilities it hasn't shown today, 8 years later.

He lied about bulletproof windows on the CyberTruck. His own demo disproved this.

He lied about the solar roofs. The entire demo was false and staged and the tiles on the roofs were not solar tiles as the demo strongly implied. And testimony showed that he personally knew that it was a lie.

Musk doesn't just miss deadlines. He blatantly lies. And that raises the legitimate concern that a lot of "missed deadlines" weren't just deadlines that were missed, but deadlines that were never feasible and he just lied about.

I do think it's amusing what the other guy says. Forums like this will be full of "Why software estimates are so hard and we shouldn't be forced to stick to deadlines" and the explanation will be "because each React form is like brand new R&D - more akin to Marie Curie's discoveries than a surgeon's work" and then suddenly a brand new kind of vehicle that has never been mass produced before has to hit deadlines or it's sign of obvious incompetence.

That contrast is definitely striking.

I think this is a pretty clear misrepresentation. The entire point of those forum posts is that software engineers are angry at managers promising timelines that aren't connected to reality: they want the unpredictability of the task to be transparent. That is actually entirely consistent, and arguably the exact same frustration, that they have with Musk -- a manager-type promising outrageous deadlines, repeatedly, with apparently zero ability to learn from past misses. The anger is with continuing to promise these outrageous deadlines, and furthermore the frustration of being called out if you are skeptical of them, not with the fact that he misses them. It's a one-to-one, 100%, absolutely identical complaint.

Software estimates also need to be hit, but Sales, Product, and Engineering leadership will fight to prevent the brunt of that from hitting ICs, but at some point if a large contract does churn, plenty of IC engineers will have their head on the chopping board.

I've been on both sides so I get it, and the only solution is to have blunt and honest communication from all sides - Field Facing teams need to not overcommit, and Internal teams actually need to execute and COMMUNICATE why they cannot.

As an employee, we are all working to make the company more money. That's the only goal.

Production of EVs is hard. There's a reason why Ford lost 1.3B in the first quarter of 2024 ($3B in 2023) on EVs and is slowing production.

Overall Tesla is producing more EVs than any American company by far.

Yes, meeting the semi production goal would have been nice, but I'd rather consumer car production be prioritized.

That doesn't absolve them of the fact that they underdelivered on a 8-9 figure deal by 66% over 7 years.

The fact that PepsiCo leaked this to Reuters itself means they are on the warpath right now (eg. probably trying to strong-arm a significant refund and cost reduction, or setting up the paper trail needed to begin litigation over breach of contract).

> doesn't absolve them of the fact that they underdelivered on a 8-9 figure deal by 66% over 7 years

I mean, it almost might. The problem isn't the underdelivery. It's Musk's loss of credibility. When he says it's about battery production, it might be about battery production, or it might be that he randomly changed the design at the last minute.

That's a good point, but leaking this tidbit to Reuters seems like a nuclear option (like Tesla's customer retention program failed and PepsiCo is trying to break out of the contract now).

Like I've had customers pissed off about missed deadlines, but they didn't leak or churn because we tried to keep them happy.

As is usually the case with these things, I think the key to reading them is buried at the end of the article:

> PepsiCo investor Green Century Capital Management has reservations about the company's time table for rolling out the Semis. > > "The fact they're running behind schedule is concerning," said Andrea Ranger, a shareholder advocate at Green Century. The investment firm has followed PepsiCo's use of electric vehicles and is pushing the company to consider its impacts on biodiversity at its annual meeting in May.

Green Century (as its name implies) has a "three-pronged approach combines a fossil fuel free sustainable investing strategy with award-winning shareholder advocacy and support of environmental nonprofits to deliver impact in a way other mutual fund families can't" (quote is from their homepage). My guess is that Green Century are the ones feeling the heat here -- they need to have their fund's emmission figures come out right yesterday, and Pepsi can't make them right unless they get their EV fleet, whether via Tesla or someone else.

If you read between the lines, you'll notice that no one at PepsiCo says anything bad about Tesla per se, only that they're committed to deploying more EVs and a bunch of other green systems. The rest of the article is other supply & logistics companies pointing out that they're having good results with trucks from other manufacturers and/or that they're also unhappy with Tesla's timeline, then someone from GC saying they don't think Tesla can hit their schedule. With the review coming up in May ("the investment firm has followed PepsiCo's use of electric vehicles and is pushing the company to consider its impacts on biodiversity at its annual meeting in May.") this is probably GC trying to convince Pepsi to stop waiting for the bloody Teslas and just get whatever EVs will get their fleet going this year.

But their consumer sales have collapsed, the market has more competitors than ever, and the second hand market is flooded with cheap model 3's.

Isn't that a good thing that the market is flooded with cheap model 3's?

That's the goal isn't it? Cheaper EVs for everyone to replace ICE cars?

I keep hearing about competitors, but I never see any of their EVs, new or used. I see Teslas everywhere.

And cheap model 3's may "hurt" Tesla, but it hurts every other EV maker too. Good for the consumer though.

> I keep hearing about competitors, but I never see any of their EVs, new or used. I see Teslas everywhere.

Around these parts, we see a lot of non-Tesla electrics. Many of them are not obvious at all, until you realize that an SUV has a Clean Pass sticker, and no tailpipes.

But there are also many 3s and Ys. I think, for a time, Tesla was the biggest-selling brand in the US.

Was that accounting for rental deals?

Probably. I just read it, somewhere. Didn't really give it much thought.

There are plenty of other cars, but most of them look a lot like normal cars so maybe you don't notice them.

Statistics for the EU, EV sales in January 2024: https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/general-i...

You can thank tariffs on China for that. In China, Tesla is beat out by higher quality, cheaper competition.

Yes Chinese EVs are Tesla's only real competitor, I don't dispute that.

But what's the excuse for the other American EV companies?

Ford lost money because they went all in too fast for how late they were to the game.

And frankly it seems to be greed. They have proven hybrid and PHEV tech yet deny the US market the hybrid ranger, 'because US buyers can get the maverick'.

Except... they don't make enough of those either.

If you have been in this space you know that nearly every software project is late, reduced, different and the customer never cancels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com