If McDonald's was profitable, they wouldn't try to franchise it.
That's what this is. You take on operating costs and you understand your local market. They own the brand.
That's what this is. You take on operating costs and you understand your local market. They own the brand.
For the Cybercab, Tesla is the one operating it via "Full Self Driving", their app, and the Tesla rideshare network. As the owner, the only thing you do is own it, insure it, have a place to park it, and take on the risk of what happens if the vehicle registered to you is in an accident. Clearly, a pretty one-sided assignment of risk.
Also if Elon Musk has a demonstrable superpower it's the ability to raise capital. So they really could order 100,000 of these themselves.
His revealed preference is to run things centrally and at massive scales.
Doesn't Tesla operate its own dealer network?
You need to clean, inspect, repair, insure, secure and charge the cars. To do so efficiently you will need to custom develop premises full of chargers and efficient charging and cleaning infrastructure.
That absolutely is operationally intense. Premises, permits, construction and then significant operations.
It's not an exact 1:1, but that seems to be the model here. Tesla does the things that can scale (FSD, manufacturing, etc.) and operators do the things that can't.
Another really important issue is depreciation. You own the car for a few year and eat a cost of depreciation, and then figure out how to dig yourself out of the hole the way Hertz did. Similar to iPhone- you use one for 2+ years and then get a new version- you're also responsible if the phone breaks.
Precedent for this?
I don't know if Tesla has proven that their own fleet is successful.
From what I understand, McDonald's franchisees can make 5-15% of gross revenue of their location. That's a decent return, along the lines of other investments. As with all investments, you may lose too.
They are much more than McDonalds.
But indeed your comparison is an apt way to reply to this "article".