Tesla is committing automotive suicide
electrek.co
electrek.co
Then I learned that Musk's incentive pay has a 10 million full self-driving subscription hurdle, and it all made sense.
The technology for such a low end car is impressive. In addition to adaptive cruise control and lane keeping, the display shows the speed limit not by consulting a map but by reading the signs as you drive down the street. They call it RSA, Road Sign Assist. It also uses the camera and radar to alert when there are potential hazards (closing too quicky on the car in front, and lane changing into someone in the blind spot).
All that in a $23K car, built into that base price.
Seems like Toyota is about to make a big Lexus pivot in the next year or two.
But in all seriousness, I'll give props to Honda, Toyota, and Mazda for amazing engineering cultures. In the sense of being extremely good at optimizing trade-offs.
Had a Kia loaner a few years back that to my surprise tried to actively kill me by repeatedly steering into oncoming traffic on a provincial road. I really prefer steering myself to last-second correcting a temperamental computer.
Yep, I agree.
I used to travel to my parent's home 300km away once a month, and changing from a 2010 no-assist car to a Tesla Model 3 with AP (not FSD) back in 2019 was a game changer. I used to drive there on a Friday evening after work, and I basically collapsed into bed when I got there. With AP I was still tired of course, but also still functioning and way more alert. In my experience Tesla's AP UX is very good: chime when engaging, chime when disengaging, you don't need to look at the screen to know the state you're in, and if you touch controls it lets you know (via chime) and deactivates.
One of the most horrible UXes for me has been on a new Hyundai i10 with the basic lane assist (and I know it's very similar on a new VW Golf that my cousin is leasing):
- there's no chimes, you're forced to look at the screen at the center of the dashboard
- said display is 100x400 (or sth similar) 16-color pixel screen in the center of the dashboard
- out of said display, you need to look in the very corner for an icon of 10x10 pixels that can be yellow, green or white (which under low backlight/high contrast conditions can be tough to decipher)
- lane-keep is on by default at every car start, and tends to butt in on twisty roads (very common where I live), so half-way through a turn you'll feel the steering wheel literally lose force-feedback, while you're still applying force, and swearing ensues
- someone thought that constantly reminding people of the speed limits was a good idea, so the car will scream incessantly at you for being 50.1 over 50
- but will happily let you change lanes and re-engage auto-steer automatically (you need to manually enable this) while doing 120km/h on the highway without any hint that it's re-engaging automatically
- the speed warning is yet another setting that you can turn off at runtime, but you can't persist properly
- auto-steer, after is manually engaged, will stay happily engaged even after you leave they highway and are at very low speeds, and will try to correct you when doing roundabouts
I think the Tesla UX is way better there, and I think regulatory bodies should start preventing things like the i10 assist to be sold to customers, because they're actively dangerous. I've literally had minor heart attacks due to the lane-keep butting in on twisty roads - I thought the front tires were slipping for some reason.
There's too many random dumb features. (Hyundai/Kia's coffee break notification?)
If electric cars are actually simpler like all of these experts keep telling us, then in the next 3-5 years, we'll know which models are living up to expectations and which ones are not aging as gracefully.
The other thing to consider is the "old" batteries. If I can buy a used Nissan Leaf and harvest the batteries for a home-storage project after the frame kicks the can due to rust or some other problem, then I'm essentially able to keep those batteries as a form of equity on the vehicle. We also will see new companies popping up to address these home-battery conversion projects with plug and play harnesses to drop in your car batteries after the vehicle is no longer worthy of use on the road.
Sure, batteries will also continue to come down in price across the board, so that calculation also needs to be considered, but we're in this interesting middle zone where a lot of used EV value is being left on the table because the business market hasn't quite kept up with the demand for the next step in the lifecycle of modern EVs.
Toyota offers a 10-year warranty on new cars, which would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
You can't update the infotainment, but the engine controls have remained modular because it's simply too hard to convince people to buy truly unrepairable cars. Tesla did it, and once people realized that gently tapping a Model 3 was likely to total it resale values plummeted.
2006 Tacoma's are selling for like $5k less than their original MSRP!
In the past, when traveling, I'd be shocked at just how bare the rental cars were compared to my normal home experience. Fortunately that's no longer the case.
CarPlay was trivial to pair up. Screen resolution was meh, but otherwise it Just Worked(tm).
Adaptive cruise was trivial to turn on and read the indicators for.
Lane keep assist was also overtly obvious - both if it was on, and how to turn it on/off.
The A/C controls were nice easily understood knobs and buttons.
Blindspot detection was standard, worked great.
Overall just a very intuitive vehicle.
Step 1: > discontinu[e] the basic lane keep + adaptive speed cruise control
Step 2: Redefine "Full Self-Driving" to be those things. Charge 50 cents per month subscription or whatever.
Step 3: Get 10 million subscribers.
Step 4: 100 billion dollar payout! (Number pulled out of my butt)
Step 1: SpaceX IPO
Step 2: Trillion dollar payout
Step 3: Nothing matters any more
To credibly harness off-world resources at any scale, there are going to need to be automated refueling depots and many kinds of robotic automation for resource extraction. With the Asteroid Belt looking amazing for quantity and accessibility of resources.
That would also completely remove the lid on how many $ trillions of market cap SpaceX could accrue.
So I find it ironic that Tesla is moving away from cars as product, and still talking up humanoid robots, which as yet are not a product, and as research don't seem to have an edge on anyone.
ALSO: Data centers on the moon make more sense than data centers in orbit. Obviously where latency isn't king, but compute is. Simple cooling sinks, dense (low local latency) expansion, dense (efficient) maintenance, etc.
Watch out universe, here we come!
What could possibly go wrong, mining asteroids? An awful lot, when we start messing with orbital dynamics in the asteroid belt.
But Space X can externalise those risks. It will probably be centuries before disturbed orbits start to threaten Earth... So who cares?
Me.
Asteroid resources would be useful for building in space, but that is getting a step ahead.
Everyone is laboring under this subtle belief that space industry will be just like scifi speculated, but scifi stories always treated space like the ocean, with lots of interplanetary trade and easy travel and no consideration of energy (because it makes for good storytelling) but the actual energy budgeting and consideration of gravity wells is the exact opposite of ocean transport.
Global trade works at all because buoyancy and fluid physics make ocean vessels stupidly efficient at transport.
Moving any matter through space is stupidly inefficient.
The tyranny of the rocket equation constrains everything.
What? You're in a huge vacuum thermos
> Simple cooling sinks, dense
I'll also mention that the moon isn't very cold, except on the dark side. In the moon's day the temperature is 120C and at night -130C. The same side of the moon always faces us and the moon isn't always full. I'll let you figure out the rest.
Also you need to consider that the thermal conductivity of lunar regolith is quite low.
I'm not saying it's not possible but I am saying there's a lot of technical challenges that make naïve approaches not so simple. The reason doing things in space is hard is not just the difficulty of getting things up into space. It's that all the things you take for granted just don't work.
Oversimplification is a footgun. Or more accurately, in this case a foot taser (if you know why you've found one of the major challenges of doing anything on the moon and mars)
Basic physics: The moon is very cold in surface shadows and below the surface. It is an enormous pre-chilled heat sink.
The surface is also the support structure for any scale of radiative cooling with the same heat physics as orbit, but much better for larger and enhanced radiative engineering.
For example, heat pumps can centralize waste heat energy. Higher heat density vastly increases radiative efficiency.
• Permanent shadow: 40-60 ˚K, -230 to 210 ˚C
• In polar shadow: 25-30 ˚K, -250 to -245 ˚C
• Under 1 meter of surface, equatorial: 250 ˚K, -23 ˚C
• Under 1 meter of surface, polar: 200-220 ˚K, -75 to -50 ˚C
Many advantages beyond unlimited heat sink/radiative area: all compute in one place, i.e no size limit, so low inter-center latencies, no orbit safety negotiations or periodic orbit re-lifts required, able to update entire data center in a single trip, easier maintenance and stability in gravity on a surface, solar panels can be distributed over distance limiting total space debris risk, different component lifetimes don't result in wasted components, ...
Only downsides are a higher Earth-Datacenter latency, lunar dust resistant design, and a need to be at a pole for all-month solar power.
Nuclear power, or nuclear + solar, would allow any site.
Note that shade can be created anywhere on the surface via reflective shielding, and power can be used to heat, in order to stabilize temperatures in a desired band. Buried installations can use insulation for even greater temperature control.
Of the moon and orbital, orbit is much closer and will be cheaper to start with.
But a lunar site would scale to much greater mean density and unlimited total capacities. And be much cheaper for reasons I gave, at some threshold scale.
Neither is easy, and it’s not at all clear that either is actually better than down here. Especially with nuclear efforts and funding rising quickly.
In a vacuum, radiative heat loss per time hyper scales with temperature to the 4th power.
In orbit large and complex heat transfer systems are not going to be practical. On a surface, specialized heat pumps can localize heat energy to very high intensity. With critical reliability advantages of stability, vibration control, complete sun shading, weaker size constraints, etc.
That is a tremendous advantage that will overwhelm most other details and tradeoffs, because the two main constraints, and operating costs, are energy production and heat dispersion. The latter imposing a limit on the former.
(You have no knowledge of how effectively I use my time. If you have a valid point, make it, instead of - whatever you are doing. Claiming you know things without sharing your reasoning and aspersive language are for the posers. Just communicate why you think, what you think.)
> In a vacuum, radiative heat loss per time hyper scales with temperature to the 4th power.
This is how I know you don't understand the math. Because you didn't take the time to understand it. Plug in dummy numbers. I'll make it easy, 100^4=1e8.
You didn't think about how T works and the domain we're operating in. T's power isn't a huge factor when we're trying to dump lower levels of heat.
Let's say we're trying to discharge our power draw of 300W at 100C, that's still going to take a 0.5m^2 black body radiator sitting in perfect darkness PER CPU!!! A data center has hundreds of thousands!
You realize how much fucking surface area that is?
And this is before we consider all the other heat generated from the datacenter and the fact that you're dumping heat back to the moon's surface which will radiate it right back at your radiator making it much less efficient. Add the sun and you're fucked.
> You have no knowledge of how effectively I use my time.
You know how I know this stuff? It's because I've put things into space. Yet you were even too arrogant to check NASA's website
Technically true, but not really. "Radiative cooling" is heat loss through thermal radiation and it's really ineffective. We use air cooling / water cooling for a reason.
Satellites and spacecraft are engineered to make sure they can shed enough heat and they use a fraction of the power a datacenter would. All that energy eventually gets turned into heat, and it has to go somewhere.
It's a ridiculous idea that's never going to make even a tiny bit of economic sense.
Yeah the only downsides are those you listed, and about 1000 others.
Anybody that is serious about data centers on the moon should have their brain examined.
While they absolutely do have huge problems at current costs, and I don't trust Musk's estimates for future costs.
It's not implausible that collectively humanity (well, China: it's not like the ESA appears to value cheap launches yet) is going to get launch costs down a lot further, something that makes the question of "how cheap is cheap enough?" worth asking.
Then you can take a look at the existing constellations and their combined power throughput, look at whatever fraction of that power budget is not radiated by RF/laser output for comms, and trivially that's the power budget with minimal redesign for compute.
IMO all of space is still not good enough to be worth caring about: the moon is about twice the difficulty of LEO, and LEO now getting to the point that we're seriously asking about Kessler cascades; but also in space the waste heat is currently only a problem with no currently-useful side-effects, whereas down here on Earth we have possibilities for using the waste heat as an industrial input, e.g. using DCs as the heat source for district heating, or combining with ocean water to become evaporative desalination (which is otherwise pointlessly energy-intensive).
That, and the arguments about space-based power is as yet still marginal given how hostile an environment space itself is to PV. And PV on the moon doesn't even get the advantages (launch cost or ~24h light) of PV in a sun-synchronous orbit around Earth.*
But it's close enough to not be insane to do a real engineering analysis. Even if the answer turns out to still be 10x more expensive than the ground, which is what I'm expecting it to be.
* Side note: for a while I've noticed that China has production and money to afford to build a global power grid on Earth with 1 Ω resistance the long way around. This would allow 24h PV everywhere from deserts on the other side of the world including across seasons. Less material would be required to do this on the Moon because it's smaller, and also you don't really need to go across the equator so it can be much shorter, but also this would need someone to put an aluminium plant onto the moon that has negligible consumables and IIRC we don't have one of those yet.
Still, if moon-base design were up to me, I'd suggest sending up 1000 km of HVDC cable on some early missions and put a ring around one of the poles, with some PV every 60° or so.
This is still not a sensible design for moon-based compute.
Even if you assume launch cost = zero its most expensive and less practical.
And the moon is even worse. Still you can assume launch cost = zero. But energy is one part, to actually reliably land on the moon with your whole infrastructure. Connecting all that infrastucture up with power and everything else.
Your basically doing a gigantic civil engineering project all with only roboitcs, while we can't even do a civil engineering project on earths with only robots.
And if your going moon, nuclear is clearly the better option then solar towers. And if you go nuclear anyway, just do it on earth.
The other stuff… well, I think it's worth the analysis, even when the answer ends up not just "no", but "hell no!".
Analysis is much cheaper than actually going to space, after all.
Look, I'd love to do more things in space, but we'll never be able to do them if we lie our way and aren't realistic at the costs, and benefits. It just creates strawmen that are trivial to tear down. The armchair experts aren't helping, they're hurting.
> Even if the answer turns out to still be 10x more expensive than the ground
Using Musk's optimistic numbers, to put things into LEO, it is >$1k/kg for single reuse, ~$100/kg with ~5 reuses, and <$50/kg with like 50 reuses. That's to LEO. Moon is way more expensive.
> I'd suggest sending up 1000 km of HVDC cable
I'll let you do the math on that one, because that stuff is not light weight... We're talking several kg/m minimum... Then consider payload...
You're being pretty cavalier about all the hard things... You can't just hand wave away these details because these "details" are just a fraction of what makes all of this so difficult.
> I'll let you do the math on that one, because that stuff is not light weight... We're talking several kg/m minimum... Then consider payload...
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28%28resistivity+of...
If you're not willing to have 8 starship landings for power infrastructure, why even bother? Even with 8 landings and a magic power system, it would only be on the scale of one of the smaller Antarctic research bases.
(100 Ω is completely arbitrary, FWIW. It's a dry vacuum, so bare metal just lying on the surface could run at 1MV. Above 1.044 MV, you actually need to care about random photo-ionised electrons turning into a cascade of positron-electron pair creation events for at least part of the line, but do also consider that this is the potential at opposite ends of a loop rather than vs. ground).
> You're being pretty cavalier about all the hard things... You can't just hand wave away these details because these "details" are just a fraction of what makes all of this so difficult.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm absolutely not saying "this would be easy" (nothing in space is), I'm saying "this is what my sales pitch would be".
Consider this as what I think is the MVP of being serious about the moon, that anything less than this scale is just rah-rah flag-waving.
As an aside, I prefer the moon to mars as a "first attempt" target for this kind of thing, precisely because I expect all kinds of disasters. Toy example: Accident, hardware failure, or meteorite impact that kills the water supply? Dehydration would kill you in 3 days. Emergency return from the moon (or resupplying the moon from Earth) is fast enough to solve that; but if it happens during all but the most survivable 0.4% of a Mars mission, everyone dies.
> If you're not willing to have 8 starship landings
You used LEO payload... Their GSO payload is 21tons[0] and the moon is a lot further than GEO. If you use the GSO numbers you get about 37 launches. But TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) is probably closer to 15% LEO payload capacity[0], if we estimate off of Atlas V, so let's say about 50.
Not 8, 50. You're off by 5x-10x.
> I think you misunderstood me.
I also think you should take a step back here and think about what you're saying. Look at your number of lander estimates here and how far off you are by a simple naive assumption. I get why you made that assumption and I understand why the error was made, but also these are not the kinds of mistakes people make when they have expertise in the domain. I knew it was more than 8 before even running any numbers, I knew it was more than a few dozen. But I also know people frequently make the claim that getting to LEO is the hardest part and that this warps people's perceptions and makes for bad assumptions. You have passion and I don't want to kill that passion, but if you are this passionate then use that passion to drive you into diving deeper into the topic. Don't be satisfied with shallow knowledge, your passion is greater than that.
So I want to address the full
> If you're not willing to have 8 starship landings for power infrastructure, why even bother?
> I'm absolutely not saying "this would be easy" (nothing in space is), I'm saying "this is what my sales pitch would be".
Because I don't think you're suggesting it would be easy, if you did I would have laughed in your face. But I think you've underestimated how hard it is, even though I think you think it is really hard. There's no limit to how difficult something can get so it becomes easy to underestimate the difficulty. This is just like it is easier to make bad estimates of distance when looking at something very far away, it is easy to think something is 5 miles away when it is 10. This doesn't make one dumb, but rather that we need to more accurately be aware of our level of uncertainty. And in this case, it is pretty high. Why wouldn't it be? There's literally no expectation for it to be unless you're an aerospace engineer working on lunar systems.
[0] https://web.mit.edu/2.70/Reading%20Materials/SpaceX%20%20Sta...
[1] The Wiki says 100k but with in-orbit refueling and there's even a note about needing a better source. So that doesn't really count for our estimates. Saturn V and SLS has a bit better, hence the range in the next line. But also remember Saturn and SLS don't have to do returns... You'll find this helpful: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49117.0
Yes, absolutely this. I'm not even coming at it from the side of the conversation you're arguing here.
Again, I don't actually believe Musk, and all the stuff I'm saying absolutely should *not* be treated as a complete ready-to-go mission plan; it's nowhere near that detailed, and I know it.
None of this was intended to be a "he can do it!" cheerleader, because I don't believe Musk can even get close, I'm saying "As a less bad alternative to him talking about a million people on mars by 2100…" or perhaps "As a less bad alternative to waxing lyrical about something that would be within spitting distance of fundamental thermodynamic constraints even if we start by assuming we've tiled the entire surface of the Moon with theoretically perfect PV" (which is ball-park what I get for his 1000 TW/year number).
What I suggested was only "what I'd be talking about if I had what he's promising", not what I think Musk can actually deliver. Even where Musk has beaten incumbents, it's by being less bad at price-timeline estimates rather than actually good at them.
Also:
> Look, I don't want to call you dumb, I actually think you're pretty smart.
Thanks, but do feel free to call me an idiot on this. I mean it: it took what I now regard to be an embarrassingly long time before I became skeptical of Musk's claims.
And I am not, and do not claim to be, even a junior level experience in space. Well, except for processing data from earth observation satellites, where I can claim *exactly* junior level experience and no more than that.
> You used LEO payload.
As per your own references, landings, not launches. Yes, this may be over-optimistic, but hopefully I'm saying often enough in this comment that I don't take Musk seriously any more.
I absolutely agree SpaceX have not demonstrated what they need to demonstrate to actually pull off the orbital refuelling plan, but (and as per your [1]) the target payload *if* they could was still 100 tons last I checked… well, assuming Musk doesn't randomly change everything again, which at this point I expect him to do instead of delivering any of this.
I'd like to not be skeptical of Musk, but, well, he's repeatedly demonstrated reason to be skeptical of every claim he makes in every field, and unfortunately SpaceX is merely his least-wrong domain rather than one where he's close to correct.
Still, steel-man and all that. Given what he's saying he plans to do, what would I do with that? Not Mars, not space data centres.
> Because 100 launches is a non-starter.
I don't expect Musk to actually succeed with his prices, but *hypothetically* if he did, the target price per launch is order-of $10M (and if that target price sounds stupid, I'm more inclined to believe anyone on this forum dissenting than Musk's own claims on this), *if* then it would be lower than a Falcon 9's current price to launch. Again, I don't believe him, Cybertruck's launch spec was higher price for worse everything than he initially announced and that was something he should've been able to estimate better.
As someone who cares about the environment, I am not too happy about even the current rate of launches given the apparent lack of any of those Sabatier machines he kept saying would let them do ISRU for return trips from Mars. So I also kinda want him to fail here.
But if, *if* I was taking those numbers seriously, if I was worth a few hundred billion and wanted to demonstrate serious commitment to building up off-Earth infrastructure, *then*.
Sure, an asteroid theoretically has eighty quadrillion dollars of whatever, but you're going to spend ninety bajillion getting anything there and back, plus you'd ...well, crater the market even if you did.
We're not hurting for heat sinks. There's the entire ocean to work with, for one.
Something tells me that Musk isn't the sort of person who'd ever be satisfied. It's easier for me to imagine him like Mr. House from Fallout, trying to control everything over centuries.
For example, NASA has evaluated SpaceX financial status as part of awarding COTS and HLS contracts and determined it reasonable. Also, SpaceX isn’t getting a significant fraction of the costs of Starship development from the HLS contract.
Step 6: Count sales of Transformer toy Optimus Prime units towards "Sell 1 million Optimus robots"
etc.
I'll let you find the video, it's brutal. Allegedly caused by lane assist activating out of the blue when overtaking other cars.
Unfortunately, today in Romanian news:
Google translated link:
https://hotnews-ro.translate.goog/cocaina-cannabis-si-alcool...
Original link:
https://hotnews.ro/cocaina-cannabis-si-alcool-in-sangele-sof...
Informative title:
Cocaine, cannabis and alcohol in the blood of the driver of the minibus with Greek supporters involved in the accident in Timiș, prosecutors announce
Lol part:
The hypothesis was rejected by the company that rented the minibus. The company's lawyer stated to the Greek publication naftemporiki.gr that the rented vehicle did not have the lane assist system.
This Daily Mail article¹ has it. It.. doesn't look brutal to me?
Just looks like the minibus driver, who was driving on the median, veered across it into the oncoming lane to crash with the semi.
He wasn't in a lane to begin with.
> Allegedly caused by lane assist activating out of the blue
Yeah dawg, imma need a second opinion on this.
This is alleged by the survivors of the crush.
Which is weird, because the passengers wouldn't know about what happened in the split-second that resulted in the crash.
Particularly, the passengers wouldn't know about whether lane assist interfered.
And the driver, who would, also happened to be drunk and high AF on cannabis, cocaine, and yet-to-be-identified stuff found in the vehicle at the moment of accident⁴.
Methinks, these allegations might be a lil' biased.
* * *
EDIT: the other comment revealed the news that the vehicle did not have a lane assist feature.
Such surprise.
_____
¹ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-15503545/...
² https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-15503545/...
³ https://www.romaniajournal.ro/society-people/law-crime/new-u...
⁴ https://agerpres.ro/english/2026/01/29/toxicology-tests-reve...
> I don't think
Could've stopped there. Ditto for reading.
The Daily Mail really isn't a reputable news source.
You don't have to read the rest of the article.
What? Basic lane keep and adaptive cruise control have been around a lot longer than Tesla.
Mercedes introduced ACC in 1999 (though Mitsubishi had an accelerator-only - could apply or ease off accelerator but not actively brake - in 1995).
Lane keeping was introduced again by Mitsubishi in the early 90s, though it was more 'lane departure warning'. But by 2000 Mercedes was offering it in some trucks and by 2003 Honda had it widely available in the Inspire with active lane keeping.
LKA existed well before Tesla HW1 released. Honda had cars on the road in 2003 with LKA systems. That's 11 years before Tesla HW1 was available.
800k paid subs in q4/2024, about the same in q1/2025, 900k in q2/2025, 1 million in q3/25, and 1.1 million in q4/2025.
Let's call that 100k growth per quarter in 2025, and currently at 1.1 million subs. They'll have to significantly increase their growth rate. The interesting modeling point is tesla car sales are dropping, down 9% to 1.6 million last year. All their new vehicles are capable of fsd with subscription, but thats only about 1.5 million a year (and likely to keep shrinking).
I think the only way they get good uptake is to make the price cheap, like $1 a month, with 12 free months but you have to give your credit card (ie fees that people don't notice scam like every streaming company). Even if every new buyer gets it, it would take many years at 1.5 million sales a year. Need 8.9 million more subscribers, 8.9/1.5 sales = ~6 years at 100% uptake. There are about 9 million current owners, but I'd guess at least 50% can't run current FSD code - they are on version 4.5 of their hardware (they recently released 4.5 in some new cars, and they have a major upgrade to v5 coming in a year or two).
There's no harm if they don't get to 10 million, because Musk shouldn't have that really large stock payoff as he's killing the company.
[Citation needed] Cars had adaptive cruise control and lane keeping well before Tesla showed up.
As for the feature itself, we have a camper van on a 2024 Ram chassis. It’s a work truck at its core, with fancy RV bits added on. And it has ACC/lane keeping. It claims it will even park itself, though I’ve not tried.
So Tesla is now charging for features that your roofer got for free with her work van. Such luxury.
It was 2006 that adaptive cruise control systems that could work in stop and go traffic came out.
It's paywalled unfortunately, but [1] is an illustrative Financial Times article discussing car manufacturer behavior in relation to Covid shutdowns and strikes. Many firms found the manufacturing shutdowns to be a boon: the winning strategy to accept it as a cost cut and just raise prices on existing inventory for above average financial performance.
My sense is that Tesla is now just taking that a step further by getting rid of their Fordist aspirations and applying the unarguably successful Apple model to the automotive industry. They don't want to mass produce cars and hope for X% conversion rate to software and services over time: they literally don't want customers who are not able or not going to pay for recurring software services. Software is where free cash flow comes from and free cash flow is where dividends/buybacks come from, which determines the value of an equity. That, of course, is why we get paid well.
I end with the disclaimer that obviously I don't believe the world should be meticulously and exclusively organized for the production of free cash flow, but I do think it's important to understand the logic.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/4da6406a-c888-49c1-b07f-daa6b9797...
Wow that is diabolical and such a scam. I didn’t realize he was gaming the incentives this way. Is that what happened with that previous $54 billion package too?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
Realistically, he should have put someone else in charge after the launch of the Model 3 to develop the company further, but I don't think his ego allows it.
SpaceX in Merger Talks with xAI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46814701 - January 2026
It's just that the company has stalled every major project they started, and, so far, completed a rather shitty an uninspiring one in Vegas that has no reason to exist in the first place (it's subway but with Teslas instead of trains).
Its only purpose is to prevent the money from being spent on viable public transportation projects, and in that sense, it's very interesting that it got so far.
I assume you got a cut of the $23bn my state took with the promise of a high-speed rail, which afaik is the only "viable(?!)" transportation project that could have been affected by this, or you just hate subways/subterranean transportation progress?
If it had been possible to speed up and reduce the cost of tunneling, the thing that would most make sense is running regular trains through them. But they never had any real ideas to actually make it cheaper or faster (apart for making it too small for proper emergency egress), just the idea that SV tech guys would be able to find a way to do it.
The idea of trying to solve the hard infrastructure problem of digging first also seems like a great idea. Build the aqueduct before you build the millions of houses and farms, and even let anyone do that part.
It's still premature to say that they haven't revolutionized the field, people around the world are still digging tunnels so there's still a market. It wouldn't be the first time an already highly mature field got revolutionized, I still don't get why you're so anti-tunnel.
This isn't a case against tunnels, this is a case against The Boring Company.
The tunnels aren't a great idea apriori. Good luck pitching the tunnels idea in Venice.
The tunnels may be a good or a bad idea depending on many variables, and the tunnels that the Boring Company has actually built are worthless.
As for the tunneling equipment: selling those machines isn't their core business, and there's no evidence these machines have, or may in the feasible future, do anything revolutionary in the tunnel industry (i.e., built radically better, radically cheaper, or radically faster).
The idea of having such machines is good. They don't have such machines.
> It's still premature to say that they haven't revolutionized the field
It's never premature to say that. Read what you wrote.
You can say a field has been revolutionized once a revolution takes place.
It's hasn't.
The impact of the Boring company on the way tunnels are dug is, very sharply, zero.
Is it possible that they will? Sure. It's also possible that Britney Spears will. She still has the time, it's premature to say she wouldn't do it, right?
The amount of goods that need to be transported to stores and such things isn't that big. And using literally free unused roads at night or early in the morning is just a great deal.
For individual transport last mile is regularly being done by cargo bike or small electric truck just fine.
But you are right, tunnels do make sense for some things. Like transporting garbage underground. Or transporting heat underground for district heating, or district cooling. Both would be better investments then trying to move logistics under-ground.
There is a reason, no serious attempt anywhere in the world is trying to move logistics under-ground. There are just so, so many better ways to invest in the city. Its literally not even in the Top 100 most needed things.
Specially in the US where the road network is so hilariously overbuilt that it could serve 10x the amount of people on the same area if public transport was just taken minimally serious. And in the US, underground cargo transport isn't even in the Top 1000 things a city should consider spending money on.
There’s only so much gridlock you can avoid without going above or below grade. I was shocked when I moved to Seattle and they had no subway system. It was made even worse by being crammed up against a tall hill with a ridiculously deep lake behind it. They are finally changing it now but I’d spent time in Tokyo before, and time in London and Paris shortly after and it was a real head scratcher. One bus tunnel helped, as was evidenced when they shut it down for a couple years, but cmon.
As well as all the impediments to the glorious vision of the parent commenter's "tunnels everywhere" as a panacea.
But trying to reinvent transportation was stupid.
It's not stupid, it's weaponized incompetence to divert funding from actual transportation infrastructure to their non-solutions which are all about the company owner's biggest money-making product (cars).
Their second customer is the Federal government and SpaceX has a monopoly on cheap reliable fast launch services that will overcome most politics. Even EU companies and Amazon and OneWeb have been forced to use them because there is no better option.
Ford invested heavily in an in-house, highly optimized production pathway for the Model T. Other manufacturers sourced a lot of their parts from vendors.
This gave the Model T a great advantage at first, but they had a lot more trouble than competitors in coming up with new models. Ford ended up converging with the rest of the industry in sourcing more of their parts externally.
The lack of new Tesla models makes me feel like a similar pivot is what Tesla needs. My suspicion is that they probably need a less terminally distracted Musk to pull it off.
Ford wouldn’t have known about The Innovator’s Dilemma and possibly not about Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Deming had to go to Japan to get his ideas taken seriously and it nearly bankrupted American manufacturing that they wouldn’t listen to him.
The lack of new models from updates I believe comes from the fact the CEO is busy elsewhere and the board is reluctant to address that. They have made the P/E so high that they can only continue to function in one direction, do just enough to bring in more outside investment.
I'd read somewhere that it was mainly because Henry Ford was dogmatic that the Model T was perfect, all the car anyone would ever need forever.
(+) Except for the battery, but that's a very long term battle with very tiny steps.
Controls as simple as the door handles are unintuitive, with the handle apparently being the emergency release that doesn't lower the window (for who knows why). You have to brief your passengers on egress like it's an airplane.
EVs might be a solved problem, but Tesla is still fighting their own additional layer of complexity that they added on top. The added subscription nonsense makes him look like a fool for having bought in, something I am definitely even more reluctant to do now that I've seen it play out.
I wouldn't dump millions into a custom GPS solution for that 1 time out of 1 million someone drives a car without a smartphone. Especially when that GPS system is guaranteed to be worse than Google maps and not as well supported.
If someone else drives your car they can connect their phone. Which is an improvement, because now they have THEIR music and navigation. See, it comes with personalization out of the box and automatically!
We don't need 1 million different applications that we have to try to integrate together. Just let me connect my messages, my GPS, my music player, even my calendar. Personally, I could give a rat's ass how fancy Tesla's interface is or GM's. It will always, always be second best to what's available on modern smartphones.
I use my car's GPS nav over my phone's because I don't notice being appreciably worse for navigating, but I do notice the ads on Google Maps being appreciably worse than the lack of ads on my car's nav system.
Also doing nav on my phone thrashes my phone battery.
Whether you like this or not, who cares? The pace of improvement in Tesla software compared to any other manufacturer is astonishing, and astonishingly good.
I have no love for the CEO, but my Model Y is a very interesting (and intuitive) car.
I caught a ride with a friend in a Tesla, and when we stopped I opened the door - like a human being operating a century-old piece of technology - and he looked at me like I was crazy, and told me not to do that.
Truly, a bonkers decision.
I didn't care, I still tested it out the day I picked up mine to see where the manual handle is and make sure it works, because just a couple days earlier two people had gotten trapped in a burning Tesla, were unable to figure out the mechanism, and died.
The battery progress is more an accidental discovery than research problem alone.
I don't think that is what is happening here. Instead, Tesla is continuing the strategy that brought them to this disaster of going all in on driverless. That isn't a bad strategy, but if they get the timing wrong a third time, they destroy the company and they have gotten the timing wrong on this twice already. This strategy has two downsides:
1. AI has no real moat and Tesla has largely pursued commodity sensors, meaning that other than EVs+battery tech (which Tesla appears abandoning), robotaxis have no hardware or software moat.
2. They could use network effects to win, in which case their competitors are not other car companies but Uber and Lyft. Uber has been pursuing the same long term strategy at Tesla.
Now by itself, going all in robotaxi, is risky but could work if they time it right. Tesla isn't going all in on robotaxi since they are splitting the effort between robotaxi and Optimus robots.
It is likely that the experience Tesla gets with Optimus robots will help other robotics companies, but unlike robotaxis where the timing might (but probably won't work), the timing is clearly isn't right for Optimus.
It seems like the motivation here is that Musk is aligning Tesla to a narrative that justify the absurd stock price, even if that narrative isn't reality.
Since Tesla stock has always been 90% based on the narrative, the narrative is the reality (and the product) of Tesla, and the actual machinery made and sold are just props and decorations to create the impression of it.
Maybe they should rebrand themselves as poTemkin: keep the T logo and the mysterious Slavic vibe, while shedding the pretense about what they're about.
Won't affect the stock anyway. Everyone knows the company is overvalued based on promises and perception alone.
Everyone's just betting on the charade going on one moment longer than their hold on the stock.
If you squint, the Cybertruck is shaped like a pyramid on wheels, which couldn't work any better as a visual metaphor for the enterprise.
Automotive industry versus tech industry.
What advantage do they have over CATL, BYD, and LG?
CATL batteries perform better: https://electrek.co/2026/01/06/catl-ev-batteries-significant...
CATL is rolling out sodium ion batteries: https://electrek.co/2026/01/23/ev-battery-leader-plans-first...
CATL, BYD, and LG are developing solid state batteries. Everyone is.
> It is likely that the experience Tesla gets with Optimus robots will help other robotics companies
Why? Other robotics companies have been doing it for longer. Is Optimus better than Atlas:
> Why? Other robotics companies have been doing it for longer. Is Optimus better than Atlas:
Atlas costs about half a million dollars, targeting a price tag of $160,000 once mass produced, and assumes the user will be able to do some maintenance.
Optimus is targeting a price tag of $30,000, but probably costs around $80,000 to produce. It is plastic, it is cheap, it doesn't work.
Atlas is better than Optimus but all measures. The advantage of Optimus so far has been, the mass production-->usage until failure-->improvement cycles that are already underway. Tesla is, as an extremely high cost, slipping on every single banana peel first and this is clearing a path for other companies to learn what doesn't work when you switch from functional over-engineered robot to barely functional robots that can be mass produced.
Telsa isn't alone in this space, but they investing a lot and trying to cut corners. So much of engineering is learning the corners you can cut and the corners that cause a battery fire after 8 weeks of use.
This is a very wrong way to tell the story.
Tesla + Panasonic were the first to commit to a massive factor car cells with very advanced chemistry. But this advantage didn't hold long as the model was soon copied.
And at that point, when that investment happened Tesla did actually not have 'a massive amount of capital'. And Panasonic also didn't, and even more so, Panasonic didn't want to go all in on batteries. As they were a company from Japan that still believed in the Hydrogen future.
By the time Tesla had serious capital, the other battery companies had long shot past Tesla+Panasonic and it wasn't even close.
Claiming that Panasonic and Tesla can win now is just silly and based on nothing.
Tesla was actually pretty clever on this and invested rather a large amount in their own battery supply chain. And they spun up a whole battery supply chain pretty quickly. But arguably they were a bit two ambitious. Musk really pushed the boundary with the cells, introducing or trying to introduce a lot of things that were hard to do and simply took time. They should have started more conservatively first and only tried to innovated once they could match the other companies on the standard process.
There was no chance for them to be a massive battery supplier to the outside, but making their own batteries for their own cars and getting better margin then all the other companies was well within the cards. And that by itself is a win.
But overall their battery strategy wasn't really the problem. They did a lot of good things there. And things that can pay off over time. The problem was to much investment in stuff other then batteries and their car models. The most important thing for them was to have growing volume every year. Work on manufacturing improvements and fight on margins.
But as you say, I agree the focus on driverless was a mistake.
I think people are frustrated because Musk has been pretty up front that Tesla only exists to further his goals for Mars and robots. He doesn’t actually care about selling cars.
Well he knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive on Earth, so he can't be replaced /s
(yes, he actually did say that)
Being first isn’t enough to establish a lead. You also have to be in competition, which means selling product.
They didn't, and this is just absurd.
Not only were electric cars available since the very beginning of cars, but they've always been available as niche options. There are tens of electric cars that postdate the EV1 and predate the Tesla. Do you even know their names?
We have stupidly cheap gas. An electric car has only ever been a curiosity for America. Even now, the primary driver of people buying electric cars is ideological, and a mild convenience of never having to go to a gas station.
Pre-lithium battery electric cars are a huge hassle, for very little gain, even outside the US. The history of cars is a global one, and no amount of conspiracy theory about GM can counter the fact that nobody else made electric cars either, even in places with drastically more expensive and unreliable gasoline.
They have always been a novelty, like hydrogen and LPG and compressed gas engines.
Hybrids were the closest anyone got to making older battery chemistries meaningful for car-style transportation, and even that was extremely limited.
Cheap gas, car culture and the incredibly long distances makes America a very different place from the urban centres of the Netherlands, China and Korea.
Brazil also pioneered flex engines that work with either alcohol and gasoline, and gasoline in Brazil is sold with high alcohol content
Tesla also cannot justify valuations based on automotive sales/subscriptions alone - they were always going to have to pivot.
They're in a tight spot and they need to do something drastic.
Their valuation was never justified by that. They always sold a fraction of what other companies do.
They were poised like Apple which sold relatively few iPhones in the first few years compared to the other companies, all of which are gone now. But Tesla squandered that advantage.
Any day now.
(It seems plausible, but all I’ve seen is speculation.)
"In the dormitories of the Jinjiang Group, the company hired by BYD to carry out the work, there were no mattresses on the beds, and the few toilets served hundreds of workers in extremely unhygienic conditions. The workers also had food stored without refrigeration.
The Brazilian Labor Prosecutor's Office (MTP) also accused the companies of withholding the workers' passports and keeping 60% of their wages; the remaining 40% would be paid in Chinese currency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Brazil_working_conditions_...
It's hard for any company to compete with that (I hope they don't).
Pretending BYD is winning because of Chinese labor practices alone or primarily is denial of their technological and operational prowess.
But BYD is on a whole different level with that stuff (e.g. human trafficking, suicides and the factory that collapsed and killed a bunch of people).
There's no way that being able to cut costs to that level doesn't help their bottom line.
But competing with BYD would mean becoming "just a car company". And that's what Tesla can't do. Too many promises have been made, the stock's been pumped too high, and there is no way a just-a-car company can justify that market cap. Their only way is to go for the moonshot now. Maybe once the moonshot fails, stock goes down to "normal", and Tesla can compete with BYD.
They won't prosper in China which has the biggest car market and better cars, that also happen to be cheaper. In the US, the second largest car market, they reduced their market in half. In Europe their sales are shrinking even as total EV sales increase. In India and Brazil, also in the top 6 largest car markets, their cars are too expensive so they sell a few *dozen* cars per year.
Even if they tried to be a car company with correct valuation they'd have nothing to offer to most of the market.
BYD is slapping every automaker around like a gorilla, and none can compete in a meaningful way.
Tarries mean they don’t have to. For now.
I ended up with the Tesla. It is hands down the better vehicle and I'd be very surprised if anybody seriously thought otherwise. There wasn't very much in it price wise so that wasn't a factor.
The BYD (Sealion 7) wasn't even a bad car. It's a good car. But it's inspired and just a little gaudy. It felt like a conventional SUV with an EV powertrain. The Tesla felt like the future.
In French we have the word "chinoiserie" which is used to describe objects with a certain aesthetic, reminiscent of Chinese art. It is used derogatively to mean something lacks taste even if it looks sophisticated at first sight.
- Waymo is generating less than 150m in 2025.
- Consumer robotics is an absolute unknown.
How can the transition be rationally justified? Let alone the valuation.
Nothing about this stock has ever been rational
That said, as much as I dislike Musk ( and I have bet money against him before ), his instincts are likely not wrong. And it does help that, clearly, he knows how to bs well.
I am not saying you are wrong, but I think he is just a poster child for everything wrong with current market ecosystem.
See 'reusable rockets' and 'having paralysed people control things with their minds' for other examples.
HN often seem to think there's Elon fans downmodding things but it seems more like a case of irrational hatred.
They could make the first working flying cars. They could work fantastically.
And maybe one they release them we find out… no one wants flying cars. They sell 500 a year despite only costing as much as a normal car.
Just because you can figure out how to do something doesn’t mean you’re going to make money at it.
I was using the classic idea of the flying car as an example of a thing that has been out of reach as an as a product for normal people and may not actually be successful if it were to really be sold.
Replace flying car with whatever example you want.
To put it in a different way, you could be so busy figuring out how to do it that you don’t figure out that a business case doesn’t actually exist.
I wasn’t trying to comment on any of Musk‘s other companies specifically. Only that we don’t know if making robots will actually make money.
> Where did I say that?
> > > Just because you can figure out how to do something doesn’t mean you’re going to make money at it.
I really was not trying to slam his other companies.
I think you’re reading too much into this. Making humanoid robots is not a guaranteed path to riches. That’s all I’m trying to say.
…oh wait. I can’t. Because for all his successes, Musk has also sowed quite a lot of bullshit that has gone precisely nowhere.
Not just watch a launch, but go to O'Hare to launch and go to Sydney in ~30min. In September 2017 they said we'd be flying Earth-to-Earth on a BFR last year.
When did SpaceX do Earth-to-Earth commercial travel service? How many people have ridden on a BFR?
And then I don't know if Musk is oversimplifying for a soundbite or more of his Dunning Kruger, but some of the descriptions seem to lack any knowledge of neurology. He describes a universal chip that will do different things and solve different issues depending on what part of the brain it's implanted in. That's not how it works at all.
But all those massive successes are SpaceX . . .
Take FSD but multiply the number of actuators and degrees of freedom by at least 10, more like 100. Add a third dimension. Add direct physical interaction with complex objects. Add pets and children. Add toys on the floor. Add random furniture with non-standard dimensions. Add exposure to dust, dirt, water, grease, and who knows what else? Puke? Bleach? Dog pee?
Oh, and remove designated roads and standardized rules about how you're supposed to drive on those roads. There are no standards. Every home is arranged differently. People behave differently. Kids are nuts. The cat will climb on it. The dog may attack it. The pet rabbit will chew on any exposed cords.
We've all seen those Boston Dynamics robots. They're awesome but how durable would they be in those conditions? Would they last for years with day to day constant abuse in an environment like that?
From a pure engineering point of view (neglecting the human factor or cost) a home helper robot is almost definitely harder than building and operating a Mars base. We pretty much have all the core tech for that figured out: recycling atmosphere, splitting and making water, refining minerals, greenhouses, airlocks, and so on. As soon as we have Starship or another super heavy rocket that's reliable we could do it as long as someone was willing to write some huge checks.
And of course it's a totally untested market. We don't know how big it really is. Will people really be willing to pay thousands to tens of thousands for a home robot with significant limitations? Only about 25% of the market probably has the disposable income to afford these.
You'd have to go way up market first, but people up market can afford to just pay humans to do it.
It can occasionally make sense for high skill stuff where the shortage is people who can even do it, like remote surgery.
In your house? That's silly. It'd be 100X more expensive and complicated than just hiring a housekeeper so you could... hire a remote housekeeper?
If that job is "monitor the remote robots from a desk" then that's likely also a fairly good job.
Global trade right now is literally about exploiting labor at a distance.
Our shit didn't get made in China because they were inherently better at making shit!
An autonomous robot that has 99% reliability, getting stuck once an hour, is useless to me. A semi-autonomous robot that gets stuck once an hour but can be rescued by the remote operator is tempting.
Expect security and privacy in the marketing for these things, too, but I don't think that's a real differentiator. Rich and middle class people alike are currently OK with letting barely-vetted strangers in their houses for cleaning the world over.
Pitching "security and privacy" as features of a device that's remotely operated and monitored is going to be a very hard sell.
Americans by and large don't do that. We software developers have not that different of an income gap between us and minimum wage workers compared to my family overseas and their staff. Yet, it would be considered weird, extravagant even, for a $300-500k/yr developer to have dedicated help. We're far more comfortable with people we don't need to interact with directly, like housecleaners, landscapers, etc.
Teleoperated robots sidestep that discomfort, somewhat, by obscuring the the humanity of the staff. It's probably not a particularly ethical basis for a product, but when has that ever stopped us.
The future with this as a reality is a really dark place, where the uber wealthy live entirely disconnected from the working class except through telepresent machines half a planet away. That way the wealthy don't have to be inconvenienced by the humanity of the poors.
- Services like maids or cleaners are usually scheduled, maybe you have to wait and open the door etc. Maybe they can't make it that day because of snow storm etc.
- Services are normally limited to certain hours. With a remote operator, the robot could do laundry all night ran by someone in a different time zone.
- If needed could be operated in shifts.
- Other new use cases could arise, e.g. wellness check on elderly, help if fallen or locked out etc.
Human work is going to cost more in the future, and immigration from countries such as Thailand or Vietnam is already slowing down. Even a mediocre robot will be sought after if it is the only choice you have.
I think we could increase birth rates by making a taxation scheme in which the most marginally effective way to solve a problem is with a human, paid a wage which allows for that occupation to be a lifelong career.
Humans that are chronically unskilled also don't learn well, somewhat as a rule.
Humans that don't make much money have a high turnover rate from burnout. Additionally, those that can learn typically leave for greener pastures.
The bar isn't terribly high. Efficiency of scale in production will solve this eventually. I think the likely outcome is robots building themselves first.
In the case where they’re replacing a low-skill human worker, they’ll pay for themselves in 1-2 years…plus no sick days, no drug use, no theft, and they can work 24 hours a day, less any recharging time.
The answer to that is no, probably for the foreseeable future. The robot demos we have no can't even fold laundry or put dishes away without being teleoperated. Both extremely basic tasks that any household robot would be required to do, along with other messy jobs that put it at risk as you said: taking out the trash, feeding the pets, cleaning up messes, preparing or cooking food, etc.
The price it would have to cost with current tech would be astronomically more than just hiring a human, and they would almost certainly come with an expensive subscription as well, whereas I can hire a human to come in and clean my home weekly for about $200/month.
They're all legs. The impressive demos are just show, not useful.
(Will someone eventually invent a machine that can do all of that and more? Yes, probably, and they'll make billions when they do. But Tesla has offered no reason to believe this is on their horizon, and the focus on a humanoid form factor strongly suggests that they're optimizing for media appeal over practical capabilities.)
Dual-professional households could hire a maid and pay for marriage counseling and still save money compared to a $20k robot plus whatever a subscription would run.
I can google "maid service seattle" and see dozens of entries. The first one in the yelp list is available to book and will clean a 1000 - 1500 sq ft, 2 bed, 2 bath house for well under $200. There's even a decent discount if you book is as a weekly or biweekly service.
That feels pretty affordable? I know it's a scale, but minimum wage here is $21/hr now.
I have enough time to take care of my own space, but for comparison Comcast internet is well over $120/month for crappy speeds. I think in comparison a little more than that for 1 deep cleaning a month is reasonable.
Also, if you take 1 million jobs, do you think that might cause demand to drop for services?
The savings from automation in a particular sector are spent elsewhere — wherever services are more costly (in labor). That's the dynamic behind Say's law, which shows that spending on less automatable jobs like barbers and physical therapists increases as automation reduces costs in other sectors of the economy.
If 1 million prep cooks are replaced by robots, will food become cheap enough that those prep cooks can all get jobs as barbers, and the money people spend on food will shift to haircuts?
Will the food be so cheap that all those prep cooks can afford to learn to cut hair?
Also consider the money velocity of a human vs a robot. A human is probably paycheck to paycheck spending everything they earn. Robot earnings go back to company, which makes the stock go up, 90% of which is owned by billionaires who just keep hoarding and hoarding.
As for the gains from robotics, they go just as much to workers as to investors. Remember, investors are competing with each other, so they have to keep cutting prices. And that means workers see their wages buy more goods and services, given those goods and services cost less to buy. When wages buy more, that's effectively the opposite of inflation. In inflation-adjusted terms, that equates to a wage hike.
That's the problem with robots like Optimus. The "specialized" part (Cutting the onions) is 1% of the skills. You'd still need to other hard 99% (Prehensility, vision, precise 3D movement, etc.).
And if you sorted the hard 99%, what's the point in specialising in cutting onions, when the same exact skills are needed to fold and put away laundry?
Moving to new, unproven markets is fruitful ground for someone like Elon to drum up expectation and hopefully keep distracting people from the fact that he's had very few recent successes to show for all the hype he receives.
So I wouldn't call robotaxi service unproven. But I would call the idea that you can claim to be running a robo taxi service without depots, cleaners, CSRs, and remote monitoring that can handle difficult situations in a more sophisticated way than each car having a human monitor it, naïve.
In the 2000s publishing pivot to the Internet, this was known as "trading physical dollars for digital pennies."
This seems to be a major strategic decision of Alphabet pretty much across the board. I have only recently noticed the stark contrast to the constant hype trope you see in their competitors.
- PDA sales are 0.01% of PC sales in 2006
If the original schedules hadn't been made public knowledge, the progress they have made would seem quite fast-paced.
At this point, Tesla have the potential to be at best maybe #5 globally. No wonder they're so desperate to hide behind a tariff wall in their home market.
Musk seems to have successfully decoupled investors from results. The stock price seems to move far more based on what he says and does than what the company says and does. It's completely irrational. Tesla is a huge bubble.
I think musk knows you gotta take risks and skate to where the puck is going, not where it is now.
If he’s wrong, it’s all over of course.
Maybe that's the driver. I always figured keeping Musk on was a sort of suicide pact, without Musk the company might be more traditionally valued, but that means the stock would tank. So they have to stick with him.
Staying in autos, eventually folks figure out the math and the stock tanks ... so they have to keep moving and keeping that sort of aspirational stock price.
It's not like Tesla is failing, they have $40 billion cash at hand, more than many auto company's net worth,it's that people want to believe that Tesla is failing. I hope Tesla succeeds, with or without Musk.
People still buy Teslas. But in my circle, most have bought other EVs (and not just because of Elon). Teslas are no longer the obvious superior choice.
And yes, I will grant that at this point, it's possible that Tesla has the least serious problems. I don't know - I haven't looked at recent data. But it's the usual trajectory: I know plenty of people who bought Teslas in the last 5 years and complained how many weeks/months it would sit at the dealer awaiting repairs (just like it is with Hyundai/Ford/everyone-else these days).
Case in point: Pretty much everyone I know who bought a non-Tesla and had issues with it is still happy with the purchase. Just like Tesla users of the past ;-) Only one guy got annoyed and sold his car and bought a different non-Tesla EV.
My point is that if Tesla suddenly dissolved tomorrow, existing automakers will continue improving their vehicles. Maybe 10 or even 5 years ago Tesla's death would have meant the end of EVs in the US. But by this point we've hit critical mass. They're here to stay.
There are just so many non-Tesla EV choices now.
In this space, Tesla does have competition (e.g. Rivian and Lucid), but nowhere near as much as they should.
I have my doubts their robots will be anything more than a gimmick for rich people.
Car revenue: -11%
operating margin: 3.86%
Free cash flow -30%
On the whole, it's a great car, it really is. They've pretty much nailed the fundamentals. It's opinionated, not unlike Apple, but if the opinions work for you you'll enjoy the car.
But there are shortcomings, and they are jarring. The parking sensors basically don't work at all due to being vision only - and apparently can't be made to work properly. The lane change and reverse warnings are just crap and may as well not be there. My previous car implemented these to perfection, but I cannot trust the Tesla. The autopilot is a gimmick that offers you nothing but increased risk - and there's no way in hell I'd trust FSD for car that can't accurately detect the distance of my house when parking. The big touchscreen is great for passengers, but outright dangerous for drivers.
Having said all that, it seems strong emotions around Musk and Tesla cause people to want Tesla to fail. They want the car to be bad. There is so much motivated reasoning around this brand that it's hard to take any article like the above, or half the comments in this thread, seriously.
Germany: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tuev-report-2026-tesla-mo...
Denmark: https://fdm.dk/nyheder/nyt-om-trafik-og-biler/tesla-skandale...
Ireland: https://www.rsa.ie/road-safety/statistics/nct-statistics-and...
At some point you have to acknowledge the data as facts.
My point was there's a huge anti-Tesla bias entirely as a reaction to Elon Musk. It's emotional, not rational. It's not objective criticism of Tesla. Sure, there are some awful moves he's made, vision only, FSD claims, but if it was another car company it wouldn't even be on HN. Wasn't so long ago that VW (a manufacturer literally started by the Nazis by the way!) were caught falsifying their emissions.
It's silly to call him a nazi because he doesn't fit the profile well at all. It only works if you redefine nazi to be whatever you don't agree with at the moment. This might even be harmful, as it's an obvious strawman that provides cover for his real faults.
He denies being a nazi. We can take his word on that. One thing about nazis is they are weren't shy about their beliefs.
Now if that's not the darndest coincidence.
They sell cars based on promises that a missing function will work in a few months/years and that your car will be compatible.
With the years of feedback we have now, we know that those were not promises but lies.
Other brands sell as-is cars, without empty promises. (outside the stupid "perfect outback trip" in every SUV/pickup ad)
I now see Musk as a con man, a very smart con man with a lot of money, not a visionary.
Yes there is dieselgate and yes, every car manufacturer tries to circumvent the system to improve profit. (Every includes also Tesla)
As a consumer, I'm pissed off. I do feel conned.
But I'm fine explaining Musk's promises away as hubris. He made promises he should not have, and couldn't keep. He shouldn't have done it, but I do think he believed it. I don't think it was an intent to mislead. Incompetence before malice and so on.
He deserves credit where credit is due. He did push us into the EV era.
Yes, definitely and a lot of people (me included) where eyeing Tesla cars until the cybertruck/politics debacle.
>Incompetence before malice and so on.
At first, maybe, the Tesla 3 was announced for 30k$ and had a starting price of 35K$, acceptable. But the cybertruck announced at 40K$ sold at 60K$, less so.
>As a consumer, I'm pissed off. I do feel conned.
I can easily imagine that, I'm not a costumer and I feel conned.
Nissan should get some credit, too. Tesla started production on the Roadster in 2008, which beat Nissan's Leaf which started in 2010, but the Leaf sold much better.
Tesla only made about 2500 before it was discontinued and the Model S was release.
Nissan sold 20 000 Leafs in its first year. It was the first mass produced EV.
It took until early 2020 for Tesla cumulative sales to pass Leaf cumulative sales.
Funny, because for the last year, any submission that have Tesla or Musk or Musk associated with something negative have been flagged very quickly. I assume by Musk fanboys. So when an article or two slips the Crack, it naturally is filled with criticism. Survivor bias at its finest.
Your criticism paragraph being longer than "it really is great!" paragraph does point towards motivated reasoning going both ways.
Maybe it gets flagged because there's no chance of having an intellectually honest discussion if it involves Elon or Tesla? I certainly don't flag them.
What's stupid about this is that it is hard to come up with a good reason for it. The no LIDAR thing is at least understandable because at the time LIDAR was very expensive. Ultrasonic parking sensors are cheap.
Same for automatic windshield wipers, which have been a significant source of complaints from Tesla owners. Pretty much everyone else uses a dedicated sensor that is simple and inexpensive and works well. Technology Connections has a good video on how it works [1]. Tesla uses vision.
and FSD is complete?
With telsa it was robotaxis, and when that failed to materialize, humanoid robots (fucking LOL).
SpaceX is an even more insane example. They are eyeing an IPO at a 1.5 trillion valuation. And yet the market for satellite launches is simply not that big. (What would you do with a satellite, if I gifted you one for free?). Estimates have SpaceX doing about $3B in annual earnings, which would give them a 500x earnings multiple at a 1.5T valuation (Apple: 35).
And so SpaceX/Elon had to invent the absolutely idiotic idea of "data centers in space" to sell some future vision of tens of thousands of launches per year.
He keeps upping the ante (and the ridiculousness of the vision), and so far investors keep funding it.
Me? I've realized that this madness is entirely "opt-in" and I choose to simply...not opt-in.
Let's forget orbital mechanics for a while to make this answer more fun. It would follow me around and provide a dedicated, private lifeline of communication anywhere I go, real-time aerial surveillance of my surroundings, and eventually lasers to zap anyone who pisses me off.
Ummm that information seems terribly out of date or is just uninformed- Starlink alone is estimated around $8 billion for 2024 and projected around $12 billion for 2025, with continued growth.
They want the convenience and freedom a car provides. Right now in many places the best way to get that is ownership, so we suck it up and buy a horribly depreciating asset that causes headaches.
That could quickly change if someone can figure out how to make using a car just as convenient while also cheaper.
^ of course there are car enthusiasts who will always want to own, but that’s a tiny fraction of car owners.
Tesla is committing suicide here by eliminating the best sedan ever and by committing to an idea (taxis) that mainly serve the low end market.
Message to Musk: people like to own things. Only the low end segment don't mind sharing their means of transportation. High end won't share. Biggest profits in tech are in the high end market as Apple and Samsung have repeatedly shown.
I mean that may be the case, but I get the sense that Tesla's primary goal at the moment is creating cheap robotaxi ready vehicles, and S and X don't really fit well with that. Partly because of cost, but also because I suspect it's harder to build FSD for multiple different vehicles so both models are just a distraction right now.
I'm not saying this article is wrong, but it seems like it may make sense that they focus on Y, 3, robotaxis and future projects like optimus.
I don't have strong opinions either way on Musk, but his ability to see future tech trends before others has historically been quite impressive. Personally I think the idea that Tesla would be better off behaving like every other car company betting on small iterative improvements to the current line up is really quite silly. It's going to be extremely difficult to compete with China without protectionist policies. Tesla probably should be looking to the next thing if they want to survive.
A robot that can only walk around my house is still useless. A robot that can wheel or track or even park in front of my dryer and fold laundry would be incredible. Yet every demo is Robot Jumps And Dances, not Robot Does Something Useful.
My theory is that bipedal motion is the "easy" problem, and fine motor control is the hard problem. That makes me bearish on Optimus: A car with questionable full self driving is still a useful car. A robot with questionable fine motor control is going to break every dish in the house.
There was millions of years of very strong selective pressure making humans evolve to learn to walk easily. There has been very little selective pressure making humans be good at learning tic tac toe.
Often whether something seems difficult or easy to humans has more to do with how well evolution has prepared us for it than with the inherent difficulty of the problem.
Robots that merely walk around are just as useless as humans who merely walk around.
A robot that folds laundry would be useful even if it was built into the washing machine.
The legs are not important. The arms are important. Show me the arms doing something useful, if you can.
Still, whoever puts this robot on a wheeled chassis for half the price, twice the battery life, and 3X the reliability is going to own the market.
"If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." -Steve Jobs
I don't see this in Tesla.
Also if they feel self driving is sufficient, why would they bother with inferior stuff
If you said 1 year okay I would believe you. But have you seen the advances in AI recently...? And the work done in robotics by other companies like Google and Figure? 5 years is definitely doable.
(Source: construction-physics, if anyone wants to comment with the link)
What I'm wondering at this point is why the investors in Tesla are still riding this crazy train. Blaming simple market manipulation seems far fetched. Mass hysteria and delusional beliefs are common enough in the stock market but reality eventually sets in and this bubble has been inflating for a long time. The people who lose the most are going to be the small investors- the really ruthless hedge fund bros will probably walk away unscathed.
Both of these points make me think of Tony Hsieh.
It's amazing after 20 years of the same MO, people still don't understand how Tesla/SpaceX operate and succeed. It's like deleting millions of lines of code from a code base. It improves not just performance of the organization, but maintenance as well. The S/X were outsized tech debt on every facet of the business and now they're gone. 100% the right move and very few people understand it.
You are spot on, it makes sense to have the Model 3 (economy sedan) and Model y (upmarket crossover SUV).
My question here is why did Tesla have four 4-person cars in the first place? If you wanted to streamline engineering and supply-chain why have Cybercabs instead of using the model 3 or model y as the base? Why split the company between Optimus and making cars?
Cybertrunk does make sense, it is a technology demonstrator and test article filled with all the new ideas and tech they are going to build into the next generation. They get data on people using it by selling it to them.
What you say is a sound strategy for Telsa to peruse, but they don't seem to be perusing it.
Its like arguing the Honda CR-V is the same kind of vehicle as the Honda Odyssey.
The real question is why continue having the Model Y and the Model 3, when those are so incredibly close in dimensions. The 3 is only 2" smaller than the Y in length. Just kill the 3 and make a cheaper trim level of the Y. $10k more to have a 7" higher roof and more features in the base model.
You must be a topologist.
I'm done listening to pundits doubt Elon. I haven't seen Wall Street forecast future economic and technological trends well at all. Elon has created an EV market, caught falling rocket boosters, created the leading AI "nonprofit", and launched a worldwide satellite internet service, mostly in the face of rent seeking financial professionals and hacker news SSEs calling him dumb. I'm not sure what else a man needs to do to prove he deserves a little deference in his strategic decisions.
FSD can be working right before people's eyes, and yet they only believe what they read on news and not what they see in front of their eyes.
What do you mean by "economically viable" and "for the American public"? I wouldn't count the Roadster because it was expensive (~$100k) and only produced in limited numbers (~2500 over its lifetime). I'd say that to count as for the American public a car has to be quite a bit more affordable than that, and quite a bit more available.
I'm guessing Tesla's cybertruck will be the DeLorean of the 2020s.
Also probably 99% of people here are familiar with Deloreans and stainless steel.
Regardless, they're closer to Edsel-era Ford than DMC.
Without that movie, it would be a pub trivia question.
Is anyone going to make a generation defining movie that features the Cybertruck? God I hope not, I can't take such powerful satire right now.
(Last night I rewatched Radio Free Albemuth and it seemed too relevant to the current mood in the USA. PKD was truly a prophet of the modern age).
Seems like he’s constantly using one company to fund others, shuffling the cups and balls around claiming everything is still fine.
I could see him doing serious damage or even trashing an otherwise healthy company doing this to prop up total failures.
If SpaceX buys it, it will fail upward :)
He did that with SolarCity when Tesla bought it then repeated with X when XAi bought it.
I think you could wake up one day, read the WSJ with the headline "All Tesla cars ever sold have just exploded at the same time, killing hundred thousands of people" - and the stock price would surge 10%.
I really would like to know what the stock price would do if Tesla had good news. But I guess we'll never find out about that one... ;)
What I don't understand is why are the Tesla shareholders accepting his bullshit?
Actually I think this new directions demonstrates how great decision making they have at Tesla. Today and even more in the future they have no way of competing with the Chinese manufacturers. It is simply physically not possible.
So they are rightfully pivoting and moving away from the race to the bottom that is ensuing.
They won’t make 25k cars either. Very little margin on that.
Pivoting to consumer robots? Isn’t that cool?
Has there been a single public video of an Optimus robot that isn't an embarrassment? Has there been a single public video of an Optimus robot performing a complex or precise task? No, scooping popcorn at the Tesla diner isn't a complex or precise task...it wasn't very good at that in the videos I saw either, and it seemed they only had it doing that job for a short amount of time. If we're that close to consumer robots, why isn't Tesla (or other Musk companies) increasingly using them internally? Seems like it'd be a great way to prove the potential while working through the kinks.
It'd be exciting if there was any actual detectable signal of a product worth buying.
Instead we have...this... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bk91DpkdPQY
Cost of Goods Sold (COGS): As of late 2024 and early 2025, Tesla’s average cost to produce a vehicle dropped to an all-time low of under $35,000.
Gross Margin: Tesla’s automotive gross margin (excluding regulatory credits) has typically hovered between 15% and 18% recently. This means they earn several thousand dollars more per car than it costs them to build.
- New cars are subject to sales tax
- In some states (e.g., California), there are additional fees buried in DMV registration costs. California's Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is based on the depreciated value of the car. So newer and more expensive cars pay more to use the roads than do older cars. So the VLF is effectively another tax on new cars.
"Profitability" is a momentary property.
You could make ICE cars unprofitable by charging less than they cost to make too.
Additionally, to take another step toward AGI, you need vast amounts of real-world data. Optimus can provide that, much like Tesla cars have for driving data.
I have Model Y and FSD. FDS is light years away from its competition
Now he's going all in on self driving. It's obvious that self driving turns personal transportation into a service business. So that's where he's going. Yeah, if you don't believe in self driving then it's suicide. But if you do, it's the only thing that makes sense.