It's simultaneously true that Tesla has delivered some very nice cars, and that they haven't been able to deliver a fully-autonomous "full self driving" experience. That's why it's so weird that they're (apparently) abandoning their plans for an affordable EV and going all in on robotaxis.
> That's why it's so weird that they're (apparently) abandoning their plans for an affordable EV and going all in on robotaxis.
Tesla's track record of bait-and-switch promises and lack of credibility leads me to believe they do not have anything to show for, and the robotaxi claim is yet another desperate attempt to keep the stock prices afloat.
About 100 have been built and PepsiCo are the first customers. They were obviously prioritizing Model Y ramp up, which went from 0 to 1.15m units in 2023, the world best selling car model, in just a couple years.
Idk why you need to get conspiratorial. Tesla employees have confirmed they're using the Semi trucks to drive battery packs between Nevada and Fremont factory, and that they have a fleet of 100 of them as of 4 months ago. PepsiCo has confirmed use of them.
Stock Market 101 would educate one that just because a company is doing well, doesn't mean it's balance sheet and income statement currently indicate it's a good value to buy. But yes, I did ride Tesla stock from a $40b market cap company to $700b, thanks to an educated analysis.
These are basic facts that are priced in. Also my comment: "Stock Market 101 would educate one that just because a company is doing well, doesn't mean it's balance sheet and income statement currently indicate it's a good value to buy."
Sold on promises that have never been delivered. And they're still selling "FSD" for an insane amount. Elon seems to be America's favorite grifter at the moment.
If it is indeed true, it's worth seriously analyzing why they didn't feel they could make a business case for a low-priced EV.
In the US, Tesla was probably best positioned to make this work considering their margins and scale.
It's obviously not impossible to do as demonstrated by Chinese OEMs, but would be interested to know if there are other factors specific to Western markets that make this difficult to achieve.
I would be curious to know as well. One possibility could be fear of cannibalization. Other than decrease range on the budget cars and possibly enable FSD for free on premium models, there may not be much Tesla can do to distinguish its budget line from more premium cars.
I am also curious to know what impact a large number of lower range budget cars would have on the charging network. I would definitely be upset if I bought a $60k Tesla only to find the chargers constantly taken up by people who bought $25k cars with limited range.
It could also be that Tesla does not have the quality control to make a lower-margin car possible. Warranty claims and service costs could eat up any profit made in this segment very quickly, especially if consumers do not buy add-ons such as FSD.
> It's obviously not impossible to do as demonstrated by Chinese OEMs
Correct, but these Chinese OEMs have also demonstrated that it is effectively impossible to go head-to-head with them and compete on cost and scale. There's nothing Tesla can bring to the table on the low end that BYD can't do 10x better and quicker.
Then what are Chinese companies that are owned by the Chinese state?
The whole paradigm of tax break sucking welfare queen loses all meaning when you're talking about the kind of corporate/government incest they you're looking at with Chinese companies.
The difference is that in China the state owns these companies, whether in part or entirely. In the USA these companies get public funding but the public gets nothing in return.
You're implying that the Chinese people get a better deal out of their social contract with the Chinese state than the American people get with theirs?
That's gonna be a 'press x to doubt' from me dawg.
I think that the American people have benefited tremendously from the flawed investment that the government has made in the auto industry over it's entire existence more than the Chinese people have benefited from the Chinese investment in their auto industry.
The American auto industry plays a huge role in the power that America wields around the world today, and is the corner stone of the American economy as it exists now.
It’s up to voters whether they want to subsidize war-machine manufacturing in China (which is what vehicle building capabilities are for real politik). China subsidized their entire industry for this reason.
> > China subsidized their entire industry for this reason.
China is only reactive, insane ideas like solar panels being the lionshare of power generation or Electric Vehicles being the lionshare of vehicles don't come from China.
Indeed they come from the U.S. or I should say the affluent areas of big costal metropolis in the US, places where people have no real, tangible problems and can afford to think what will happen in 200 years time (when both them and their kids would be sitting 6ft under becoming food for worms) and they succumb to the so called Messiah Complex
...and if China ends up accelerating worldwide EV adoption through their ambition at war-machine industry, it would be a net win for humanity.
Also, Elon Musk (with Starlink) is not a stranger to American military complex. I'm not convinced that I should get upset over Chinese carmakers getting "unfair" advantages, when America bends global trade rules all the time to protect its "national security."
It's really not. What Elon says is whatever is currently floating in his head or whatever he thinks will give him a stock boost.
He's not credible with respect to his companies plans. It's happened like dozens of times when he says something well or will not happen, and it turns out he was just lying.
The default stance of reading Elon today has to be, "this is probably a lie. Put no value in it until it is proven true".
Reuters claimed multiple sources and documents from project managers telling workers to wrap up the project and document it for "lessons learned." I tend to assume on a story of this importance Reuters is operating in good faith and the quotes from those documents aren't fabricated by the reporters. And those quotes seem pretty definitive.
This doesn't mean the reporters understood everything. Musk could easily have disputed the reporting by providing that extra context (e.g., "we changed the project name, Reuters is simply taking some isolated emails out of context") but he chose not to do that. I'm generally open to the idea that Reuters got something wrong, but the claim here isn't that: I'd have to believe that Musk is credible and Reuters is deliberately lying.
What’s interesting is that in 2024 the press is totally OK with even dropping “allegedly” for the people it doesn’t like, even though there’s zero evidence for any such “scrapping of plans”
