Why are people desperate to see Tesla fail? Is it a negative PR campaign from the auto or oil industry? This blog post shouldn't need to be written.
Musk and Tesla are given far more benefit of the doubt than any one else. Criticism is jumped on and scorned very quickly, and is a karma massacre. As such, I normally do not comment on Tesla threads at all. There seems to be little reason applied, its like saying some one's baby is ugly.
If it were a Microsoft car catching fire, or over stating benefits and what not, I suspect the reaction would be very, very different. Im beginning to see Tesla as the automotive Linux. Wont be long until we have people claiming Tesla cars cure cancer.
This fawning attitude, and unwillingness to allow debate and criticism seriously puts me off Tesla. I mean, even you have tried to suggest that any criticism is not reasoned debate, but oil and automotive negative PR. The criticism cant possibly be reasonable, it simply must be a conspiracy of the oil industry. You even say that the opinion should not be written at all. So much for open society.
All this, IMHO, is a big problem for Tesla. When people are being unrealistically positive and rejecting criticism like its some sort of heresy, Tesla becomes an easy target to shoot at. Especially for its enemies.
Too much "one of us" vibe here as far a Musk is concerned. He is a great bloke, and Im am very much in the positive camp, I've been advocating and keenly following electric cars for years before Musk ever got involved and I am 100% glad that a man like Musk has invested loads of his own money and time in to it, but fans need to be realistic and not so silly about criticism.
Tesla and Musk are not the problem, the fans however are.
It's arguable that Apple doesn't deserve some of the loyalty that it has obtained, but that rabid fanbase is good for the bottom line. I'm high on Tesla until there is a real quality control crisis or the competitors catch up.
Seriously, this is what baffles me most about Tesla hate. Did everyone forget that our world has had a massive, unsustainable energy crisis for 50 years? Forget climate change for a second, our entire foreign policy since 1973 has been based around securing cheap oil. Every person in our country should be unified in heaping as much praise as humanly possible on Musk because Tesla is literally saving the goddamn world.
Oil is exclusive in that regard.
It's good, but it's not that good.
I don't think it's a misuse of the word.
:-/
Well, yes. Microsoft is one of the largest companies in the world, whereas Tesla is a startup.
Compare to the Tesla fires: still no fire suppression baked in; deliberate effort in containing and directing the fire away from passengers; ample notice (so far) to drivers that something is wrong! and that they should pull over.
Also, I'd take a fire in a car over a fire on a plane any day. The car is: cheaper to repair/replace; already on the ground. If a plane has a fire, sure it'll end up on the ground, but depending on where on the aircraft and the effectiveness of detection and suppression systems it may not be a state where people can simply walk away from it.
To me it isn't so much about wanting to see them fail, it's bringing expectations in line. I don't see many articles around here about the work the other car companies are doing in the space.
And if you're upset because the cars are government subsidized, I'd like to point out that the conventional auto industries and oil industries have received more than their fair share of subsidies as well over the years.
Not really. I take everything that Musk says with a grain of salt.
Tesla's goal of making a mass-market car is all well and good, but they are a long way from that. They can't seem to make money on high-margin luxury vehicles, so obtaining the scale to build a lower-margin vehicle isn't exactly a cake-walk. I'd like to see them do it, but how does it happen, financially? I'm not sure.
Again, my point is that this is always framed as Tesla v. the Auto Industry, when in fact the auto industry is also trying to accomplish the same things that Tesla is. And, at least in my opinion, they have a better chance of actually doing it; they have the scale and profits. Yet places like HN (see some other comments) can't imagine these large companies pulling it off. It's absurd.
>I'd like to point out that the conventional auto industries and oil industries have received more than their fair share of subsidies as well over the years.
I don't necessarily agree with those subsidies either. But if you think those subsidies and bailouts are equivalent to giving extremely wealthy people a discount on a luxury vehicle, then I guess we have different ideas about what's "fair".
You, sir, are grossly misinformed.
This is incorrect. They've been profitable since Q1 of this year and their profit margins are continuing to rise, even discounting the ZEV regulatory credits (which have been steadily decreasing for a number of quarters now).
in fact the auto industry is also trying to accomplish the same things that Tesla is
This is debatable. Mainstream auto manufacturers have released plenty of electric cars, but they're all "compromise cars" that seem to shy away from cannibalizing their mainstream car sales. None of them come close to having the range, comfort, or storage space of the Model S.
This is a huge deal. Some people might be happy buying a Nissan Leaf as a secondary commuter car, and they might be willing to put up with the ugly styling, small size, low range, and poor performance. But, unless someone is making a compelling electric car that's actually better than a gasoline car, EVs aren't really going to take off. Right now, Tesla is the only manufacturer that seems to be even trying to pursue this goal, and that's what makes them so unique, interesting, and important.
But if you think those subsidies and bailouts are equivalent to giving extremely wealthy people a discount on a luxury vehicle...
The existing tax credits apply equally to all electric cars, not just luxury vehicles. You get $7,500 back from the federal government regardless of whether you buy a Tesla Model S for 70k or a GM Spark EV for 27k. As a percentage of purchase price, cheaper cars are actually being subsidized more than expensive luxury cars.
I don't understand your "cannibalizing their mainstream car" argument. Either way they are selling a car.. what's being cannibalized?
Car companies make a lot of their profits off of spare part sales for maintenance and repairs. Electric cars have far fewer moving parts, and are generally more reliable, so the traditional profit model breaks down somewhat.
Some have also speculated that the auto companies have historically resisted electric cars because they're in bed with the oil industry, but it's hard to really verify how true that is.
Finally, any corporation with a long established history will generally be resistant to big changes. See, for example, Kodak: it was obvious that the world was going digital, but we had this big established business that was good at making conventional film, and they didn't want to shift away from their strength. They dabbled in digital technologies, but never truly accepted the shift in technology. Of course, years later they went bankrupt, but it took a long time to reach that point, and meanwhile all the executives left with golden parachutes.
Would you call a BMW 335i hardtop convertible a compromise car because it's not suited to snowy conditions? Cars that are aren't as much fun to drive, are they compromises?
Electric cars normally comprise range for running costs, the Model S's only real compromise is the high cost.
And so I question Musk's motives when he acts so aggressively against anyone who claims otherwise.
It's not, is the answer. Not at all aggressive.
This has all accelerated since 9/11.