With all those people who have "range anxiety" and thus avoid buying EV's, this is going to do a good job of selling more Teslas...
I don't care about Musk's politics (everyone has skeletons in their closet, so idgaf) but I don't have confidence as a customer anymore now that Tesla has truly become erratic recently.
The only reason I even seriously considered a Tesla is the supercharger network.
I don't want to have a Daewoo Motors 2.0 on my hands.
I think it's a faux moi thing to say you don't want to support Tesla because you were disenfranchised with them because of them laying off the super charger team - that hardly seems like a major enough reason for someone to dislike a car company unless theres a personal connection to that team.
To me OP comment sounds like they are using that reason but they really don't like Musk. Just be honest about your position.
Why? They already have the largest network in the industry. And whatever the news says, they not gone fire everybody involved and stop making more superchargers.
The entire supercharger division was laid off [0], from the head of the BU (Rebecca Tinucci) to all the ICs.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-d...
I have serious question about what 'entire' means here. This is almost certainty a reorganization and not everybody is gone. Manufacturing and maintenance is certainty gone continue.
Musk then said:
> Musk subsequently said on X that the carmaker still plans to expand the Supercharger network, "just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations."
The reality is, Tesla Superchargers are still far more reliable then the competitors (at least in the US). And its unlikely that these firing will change that balance anytime soon.
I'm not saying you should buy a Tesla, but this reason doesn't really add up to me.
There is literally 0% chance that literally everybody related to Superchargers was fired. There is 0% chance that the whole maintenance organization was fired.
The sources that are suggest here its comments from fired employees, and those kinds of comments can very much lead exacerbation.
This isn't the first time we got reports that 'every XY' was fired and it turned out to not actually be true in various ways.
The only sources we have say they fired the entire division. Sure, we can wait for the dust to settle before conclusively saying what happened but "literally 0% chance" is objectively wrong.
Tesla had a large layoff several weeks ago. Some execs pushed back, requested waivers or flat out refused to comply. Elon says: can't give me 20%? How about 100%.
This is all about sending a message to executive staff about who is in control. Not about the business unit, not about performance.
> The Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford could not lower consumer prices and raise employee salaries.
> ...Russell C. Ostrander argued that the profits to the stockholders should be the primary concern for the company directors. Because this company was in business for profit, Ford could not turn it into a charity.
Depends on the reasons for it. If their performance is low why not lay them off?
Why is this obvious?
It seem obvious to me that the Twitter acquisition made Tesla as a whole lose priority to some extent.
The Immediate effect is likely going to be that the prices are going to be readjusted to make sure the network makes money for the owners without Tesla funneling investment capital(they likely cant raise anymore) into the network.