Hacker News Reader

Comment by ElProlactin | Hacker News Reader

> Tesla offloaded the hardest, least profitable part of the Solar Roof — the physical install and the customer relationship — onto small local companies, let them absorb the training and tooling costs, and then pulled the product out from under them.

I wonder how many of the companies understood this is what Tesla was doing, and recognized the risk inherent in their position.

View on HN

It is going sound awful ( and I resist it myself, because of what it implies about us in general ), but best predictor of human behavior is what they have done in the past. There is a reason I don't own anything Tesla and last time I looked at solar roof, I explicitly noted that this brand is not an option. Nothing this expensive is allowed to become abandonware this easily. I have to assume he will be sued hard, because that kind of practice needs to be penalized hard by our society.

If you look at the history it was doomed to fail. I wouldn’t blame it on Tesla.

Who would you blame it on? Physics, gravity, destiny?

I would blame whatever team of figurative rocket scientists decided that putting something with many dozens of tiny discrete electrical connectors in a flat aesthetically pleasing format on a roof, exposed to rain/snow/ice.

There's a reason why the MC4 connector for traditional PV panel wiring and similar is designed the way it is, and why other things like IP67 and IP68 rated outdoor, 600/1000/1500V rated DC power connectors are as robust as they are.

This is entirely aside from the installation and mounting and labor issues to have such a weird custom solar roof tile and mount it in a way that doesn't make the roof impossible to maintain, doesn't cause leaks, and doesn't blow away in the wind.

And then secondarily blame Tesla's acquisition of solarcity to bail out Elon's brother.

Huh? Bad innovation ideas is an entire market that creates secondary markets. When the outcome is larger than an article in science direct and can only be described as inevitable then there is a conglomerate with some weak decision makers.

It’s the whole business for the installers. You get margin where you can, and that for them is in the marketing and selling and installing and supporting for the customers.

Coming from a family of local contractors, some of whom install HVAC and such. Most of them probably understood this. It's part of the business. Pretty much every product, you are going to install, has some sort of training required, to install it properly, such that the manufacturer warranty isn't voided.

Yeah it would be more surprising if they didn’t have a mandatory expensive program considering how much more complex it is than normal roofing stuff.

Is it? Modern roofing is pretty complex and is begging for innovation, even with materials that don't generate electricity.

Anyone wanna disrupt the roofing industry with me? YC W27, tagline "like uber but for roofing". roofies.ai?

I'm from the same background of contractors. This stuff happens all the time and is nothing unqiue to Tesla. The regular anti: Musk, Ellison and Zuckerberg crowd out with their drums and masks again.

> The regular anti: Musk, Ellison and Zuckerberg crowd out with their drums and masks again.

You understand that if you left this sentence out of your comment it'd read as absolutely reasonable, right? With that addition it verges on inflammatory for no added purpose whatsoever to the message.

I was not aware of that. Nothing inflammatory here. Its the general counter to sediment of here. If it was solar city it wouldn't even have 2 points. What makes this so different then any other product cancellation? One word, "Musk". Its a trigger word for a small majority of the population.

What is a "small majority"? Freudian slip?

Your reading too deep. A small majority is a group of individuals that attempt to speak for masses when in fact their statements or beliefs are non-reflective of the majority. Its like that experiment they do with a group of children where they tell 9 out of 10 children to say 2+2=5 and the 10th child just goes along with it by answer 5 too. Either because they want to fit in or they are just angry and want to belong. Forced conformency for being the odd person out when surrounded by the "small majority".

You're thinking of the phrase "vocal minority".

Five years ago I'd agree with you, but in the current climate "minority" has negative connotations associated with it. E.g. a deminished value of opinion and lack of representation. Thus "small majority" has become more palatable and socially acceptable.

That's your attempt at a neologism, I had no idea what you meant until you tried explaining it and honestly it feels a bit unnecessary...

Say what you mean.

I'd say the same with you using the term neologism. Seems pretentious. First time I've ever heard the term or yet had anyone ever use it during a conversation. We all learn new things everyday and travel in different social circles. The fact is everything is hip and new at one time or not, but "small majority", has been around for at least 5+ years.

Neologism is a somewhat common word in my native language (neologismo), it's a term I learnt in middle school during language classes, sorry if it sounds "pretentious" to you but it's a perfectly apt word to describe what I wanted.

"Small majority" is of a different kind, much more akin to weasel words. Hence: say what you mean, don't hide behind a neologism that tries to masquerade as something else.

I have no clue what "weasel words" mean. None of this is common in my native language or socio economic up bringing. One of things I've learned in life is to know your audience. Speak words that anyone can understand. I have very clearly articulated the definition of what "small majority" means to the point that anyone can comprehend it. Instead of circling the drink why don't you psychoanalyze "what i really mean". Or more like what think the deep rooted issue is here? What am i not saying?

> One word, "Musk". Its a trigger word for a small majority of the population

Well…it is fashionable to hate all things Elon.

Some probably did not know, but they learned a hard lesson here.

Smaller companies should ideally help trade with one another and cut off those greedy billionaire corporations that will eat them up whenever they can - or betray them, as Tesla showed this here.

Nah, same with Amazon delivery subcontractors. This is sophisticated capitalists and industrialists preying on the unsophisticated.

Do you suspect Amazon is going to stop delivering packages?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that Amazon are nearly continuously planning for automated deliveries. Drones? Trucks with lockers that stop in front of your house and you retrieve your delivery?

I dunno, but there's no way Bezos doesn't look at his drivers and delivery partners and think, "Your livelihood will soon be my margin."

Do you think robotics on the street are going to last long at scale? How’s it going for Flock ALPR cameras? Is Bezos going to be out in the streets defending automated vehicles, drones, and last mile robots on foot? Unlikely.

I don’t think that comparison works. People aren’t attacking Flock cameras because they’re taking work away from hard working video camera watchers. It’s because they’re spying on them. By comparison autonomous delivery vehicles aren’t doing anything the manned vehicles don’t do today.

https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-URL/wp-content/uploads/sites/4...

> As part of a June 2024 survey, the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation (VPA) polled 1,031 U.S. adults ages 18 or older to identify attitudes toward drone delivery services, which may soon be much more common due to changes in the regulations governing them. Our polling reveals that Americans are deeply concerned about the possibility of neighborhood disturbances, privacy violations, and abuses of power by the large corporations poised to dominate drone delivery, including Amazon, Google, and Walmart. Moreover, we find overwhelming bipartisan support for the regulation of drone delivery services. When Americans learn about policy options to curtail the drawbacks of drone delivery, they respond positively to the government taking action.

I think the comparison works.

Aerial drone delivery services creating a fleet of flying lawnmower noises over my house is entirely a different thing than quiet electric based ground delivery vehicles... At least theoretical ground based delivery vehicles without humans aren't dumping gatorade piss bottles.

The business conditions that necessitate the use of piss bottles themselves are a pretty good indicator of how poor the working conditions are for many 3rd party contracted delivery services.

To drive itself around safely, any ground vehicle will need some kind of awareness of those surroundings. Right now, that means cameras. I don't think people will be satisfied if those cameras get replaced with short wavelength radar given that WiFi-band radio goes through walls and would therefore allow spying inside houses and there's already people messing around with this as YouTube tech demos.

Similar applies to basically all sense equipment: if it is good enough for safe driving, it's good enough to be a surveillance node.

And given that "oh no my data was leaked" is a big enough problem even with just websites, that there are whole businesses dedicated to just helping with it, anyone who starts with "Your Privacy Is Important To Us" is automatically facing a massive trust deficit.

I think that's a legit question, but the way it plays out is not clear.

See the luddite movement in the UK: the way the machines were getting used threatened livelihoods, protestors (who were even fine using the machines in principle) damaged or destroyed them, government wrote new law allowing the death penalty for "machine breaking".

On the other hand, the UK in the 1810s is not something that people today would call "democratic", so perhaps popular vitriol might today may instead result in politicians getting elected to make the automation cease.

I think the long term plan is for the automated vehicles and last mile robots to defend themselves. We're already living in some form of a post-modern cyberpunk dystopia, it just isn't full distributed yet.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison. There's over 100k Flock ALPR cameras in the country, despite how many people passionately despise them and are willing to risk criminal charges to destroy them. Amazon is a much more popular business and delivery robots pose fewer privacy concerns, so I would expect street robots to face even fewer deployment problems if the tech becomes cost-competitive.

Flying drones I can see more potential problems with.

I suspect they will continue to use “contractors” until regime change forces them not to. Midterms look good for swinging toward Dems (due to gestures broadly at everything), and this federal admin has an end date (relates to NLRB and employee classification enforcement). These issues change on an arc over years or decades.

NYC has started to do this until then: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/08/mayor-mamdani...

Bloomberg investigation: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-02/amazon-tr... | https://archive.today/3Nnj9

I deliver packages for Amazon as an independent contractor (via Amazon Flex). While there are plenty of issues I have with it, I have an overall positive sentiment. For those who don’t want to work full time hours (you can schedule yourself in 1-5 hour blocks), immigrants, or are just in a bad spot it’s not a bad option. I’ve worked for food delivery apps as well and I think it’s a better gig compared to those other ones.

I’ve heard a rumor that ICE is using access to gig work platforms to pickup immigrants, so I’m unsure if it’s a positive for those in the US who aren’t citizens. They’ve already consumed IRS data to do so (in violation of the law, but laws don’t matter currently).

DoorDash specifically has strong signal it’s relying heavily on undocumented labor, for example.

The only folks it really works for are those who need to convert their vehicle equity to cash promptly without any regulation.

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cc91fda7-4669-4d1b-81ce-a0b...

The IRS Gave ICE Some Information It Really Shouldn't Have - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49686473 - September 2026

So "employees" will drive for uber/amazon in their own cars, and will be unable to put gas and car maintenance into tax write offs as expenses (it is form of commute to work).

Lovely!

To add to sibling comment about the "contractor" part being the key word: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...

Altogether, no. But I do think a combination of Amazon Locker, autonomous vehicles and perhaps drones are likely to radically change how last-mile delivery looks, and I don't think it's a coincidence that so much of that network currently offloads the capital onto third-party contractors.

In my country they are really pushing parcel lockers. And it makes sense- most people are not at home during the day. If they can put a 24/7 locker in every neighborhood or apartment complex it would be much more efficient.

Colloquially, no. But do I think there will be W-2 employees of Amazon.com, Inc (dba Amazon) delivering packages? Definitely not. It's not like Amazon owned the Prime Air plane that crashed yesterday, or employed the pilots

It seems to me that this is standard practice in the industry (solar panels/batteries, HVAC, boilers, heat pumps, etc). And, yes it leaves you at risk if the supplier decides to cancel the product(s) or if they just go bust.

Electrek has a bias against Tesla/Musk, IMHO and so tend to paint everything in a negative way. You need to take what they write with a grain of salt.

> Electrek has a bias against Tesla/Musk, IMHO and so tend to paint everything in a negative way.

I would say Tesla and Musk are a little bit worse here than Siemens or Honda or whatever. Usually the manufacturers don't lie quite as loudly about the future of the product.

I'm sure Tesla has been more opaque then other manufacturers, but I agree that the consequence here is just normal course of business stuff.

I've never seen a person have such a frothing-at-the-mouth hate for any company as Fred Lambert at Elektrek has for Musk/Tesla.

Just filter for his posts, it's kind of crazy. After a few posts I started noticing a while back. Lambert writes like Elon Musk killed his puppies with his bare hands.

It causes Lambert to have nearly zero credibility in anything he writes about Tesla. It doesn't come from a place of good faith reporting.

I do agree that Lambert's coverage of Tesla appears to be pretty one-sided, and that the company has provided significant benefits to the world, but I also think there's a reasonable case to be made that Musk himself is a uniquely deleterious figure, even if the harm he brings isn't with his bare hands.

That may be true, but I feel that is a separate conversation (whether Elon Musk and his companies, taken whole, have had net good or net bad contributions to the world) from Lambert's coverage, which seems to pick any single _event_ and select the most heinous, corrupt, version full of malicious intent when often unwarranted, extremely bad faith and never adds informational value to that larger debate.

I can't speak for everything the author has written about Tesla, but I don't see any intent stated or implied in this particular article. Instead it seems to mostly be accurately describing an action taken by Tesla that doesn't cast the company in an especially good light. That's not bad journalism just because some people might like Tesla or Musk and want to give them the benefit of the doubt or downplay anything negative they might do.

It's there via omission. Others have said in these threads that the concept of an HVAC company or others investing in a particular manufacturer, does cost them money, and that can change over time. It's not unique to Tesla, but the writing, by way of omitting this.

"That is the bind Tesla’s certified installers are in: dependent on a brand that just walked away from a product line they built a business around, while still needing to sell its remaining hardware."

there is _nothing_ unique about that situation. That could happen with any company.

It's the cost of doing business. training your workforce, etc. Clearly these companies are happy to sell other Tesla products to the point where they don't want to jeopardize those relationships.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com