Hacker News Reader

Comment by calinet6 | Hacker News Reader

This is like saying that Sony can make an mp3 player, so the iPod isn't competitive in that market. Or that a 5GB iPod won't hold enough music, so it's just an expensive toy. Within 5-10 years the battery problem will improve, especially if there is demand. This is technology, not automotive development. We're not in Detroit anymore.

They're in a different class. Tesla is set up to do it right from the start at a much faster pace.

Tesla will be the Apple of anything that moves, trust me. It was clear to me when I saw the Roadster design and the roadmap, but I digress...

View on HN

"No petrol. Less range than an M5. Lame."

Main function of a car is to move a group of people from point A to point B. Tesla is getting good at it, provided point A and point B are not too far apart, and pint B has an electric charger available. And that is a pretty critical limitation so far.

Jumping on your slightly irrelevant analogies, it is like iPod 5 with a batter that can only hold charge for 30 minutes, and can only charged at Apple store.

No. It would be an iPod 5 that would work on your commute to and from work, quite a few places in between for groceries and errands, then pick up dinner, then back home where you would naturally charge things.

You don't have to charge your Tesla at the Tesla dealership. And, seriously, if you make dozens of unpredictable stops in your day, I'll grant you, an electric car might not be for you. But, I don't think I've ever made impromptu out-of-city trips with my gas combustion car. That's more a planning thing.

Lifestyle changes might be necessary. But it might be worth it.

Ford is striking me as innovative nowadays. Eliminating the gas cap is one example.

I really like a lot of what I hear about Ford's doings recently. For example, they will be introducing a very euro-esque 1.0L 3-cyl turbo engine for the Fiesta to the USA market. Not only do I like that move, but the engine has a lot of really neat, innovative design points.

They are truly innovating, but not in gimmicks or specs.

They're producing quality again. Starting to get it, I think.

I would argue that the example you picked is more of a gimmick than true innovation. Tesla also eliminated the gas cap, along with the gas tank, and the gas engine...

California emissions regulations[1] gave them a reason to reengineer the fuel filler parts, and they built something that's inexpensive, genuinely nicer to use, and can be used by more people. I appreciate that they improved part of my $24k Mustang without making me buy a $57k electric car I wouldn't really reap the benefits from anyways (I don't commute, most of my driving is a 200 mile highway trip).

Tesla's main innovation isn't electric cars, it's electric car fashion.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_zero-emissions_vehicle... "zero evaporative (fuel system) emissions"

Its a bit presumptuous to say that Tesla is so different. Sure, they are attractive at the moment because of unique niche they are filling. If BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Acura, etc all sold an all-electric vehicle with similar range, Tesla's differentiation becomes much less unique, and normal competitive factors come into play (scale, marketing, etc).

This is a trivial statement. It's an obvious truism that if other manufacturers produced vehicles like Tesla's, then Tesla's vehicles would no longer be unique. What other companies COULD produce is irrelevant - Tesla is making something drastically different from them. You don't agree that engineering an extremely novel product makes a company "different"?

I don't know whether Tesla can maintain their technical advantage once the market becomes more interesting to the larger manufacturers. Whatever advantage they have today is irrelevant.

The capabilities of the current crop of vehicles is still outside the typical driving expectations of the broader market (limited range, slow charging). Once the technology improves to affordably and effectively eliminate these issues, all of the manufacturers are going become very motivated. If Tesla can own the solutions to these problems as a barrier to entry, then they will be in better shape. I don't know if one small company can hold a dominating technical advantage over motivated, well-funded companies in this kind of space for very long.

Guess they have alot of patents that would create great barrier to entry!?

I think it's a fallacy to ignore the holistic quality they're producing.

The top post in this thread has a good idea of it—they're producing not only a drastically different drivetrain technology-wise, but also a drastically improved ride, driving experience, and controlling every aspect of the car purchasing, driving, and servicing experience. (And with superchargers, also the refueling experience to a degree).

This is strikingly reminiscent of Apple's model. This is why I made the comparison, and I think it's highly valid. I don't mean to compare their product or level of innovation or even the amount of differentiation. I mean to compare the companies and their models. And I not only believe it's a successful model, I believe it's been proven and will continue to be proven.

If you break it down and look at individual parts in isolation, sure, you can see ways they could be beat. But that's the problem with this way of thinking—Tesla is not breaking it down. They see the whole picture, and that will lead to their success. That's the key.

It's a bit presumptious to say that Apple is any different. Sure they are attractive at the moment because of the unique niche they are filling. If Sony, HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway, Lenovo, etc all sold a laptop with similar specs, Apple's differentiation becomes much less unique, and normal competitive factors come into play (scale, marketing, etc).

So tell me, does that still hold water?

Yes, because that's a really awful analogy.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Porsche, etc. These companies/brands are producing great products. You can compare Chrysler to Gateway and get away with it maybe. But there are a lot of innovative car companies out there who are out in front of what people want -- and are actually making money doing it.

It doesn't take a startup to build the next big thing. Take Apple, for instance..

Tesla carries the banner for upper-scale electric vehicles. If you substitute the electric motor with a petrol engine, are they still so distinctive? If the big luxury/sporty brands entered the electric car market in full-force (several models, full advertising campaign) with cars of similar performance to Tesla, Tesla would struggle mightily to stand out.

BTW, I am rooting for Tesla. I would love a Model S.

Especially when established luxury-sport brands have track records, brand recognition, loyalty, and high perceived value. The major players aren't dominating because the market is stagnant, they are dominating because they are good at making luxury cars.

I thought that's exactly what he meant by "Tesla is the Apple of anything that moves".

By the time these manufacturers catch up to where Tesla is now, wouldn't Tesla still (presumably) be years ahead?

Standing still while "the powers that be" catch up seems oddly unlike a company with such an obvious culture of pushing the envelope.

That depends on where (if) the luxury competition needs to catch up. Tesla's differentiator is the electric powertrain. If they can stay ahead of the competition through technology (not large LCD's, etc), then they may have a chance.

Some people say that Tesla is the "Apple of transportation", and that Tesla can achieve success as Apple has with their design and user experience. I don't see it, however. If that was so, their differentiation would be more about industrial design and experience, and not the technology. But, as I said previously, if you put a traditional engine in a Tesla, you have a quirky luxury car manufacturer with little advantage over the more established (and experienced) competition, but with non-trivial competitive disadvantages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com