Missed expectations, zero guidance: Tesla's 'great year' was anything but

When Elon Musk says Tesla had a "great year," it's best to read between the lines – especially after such a disastrous quarterly earnings call. Tesla shares plummeted in aftermarket trading and kept falling (by more than 10 percent as of writing) as markets opened the morning after Musk and company held their call with …

[gecho]

FSD on old Hardware

I wonder what kind of performance people that shelled out $15,000 for FSD hardware can expect from neural algorithms. Tesla will likely add AI accelerators to new hardware, but the older hardware without them will likely perform far worse.

[abend0c4]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

They probably need to work out how to get through an earnings call without leaving wreckage in their wake before they move on to harder problems.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

Surely the people on the conference call should feel greatly complimented that Musk took time out to talk to them. What more could they possibly want?

[aerogems]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

They already hobbled older models with LiDAR sensors on them, forcing them to use less reliable optical cameras, so I'm guessing it'll be more or less the same sort of deal. Probably complete with training the call center reps to convince people it's something they did as opposed to the company giving them the shaft when they call in to say that their infotainment system is considerably more sluggish after the FSD v12 update. They already try to charge people thousands of dollars to replace the eMMC which takes down pretty much the entire car once the write cycles are used up.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

Customer: "I have an issue with my car"

Tesla support: "you are driving it wrong!"

Customer: "But it is self-driving!"

Tesla support: "you are driving it wrong!"

Customer: sells his Tesla and buys a coffee (not 2, the resale value tanked after the last EM tweet)

[a_builder]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

I’ give Tesla the option.

- wave the charge now; or

- I’ll pay you and send you the county court paperwork and you can argue it out in front of a judge.

Oddly they always wave the charges.

Do you think they have something to hide?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

Tesla will likely add AI accelerators to new hardware, but the older hardware without them will likely perform far worse.

This is fine. This is why Wales and other parts of the world are implementing 20mph speed limits so the neural nets can keep up with the sheep.

[Evil Scot]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

Yes. But, not to put a damper on things, Tesla's will still have issue with other elements of Welsh life.

[MachDiamond]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

"but the older hardware without them will likely perform far worse."

From the onset of autonomous driving promises by Elon, I knew that Tesla fitting every car with hardware was going to mean a load of cars with expensive and useless hardware added long before the software was done. I've worked on complex systems that were a combination of software and very dedicated hardware when I worked on rocket landers. As the head of avionics, I worked very closely with the Guidance, Navigation and Control software engineer(s) and was constantly modifying the electronics as projects progressed. By the time we arrived at the point where we were building vehicles or new test stands, the initial designs were fossils buried in sandstone. It was so nice to be working with one/two off vehicles rather than having to support an installed base of legacy hardware. There would have been little chance of fitting the newest avionics in the earliest vehicles the company had built without total rebuilds. One of the biggest challenges we had was making management realize that making the software back-compatible would cost more money than just retiring the old prototypes and building new rockets. Small company, small team and rapid progress when not held back by business people that knew very little about what we were doing.

[LogicGate]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

Exactly!

And I continue to have big questions about how he plans to certify AI based code in a safety critical environment.

A failure in the self driving system is straight up a catastrophic failure mode. Cars may not require aviation certification, but a catastrophic failure mode requires not only very safe hardware and software, but also a lot of documentation documenting it as such. If the design does not start out with architectures that takes this into consideration (and I do not see Tesla having done so), then achieving this on already existing hardware is close to impossible (cheaper to retire the old hardware).

Just the certification of a processor (complex hardware) represents a significant effort. 300 000 lines worth of code replaced with an unverifiable AI black box? I do not see it happen..

[Zibob]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

And yet, existing black boxes have been appr9ved, and have subsequently murdered people, and they were/are.still.out there doing their thing.

I appreciate the optimism, but this is the USA we are talking about, land of the free, home of the money hungry sociopath with no regard for other people.

Self driving will be approved and unleashed, people will continue to be murdered by Tesla engineers and nothing will be don't about it as long the money flows.

*points at previous stories/court cases*

[StewartWhite]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

IMO the likely answer re your point "And I continue to have big questions about how he plans to certify AI based code in a safety critical environment." is that he won't bother.

Trump and Musk are in a mutual admiration "post fact" society so if (as looks likely ATM) El Trumpo wins he will just tell his minions to do what Musk wants. Trump doesn't care about hundreds of people being shot in the USA each year (neither do most Americans it would appear given election results) as long as the gun manufacturers make sufficient moolah so a similar number of auto fatalities will also just be considered as collateral damage.

[MachDiamond]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

" 300 000 lines worth of code replaced with an unverifiable AI black box? I do not see it happen.."

That made me think of some of the early chat boxes becoming very rude and obnoxious. What will an AI autonomous driving system devolve into after dealing with stressed rush hour drivers? "Kill them all, every one of them, and their newts" wouldn't' be a good result.

[joe bixflics]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

They will settle a class-action suit and the lawyers will get millions and we will get a couple hundred miles of free supercharging.

[MachDiamond]

Re: FSD on old Hardware

"and we will get a couple hundred miles of free supercharging."

Not me, I won't even get in a Tesla vehicle, much less own or drive one.

[aerogems]

Maybe investors are finally starting to clue into the fact that Xitler is the emperor with no clothes. They've gotten a good look at just how badly he's fucked up every single thing at Xitter. Literally the only thing I can think of as a positive with regards to Xitter, is that I figured it would have already been bankrupt and consigned to the /dev/null of history by now, but it's still somehow limping along. Not only that, they've seen him going further and further down the conspiracy nutter rabbit hole on Xitter.

Then there's the fact that companies like BYD have already eaten Tesla's lunch in the China market. The CyberTruck has been the subject of much amusement with it getting stuck in places where it should easily be able to get out, and the guillotine-like doors that will likely take someone's finger(s) off in the near future if it hasn't already.

Rounding things out is the fact that, once again, he's demonstrating that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. You don't replace C++ code with neural nets. There's no "neural net" programming language, they're something you write using a programming language like C++. Maybe they replaced some old hardcoded decision trees with ML code, but odds are it was still written in C++. It's like the infamous conference call where a former Xitter employee was asking Xitler to walk him through exactly what was wrong with the Twitter code stack and how he planned to address it, and all Xitler could do was call the person a jackass.

Best case scenario, Xitler is just stretched too thin between all his different business ventures. More probably is he's just an idiot who has no idea what he's doing, never has, and basically used his family's wealth to backstop some highly speculative investments that ended up paying off pretty well. He's a grifter, plain and simple. At least when he was a high functioning drug abuser he was useful as a rain maker, able to convince people to invest in his companies. Now, he seems to have hit the tipping point where the drug abuse is taking over his life and everything else suffers.

https://news.yahoo.com/flustered-elon-musk-flips-jackass-210802495.html

[Jellied Eel]

More probably is he's just an idiot who has no idea what he's doing, never has, and basically used his family's wealth to backstop some highly speculative investments that ended up paying off pretty well.

Not strictly true I think, but traded the money he made from Paypal into Tesla, then used that to backstop family losses. So when Tesla bought Solarcity off Elon's cousins and brother. That seemed to pay well for the Muskovites, less well for ordinary shareholders.

At least when he was a high functioning drug abuser he was useful as a rain maker, able to convince people to invest in his companies. Now, he seems to have hit the tipping point where the drug abuse is taking over his life and everything else suffers.

Apparently he's also demanding a new executive compensation package and more stock to mebbe keep him interested. Mebbe Tesla's investors will say 'NO'. Given how leveraged Musk's portfolio must be, having someone else driving Tesla might end up being good for Elon's security though.

[aerogems]

Not strictly true I think, but traded the money he made from Paypal into Tesla, then used that to backstop family losses. So when Tesla bought Solarcity off Elon's cousins and brother. That seemed to pay well for the Muskovites, less well for ordinary shareholders.

He had the money to start his first X company, which ultimately became PayPal because he didn't have to worry about silly things like rent or other basic necessities. If it had bombed, he had family wealth to fall back on to keep him housed and fed. Though, yes, when Solar City was bought out, it was a great deal for the people who owned large amounts of stock in Solar City, which was mostly Xitler and his brother... less so for the Tesla shareholders. Why they didn't demand some house cleaning on the board and in the C-Suite after that, never mind the SEC investigating it for potential insider trading and self-dealing, I'll never know.

Apparently he's also demanding a new executive compensation package and more stock to mebbe keep him interested. Mebbe Tesla's investors will say 'NO'. Given how leveraged Musk's portfolio must be, having someone else driving Tesla might end up being good for Elon's security though.

Compensation for what? He spends most of his day trolling on Xitter. When he isn't doing that, he seems to be sexually harassing^{*+^} female employees at his various business ventures to be impregnated via IVF after he jacks it into a cup. The amount of time he seems to spend actually doing what might be considered work appears to get smaller every day. He may be sitting in a chair somewhere at a Tesla or SpaceX office, but if he's just on his phone being a Xitter whore, he's not exactly working. Any one of us would easily get shitcanned if that's all we did every day. Even in the UK/EU where you have much stronger labor laws, you're not going to find a sympathetic tribunal judge I would imagine. Unless your job is to be a Xitter whore, which is probably not a position at any reputable company anywhere in the world.

At any other company, where the board wasn't literally made up of family members and other sycophants, Xitler would have been out on his ass ages ago. The Solar City deal probably would have been more than enough reason to force him out, and there were probably examples before that. Then there's the "funding secured" xcretion, the embezzlement from having Tesla employees work on his privately owned company Xitter. Or just the fact that there's no way he could really be spending that much time on Tesla related matters if he's also involved in SpaceX, Neuralink, Boring, Xitter, and that AI venture I forget the name of (and let's face it, it doesn't really matter). That's without ample evidence that he spends inordinate amounts of time during the day being a Xitter whore.

* In the US at least, under the law, this would be sexual harassment even if the employee willingly agrees because of the power disparity in their positions. It is essentially a quid pro quo arrangement because he could fire the employee in retaliation if they refused. I can't say for sure, but my guess is it would be similar in Blighty and the EU.

+ How the fuck does a conversation like this even come up as part of a normal professional working environment? Seriously. Seriously, seriously. "Hey Barbra! You ever thought about having my kid if I jack it into a cup and then pay for you to have IVF?"

^ Who the hell would want to ensure that Xitler is forever in your life by having a kid with him? The nice thing about it being a strictly professional relationship is you can always quit and find a new job. But if you have a kid with him, however it was conceived, you're stuck with him until the end of time.

[MachDiamond]

"He had the money to start his first X company, which ultimately became PayPal because he didn't have to worry about silly things like rent or other basic necessities."

It's a bit more tedious than that. Cofinity bought X and Elon insisted on the CEO position as well as stock and cash. When Elon headed down under on a honeymoon, the board sacked him and he found this out when he landed and turned right back around which did him no good as he had no friends in the company. Cofinity had a service called Paypal and the company renamed to PayPal before selling it off to eBay, but Elon was long gone before that, but still held stock. TL:DR, Elon really didn't have anything to do with what became Paypal otha than owning stock.

The big payday from the Paypal stock let him insert himself into Tesla by making a big investment on the initial funding round and then booting out the founders to claim all of the credit for inventing the electric car. JB Straubel had an even more dubious claim to being a Tesla founder, but there was a judge found cheap enough to rule that the two of them could call themselves founders regardless of the true story.

Now, don't get me started on how much money Elon's ventures have garnered from government grants and sweetheart loans. Every Elon company has a government aspect to it. SpaceX has been paid ~$2bn on the ~$3bn option A contract to provide a lander for the return to the moon. Boom.

[MachDiamond]

"The amount of time he seems to spend actually doing what might be considered work appears to get smaller every day."

There's a reason why he went after the Xidiot that was Xitting the flights of his Gulfstream jet. The list of Mr. Green's private jet trips looked especially hypocritical on the eco front. It also laid bare how often he's not in the Tesla offices.

[jmch]

"Maybe investors are finally starting to clue into...."

I actually had a look at the linked PDF earnings reported, and actually the numbers look pretty good. Tesla is a highly profitable company with a loyal (in some cases obsessively so) fanbase, and seeing the age of most of their models, work on a new platform is to be expected. What I think might be happening is that while most of the investors in Tesla are professional investors, there is a disproportionately large chunk of fanboi private buyers of the stock. In other words, the stock was overpriced because of Musk and Tesla's fame/notoriety, and professional investors dumped the stock after the earnings call because however good the numbers are, they cannot match the hype.

I would also add that sometimes it is also the professional investors and wall street analysts who don't have an effing clue and simply expect revenue to keep on growing by X% just because it did so before, completely divorced from real-world situation

[Andy 73]

The numbers show a halving of the margins that were a key selling point of the stock. They also show growth in revenue dropping to below industry peers. Note this is the industry that Musk has been calling 'legacy' for years. They would be good numbers only if you thought you'd bought into a mid tier auto company, not a disruptive market leader.

They were followed by an earnings call where Musk demonstrated he was completely unprepared for Chinese competition, despite running a factory there for years. He has lost any first mover advantage, with the new model at least two years away, which suggests development has barely started. He's stuck in a price war.

The point of all this is that the current stock price is massively over valued if Tesla is 'just' a car company. Overvalued by orders of magnitude. Investors, professional or otherwise, will not stick with it if it cannot deliver the insane 50% annual growth target that was promised, because nothing about the fundamental economics of the company justifies such a high multiple.

So this isn't about whether Tesla is profitable, is about whether it will be 100x bigger in the future. That's what the share price is concerned with, and what people are beginning to question.

[MachDiamond]

"The numbers show a halving of the margins that were a key selling point of the stock. "

Tesla calculates their gross margins differently than the rest of the industry so the figures have never been directly comparable. There's no legal requirement over what's put in and what's left out so if those details aren't listed, the numbers are meaningless and industry journalists have often said they were formulated to be overstated so a big drop is even worse.

[aerogems]

So more of Xitler's classic, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," mentality? It may not be legally mandated, but there is GAAP, which most companies follow for a reason. When you start fucking with the numbers, people get rightly suspicious.

[J. Cook]

THIS.

Just ask MCI Worldcom, and every other telco that all used the EBITDA method (and some creative accounting) to show how profitable they were, when in reality they were trashfires.

[aerogems]

Not being a beancounter by profession, had to look that one up, but sounds like the method Xitler's using to claim Xitter is almost at a break-even point.

For everyone else, EBITDA is basically ignoring things like debts and taxes when calculating profit margins. So, it's more or less as I was jokingly saying before. Xitler is basically ignoring the billions of dollars in debt he saddled Xitter with, all the lawsuits and arbitration claims for unpaid severance and salary, the advertising revenue having dropped by more than half, and all the other little miscellaneous things like (probably) rent on office space. You just ignore all that, and I'm sure Xitter probably is close to break-even, but it's not like you can just not pay those things. Especially not when you owe money to MBS (Master of the Bone Saw). He will find you and you will pay in either money or your organs being sold on the black market.

[MachDiamond]

"It may not be legally mandated, but there is GAAP, which most companies follow for a reason. When you start fucking with the numbers, people get rightly suspicious."

GAAP is proper for the entirety of the financials, but when you break out things such as gross margins for a product of line of products there's industry norms, but it would be hard to call those "Generally Accepted". Do you include average warranty costs in a gross margin calculation or nothing but Labor and Materials? There are many costs that could be considered as part of the gross margin, but there are no legal requirements. It can get very weird when you see things such as "free cash flow" and it's more money than the company has shown for net profit over the life of the company or has in cash/cash equivalents. I thought I'd go back to Uni and get an MBA, but I can't think of somebody that has one that I like. It would be handy to see where the wool is being stretched very tautly.

[Jellied Eel]

So this isn't about whether Tesla is profitable, is about whether it will be 100x bigger in the future. That's what the share price is concerned with, and what people are beginning to question.

Yep. Plus there's some risk that more pointed questions will be asked about the EV credits that always seem to provide a convenient top-up. As more manufacturers make the own EVs, the need to buy credits from Tesla will decline. There's also some regulatory risk about how those are assigned, ie based on a gas mileage equivalent of (from memory) 450mpg rather than a more realistic 70mpg. Regulators could just change the rules on those credits (again), or if not, it could get expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

Sorta like the announcement of Ron De Santis's now defunct campaign for POTUS.

Tesla is stuck with really just two volume models, the '3' and 'Y'. Everything else is just window dressing. So he says that a small car might be coming in 2025...

In Musk years, that is 2027 at the earliest. If they were planning volume production of the Model 2 (or whatever it will be called) then they'd have at least one prototype on the roads for testing.

We are seeing MY2025 models on the road from other makes already.

The more he speaks, the more I am convinced that he is 'all mouth and no trousers', a film-flam guy, a snake oil seller or a combination of all three yet the Teslarti cult still bend the knee for him as if he is some sort of deity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

Yeah, yeah, just you wait until the Musk Militia is old enough to drive. Sales will go through the roof.

[CountCadaver]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

That's funny as gen z and gen a have little interest in learning to drive according to various sources...

[Tommy G1]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

Yeah.. but... Autopilot /s

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

Autopilot has little interest in learning to drive according to various sources at Microsoft.

[MachDiamond]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

"We are seeing MY2025 models on the road from other makes already."

2 years in advance is a pretty typical lead time to be seeing full prototypes being tested after mules have been used to test various things in advance. There's a giant gulf between what the artists draw and what ultimately gets made. The Curtis Brubaker sketch that appears to be the design model for the Cybertruck wouldn't work as shown. The tailgate ramp appears to cross through the rear axle and that's the sort of thing that production engineers have to get sorted out along with finding a way to be in compliance with many local regulations and also so the vehicle can be put together on an assembly line. Elon's "First Principle Design" approach doesn't seem to take much into account when it comes to designing a car for mass production. Of course, Elon has no qualifications in engineering. The closet he has is an Arts degree in physics. I'd cut more slack if it was a physics degree from the college's school of Science. I'd also give him props for being self-taught if it wasn't for what comes out of his mouth on engineering being complete shite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

I was under the impression that Elon Musk didn't finish his Physics and Economics degrees but that he can't admit to it (unlike let's say Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates) because it would be admitting that he illegally overstayed his student visa by staying in the US after he dropped out.

[Dan 55]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

Tesla is stuck with really just two volume models, the '3' and 'Y'. Everything else is just window dressing.

I read somewhere that the Roadster and the S3XY models are pre-Musk era designs from before he got his grubby hands stuck into Tesla. Now we're on models designed by him and his yes men and we've got things like the Semi and Cybertruck.

Not sure if it's true or not, but it sounds about right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

That's not correct because Musk was already involved in the Roadster development. Musk was micromanaging the height of the sill in the Roadster, which he kept wanting to be lowered ever further causing so many delays that the company almost went under. The incident is used as a data point in the analysis that he is too much of a micromanager, similarly to the reason he was fired from eBay over wanting it migrated from Linux to Windows against the wishes of the engineers.

[MachDiamond]

Re: This was a 101 how not to do a conference call

"his yes men and we've got things like the Semi"

I cringed when the Semi was unveiled (officially). It's a fleet vehicle but Elon was going on about the development being centered around the driver when it should have considered the needs and wants of a fleet manager or a vice president of logistics. Those are the people that would be placing the orders and they don't care much about the comfort of the drivers and how many amenities there are for them in the truck. What's the cost/mile? What's the dry weight? What's the range at max weight, mid weight and empty? What are the maintenance items and cost? Serviceability? Repair costs for common accidents? and what's the out-the-door price? The Semi falls down all over the place from a fleet manager's perspective.

I can see where electric HGV's can be a very good fit that gets better when charging is provided at the dock and in the yard for the most amount of uptime. It's a niche market and isn't likely to be a good fit for owner/operators that take loads via brokers. As large as Semi is, it's a day cab not something that will work for driving teams. A 500 mile range is ~8 hours of driving @ 60mph with a bit of margin. That means that it's good for one shift and then needs time to charge so shifts will precess if time is allocated for charging (2 hours to full?). Drivers on regular shift work want the same start and stop times each day so more trucks (tractors in 'Merican parlance) are needed so there are enough for more than one shift per day.

A sleeper cab that can go 8 hours and recharge in 2 might work for some teams. The 2 hour charge stop allows both to do personal tasks and it's not as much of a problem if start and stop times precess rather than remain the same all of the time. The regular runs will be the low hanging fruit. Jobs that require lots of waiting such as at ports and railheads can be electrified in many cases.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Musk vs. the investor class

On the one hand, I would not particularly put any stock in anything that Musk says. On the other hand, if he wants to take the piss out of the rent-seeking economic parasites known as the investor class, who are we to stop him? He has the luxury of blowing smoke up the asses of other self-important blowhards who are used to having their every prognostication taken as Gospel, and who wouldn't enjoy that?

[andrewj]

Re: Musk vs. the investor class

While I vicariously agree, the trouble is that when the music stops it's not the investor class who end up paying the economic costs of the subsequent bust. They get bailed out.

[Andy 73]

Re: Musk vs. the investor class

Yes, just wait till you find out where your pension was invested...

[MachDiamond]

Re: Musk vs. the investor class

"Yes, just wait till you find out where your pension was invested..."

I'm ok. I'm living in a large portion of my pension. Owned outright (except for taxes). I'm too much of a control freak to let somebody else manage my money.

[fandom]

Re: Musk vs. the investor class

Yes, of course, just ask the shareholders and bondholders of GM and Chrysler when the companies where bailed out in 2008.

[Pascal Monett]

"focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

Why does that remind me of a certain Sinclair ?

[Andy 73]

Re: "focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

Sinclair was late, usually because he couldn't get manufacturing going fast enough. He rarely announced products that didn't exist.

Musk on the other hand fakes product videos, claims features that don't exist and viscously attacks anyone who calls him out.

I think I preferred Sinclair's approach. He also didn't claim to be saving the planet.

[Ace2]

Re: "focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

Thank you, thank you, for the delightful image of Musk “viscously attacking” someone. What an awesome typo. I might be still be laughing tomorrow.

He’s such a godawful dbag.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: "focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

The victims could come to a sticky end.

[Andy 73]

Re: "focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

Damn autocorrect.

[Dan 55]

Re: "focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

He did do an interview where he said that MSX was based on 5-year old technology which was rather cheeky of him considering it was 1984, one year from when the MSX standard was announced and about 5 years from when Sinclair started designing the ZX80 which isn't that different from the Spectrum when all's said and done.

These days we'd have said he was projecting and crucified him on social media.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: "focus the team on the launch of the next-generation vehicle"

Why does that remind me of a certain Sinclair ?

More like Osbourne (the computer one, not the failed ex-chancellor)

[StrangerHereMyself]

Right

I hate to say this, but Musk is basically right about Chinese car manufacturers eventually crushing Western ones if we don't impose trade restrictions on them. Loss of the car industry in Europe would be a huge blow since there's little else the continent produces which is as profitable and generates the same amount of employment. Germany especially is being kept afloat by its car industry. Europe has completely missed out on the Internet and therefore has little earning capacity beyond automobiles.

My proposal would be to allow China to export 1 (one) car to the EU for every European car that it imports, and no more. This will have the added benefit of giving China the incentive to import more European cars.

If my proposal isn't accepted and people instead demand cheap Chinese cars the European car industry will be decimated within two decades.You have been warned.

[aerogems]

Re: Right

The problem is, most people only ever look at the sticker price of things they buy.

Let's just use TVs as an example. You could have two models with exactly identical specs, but one was made from as many US/EU/UK sourced components as possible, and assembled in country/region by people who were paid a prevailing wage. The other model was made in China with effectively slave labor. Difference in price is 100USD/GBP/EUR for let's say a 2000USD/GBP/EUR set. I pretty much guarantee the cheaper model would sell significantly better. You could even put up signs saying "Made with Chinese slave labor" and "Made by US/UK/EU citizens paid a living wage" and the cheaper model would still sell better by a healthy margin.

As a whole, all of us in the west need to wean ourselves off of cheap Chinese made goods. You want to sell your wares there, fine, but we need to start collectively be willing to pay a little more to make sure we have goods that are made by people who are actually paid a living wage. Once upon a time we somehow managed to do this and make it by economically, I'm sure we could do it again.

[RedGreen925]

Re: Right

"Once upon a time we somehow managed to do this and make it by economically, I'm sure we could do it again."

Once upon a time the corporate parasites had no choice but to employ people at a living wage in the countries that produced those things. Then came the Globalization crowd and their lies about making world a better place by engaging with the murdering bastards like the Chinese and their ilk. Using trade to lift the standard of living when in reality it was a jaunt to lax environmental standards and slave labor they were and still are after. As a nice side bonus they get to fuck over the people in their own countries trying to turn them into compliant little debt serfs taking an ever increasing share of the pie for themselves. All made possible by the scumbag bought and paid for politicians who should be shot and pissed on.

[aerogems]

Re: Right

As much as I wish I could disagree with what you said... I can find no fault with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right

Personally, I welcome being ruled over by our corporate feudal overlords /s

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Right

I for one don't buy anything of any value from Chinese manufacturers: no laptops, smartphones or televisions. I carefully research which manufacturers are Chinese or Chinese owned (such as Volvo, which is owned by Geely and whose EV's are merely rebranded Geely's with some Swedish input safety-wise). No TCL, Huawie, OnePlus, Vivo, Oppo, Xiaomi, Lenovo or Hisense for me.

And I'm not the only one it seems since the market share of Chinese smartphone makers has dropped markedly over the past couple of years. People found out their wares are junk. Fragile, with unsupported and insecure software. And that's aside from the fact that the CCP has a backdoor to your phone if you say something nasty about them.

[Zibob]

Re: Right

In genuinely curious, what do you use?

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Right

Samsung or Japanese brands like Panasonic. Or American brands like JBL and such.

It doesn't matter to me where it's made, I just want the company making / designing / supporting it not being Chinese. Some British audio brands like Cambridge Audio manufacture their stuff in China. That's fine with me.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Right

I'm old enough to remember when Japanese products were cheap junk, were continually derided as cheep junk when in fact they no longer were and eventually their producers walked all over local businesses because they improved design and quality.

I think this mistake is being repeated with China. There's certainly a lot of junk but a couple of gadgets I've bought recently seem to show good build quality and attention to detail in the BoM such as a lens cloth included with a document camera and a dual charging cable with a radio mic. Those things don't happen without somebody thinking of them and while a few years ago nobody might have given that level of thought it is starting to happen now.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Right

I'm not making any predictions on whether the quality of Chinese goods will improve or not, but I do believe there are currently no Chinese manufacturers that are well known for making quality products and have consistently done so (and not just for a few years, but decades).

Japanese brands like Toyota and Panasonic have earned their badges of honor. By consistently making high-quality products for 50 years or more. The spicy part is that they actually learned this from the Americans who invented the methodology (Statistical Process Control) during WWII whilst fighting Japan.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Right

The critical phrase there is "are well known". By the time they become well known it's too late.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Right

I'm old enough to remember when Japanese products were cheap junk, were continually derided as cheep junk when in fact they no longer were and eventually their producers walked all over local businesses because they improved design and quality.

Yep. It's been interesting watching China adapt to Western (and other) design/style preferences. Early generation mobile phones were chunky/quirky and same for a lot of other consumer electronics. Now, they're getting the styling nailed, along with general design and features. This goes from consumer kit up to fairly niche stuff. So some years ago I needed a DWDM system that had support for native broadcast interfaces, because broadcasters are weird like that. Cisco, Juniper and the usual Western suspects didn't really support those because they weren't the standard telco interfaces. Huawei did.

It's strange the way China's followed Japan and taken style hints, where the West has perhaps been slow. So the first Xbox was a boring brick, now it's a little more stylish, but a lot of US consumer electronics still looks rather dated.

[willyslick]

Re: Right

So Apple is OK, from your point of view? As its designed in the USA....

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Right

So you are fine with slave labor as long as the capitalist overlords can have the fig leaf of "designed in the UK/USA"?

[MachDiamond]

Re: Right

""Made with Chinese slave labor""

Consumer electronics aren't a good example. Most of those are made mostly by robots so labor isn't a huge cost component. The wages in China have been competitive for some time in that industry as well. The bigger issue is do-good politicians that find the production of electronic devices to cause pollution, so they impose bans on certain processes or regulations administered by 4 or 5 different agencies that all have different reporting and compliance requirements. What that leads to is a very effective ban. It might only make a few components far too expensive or impossible to make in country, but when supply chains are broken it makes more sense for companies to locate to places where the supply chains for their product is contiguous. It's the environmental and regulatory policies that make manufacturing in China more cost effective. It's not the price of labor for your example.

People are also saying that China let Tesla in to steal Tesla's IP, but that's not true either. Some of the first Model 3's sold to the public when straight into a shipping container and off to Asia. For a comparatively paltry sum of money, one can buy a full tear down report from Munro and Associates. The report not only shows every nut and bolt, but the suppliers where known and analysis of where savings can be had and where the engineering looks very weedy. Roush has similar service and I'm sure there are plenty more. Anybody that's followed Scotty on Strange Parts may remember some of his visits to places that can X-ray IC's to determine their make and model or carefully peel back the layers and stick them in an electron microscope. Armed with that information, it could be possible to extract any programming. Of course, the most value is seeing how a competitor solved a design issue more than being able to make an exact duplicate. There are no durable secrets.

[Cav]

Re: Right

"do-good politicians that find the production of electronic devices to cause pollution"

You make concern for the environment sound like a bad thing. Your statement is economically correct but idiotic with the "Do-Good" element.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Right

"You make concern for the environment sound like a bad thing."

The 'concern' isn't the problem. It's how they've gone about making sure pollution and waste is reduced or eliminated and that has been by over-regulating to the point where compliance becomes more expensive than what it cost to cut down on environmentally bad things. Too many politicians do stupid things with the intent of doing good, but have no clue about the sorts of things they are passing laws to regulate.

[Cav]

Re: Right

Most people can't afford 2000 whatever for a TV.

[vtcodger]

Re: Right

Comment Withdrawn by author.

[jmch]

Re: Right

Well, the flip side of the western world's colonisation of large parts of Africa and subjugation of large parts of Asia is that those countries are now far poorer than most western countries, which in turn means the cost of labour, land, housing and living is cheaper. That means that even if China, India etc implemented the same rigorous environmental and labour laws that the west have, they would still be able to produce the same goods more cheaply. And that, by the way, is OK. Europe does not have some god-given right to eternal prosperity based on car-making or whatever else. Europeans weren't complaining much when most of the world's south was buying European cars. And when Japan rose as an economic power and their car industry started ramping up, European carmakers found a way to improve and compete.

Making China import as many cars from EU as it exports would be quite unworkable (nor even if you do it on a price base so you don't balance number of cars but total value). Instead what I suggest would work better is to introduce an import tariff based on production conditions (which also has the advantage of being universally applicable to all countries, rather than a punitive measure specifically targeting China, and also allows compliant companies in generally non-compliant countries to not be tarred by the same brush). If your factory is paying a living wage with good conditions, and your car* parts and the energy used in your factories are more environmentally friendly, you can import tariff-free. The more your production pollutes, and the worse the conditions are for your workers, the higher the tariff. Don't want to submit to certification? You get slapped with the highest tariff. Calibrate the tariffs so that the added cost incurred to implement environmental rules and fair pay / working conditions to the price tag of any item is cheaper than the equivalent import tariff to be paid, which will incentivise improved conditions.

*actually this could/should be applied to all goods not just cars

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Right

You may be right about colonization and such but we need to protect our industries and prosperity at all costs.

And whether it's fair or not doesn't matter. Life isn't fair, only the ruthless survive.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Right

"You may be right about colonization and such but we need to protect our industries and prosperity at all costs."

There's a book I want to read on Quitting. The blurb seems to address what your comment made me think of. There are industries and businesses that a first world company can and should let go of. Not always completely, but mostly.

I see military uniforms in the US that are made overseas and I find that disturbing. It's taxpayer money leaving the country and it would seem that whomever thought that outsourcing anything used in the military was a good idea needs to be sent North for re-education. It can be fine if a domestic supplier bids a higher prices since their employees are going to pay all sorts of taxes and the company will pay taxes on their earnings so a chunk of the purchase price goes back into government coffers and relieves said government of supplying benefits to those people when they can't find jobs. There was the Toothpaste Issue where the US government awarded a foreign supplier a contract to supply toothpaste for institutional distribution (prisons, military, etc). Not only was it money being sent out of the country, the toothpaste was bulked up with melamine and caused a lot of health problems. It didn't get a lot of headlines since there's not much sympathy for convicted criminals and the military can just make up whatever story they want.

To keep an industry, a government has to come to grips with why it's not profitable for a company to build a certain product in the country and work to solve those issues. Wishing will not do the job and banning imports or applying a big tariff are negative solutions where a positive solution is much more preferable.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Right

When I was younger, all the chinaware came from China, where huge manufactures were setup to provide goods for the European market.

Then some German and French guys stole the fabrication secrets, and we got Porcelaine de Limoges on one side, Meißner Porzellan on the other side.

Chinese have long memories...

[jotheberlock]

Re: Right

So must you. Chinese-style porcelain including Limoges has been in fashion in Europe since the 18th century. Which crypt do you sleep in during daytime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right

"the flip side of the western world's colonisation of large parts of Africa and subjugation of large parts of Asia is that those countries are now far poorer than most western countries"

China was (other than a few areas where control was ceded) never colonised, and is the low cost labour capital of the world. African nations that were never colonised (Ethiopia, Liberia) are poor and undeveloped, as was Afghanistan even before people were fighting over it. America was colonised and is pretty wealthy. I'm not really seeing the association your comment implies.

No nation can move from pre-industrial technology and living standards to current Western standards without either (a) a vast external injection of capital, knowledge, and infrastructure of law and government, or (b) developing those things internally, which took around 500 years of pain and struggle in Europe.

[jmch]

Re: Right

"China was (other than a few areas where control was ceded) never colonised, and is the low cost labour capital of the world. African nations that were never colonised (Ethiopia, Liberia) are poor and undeveloped, as was Afghanistan even before people were fighting over it. America was colonised and is pretty wealthy. I'm not really seeing the association your comment implies."

China was never colonised, but it WAS subjugated for a long time. The US (also Australia and New Zealand) wasn't exactly 'colonised' as other African / Asian nations were (Europeans taking charge of an enduring native population), it's original inhabitants were killed off (partly unwittingly through importation of diseases, partly to steal their land). US was mostly built up by Europeans and their descendants.

As you imply in your last paragraph, there are many other things required for development besides self-determination, not least a liberal political and social culture that allows technological advancement and education to take root, all of which were lacking in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Liberia etc.

So colonialism is not the only reason ex-colonies are poor, but it is one of the reasons that they started their development at a much later point in time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right

"So colonialism is not the only reason ex-colonies are poor, but it is one of the reasons that they started their development at a much later point in time."

The nations in question weren't developing nations when colonised, and wouldn't have made any material advances for hundreds of years absent outside intervention. That's not about "them", because it's equally true that mediaeval Europe made bugger all economic, social or technological progress through most of the middle ages, and most wealth that was created was seized by feudal leaders and squandered on wars.

Unfashionable though it is to say so, colonialism wasn't a universal blight, and those countries that built on the positive legacies of colonialism such as India have done well. The former colonies that are doing particularly poorly are the ones who threw away the civil infrastructure instituted by the leaving colonists, and/or were torn apart by wars, ethnic strife, and corruption.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Right

The European, and especially the German, car industry only has itself to blame. For decades it pleaded for incentives for larger, heavier vehicles with bigger profit margins. Like the US in the 1960s and 1970s.

Chinese electric cars will sell well because, at the moment, they are the better electric cars. But, just their like Japanese and Korean predecessors, they will need to set up European plants to succeed over time.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Right

This isn't about blame. This is about protecting one of our most important industries.

I don't care whether the German manufacturers were right or wrong. Our self-interests are irrefutably harmed if they go bust.

I don't care how many WTO rules we break by implementing this scheme, since not doing so will see Europe go under.

[fandom]

Re: Right

If it makes you feel better BYD is planning to build two factories in Europe.

[imanidiot]

Re: Right

It doesn't, because those plants will still pull a lot of economics towards benefiting China. Their plan to produce in Europe are only to save on shipping costs (which are rising precipitously currently and are not looking to come down any time soon)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Right

So you are against German manufacturers setting up plants in North America?

And what about Stellantis? where should be the plants located?

(Abarth ,Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Citroën, Dodge, DS, Fiat, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Opel, Peugeot, Ram, Vauxhall)

[doublelayer]

Re: Right

If you don't care about breaking rules and any objective reason to keep it alive, why should anyone outside the region care about breaking rules and any objective standard that would harm you? Why shouldn't, for example, large tech companies continue to ignore increasingly strong European attempts to regulate, tax, and restrain them on the basis of "you probably need Google here, so what are you going to do"? Of course, they're already taking some attitudes that look like that, but not officially and when regulators put their foot down, they respond.

Those rules exist for a reason. If you're going to defend them, you might want to be careful and make rules that at least appear to work with the rest of them because otherwise, people will toss out all the rules that help you. An environmental regulation that happens to make things more expensive for Chinese manufacturers is doable. One that just bans them is likely to have negative effects you're not paying attention to.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Right

"I hate to say this, but Musk is basically right about Chinese car manufacturers eventually crushing Western ones if we don't impose trade restrictions on them."

Attention has to be paid to dumping and unfair trading practices, but if the Big Two in the US don't get off their backsides and do some work, I don't have a problem with those backsides being handed to them. There's nothing intrinsically hard about building an electric vehicle. A company such as Ford has masses of experience building 90% of the vehicle already and what's left is "yet another" drive train option. They are only as hard as the companies want to make them. That's why the top of my EV list is a Bolt. It's not perfect, but the older ones aren't weighed down with useless features. I like simple. I like a car that isn't one single point of failure after another. I also like knobs and switches. I can reach out with muscle memory in my current petrol car to adjust the HVAC, radio, etc. I can feel the controls as opposed to a touch screen that takes vision and a smooth road.

[DS999]

Complete autopilot rewrite

Because of course what all of us tech knowledgeable people would love is to trust our lives to a ground up rewrite (and with "AI", so the engineers at Tesla won't even be able to tell anyone why your car went straight for that telephone pole!)

[Anonymous Coward]

It’s inconceivable to me

That anyone invests with this clown.

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: It’s inconceivable to me

Don't you know that he's regarded as the new Messiah by the Tesla faithful. If he was eligible to be VP to Trump in November, then it would be a no brainer (which is what Trumps brain will be by then).

Luckily, he can't be VP or POTUS so the left ponders have been spared that particular disaster.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: It’s inconceivable to me

"Luckily, he can't be VP or POTUS"

Unfortunately they have no shortage of unlucky choices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It’s inconceivable to me

"Unfortunately they have no shortage of unlucky choices."

Sunak will be looking for a job over there soon, he'd fit right in.

[Jimmy2Cows]

Re: Sunak will be looking for a job over there soon

Fortunately for the left-pondians, he's as inelligible to stand as Musk is.

[Anonymous Coward]

An extraordinary call warrants a closer look ;)

An Extraordinary Call Warrants a Closer Look at VFS Stock

“Dan Ives .. believes that VinFast is on the right path toward achieving its core goals. These involve creating a robust product portfolio for global electric transportation”

[gandalfcn]

When Elon Musk says Tesla had a "great year," it's best to assume he's lying as usual.

[Jellied Eel]

When Elon Musk says Tesla had a "great year," it's best to assume he's lying as usual.

I hate repeats. Coming soon, an affordable Tesla. Isn't that what the Model 3 was supposed to have been? I suppose now he's actually made the Model 3, Tesla can revisit that and figure out what parts can be stripped out or sold on subscription plan to make it cheaper.

[jmch]

The Roadster was a rich man's plaything

The model S (and later, X) was the preserve of the well-paid professional or executive

The model 3, while more affordable than those before it, was never meant to be a cheap car (at least not in the sense that most people mean cheap). It's target was $35k but very few were sold at that price, it was more like $40-45k.

Tesla, for all it's ills, have now been building cars for over 10 years, and while I haven't been following closely, I would hope that that experience will allow them to improve on the quality of their cars, and of their mass-production processes, which in turn would allow them to sell a truly cheap car.... but.... do they want to? Tesla position themselves a a premium brand, and their prices and markups (which are considerably higher than similair-quality brands) reflect that. Premium carmakers, even when making smaller cars, have those cars priced at a premium (eg Mercedes A-class, Audi A1 etc).

What Tesla really need is new and improved versions of the S (which is over 10 years old) and X, based on a new platform that is cheaper for them to build, and better build quality and reliability overall. The question is, can they achieve that??

[Jellied Eel]

.. but.... do they want to? Tesla position themselves a a premium brand, and their prices and markups (which are considerably higher than similair-quality brands) reflect that. Premium carmakers, even when making smaller cars, have those cars priced at a premium (eg Mercedes A-class, Audi A1 etc).

I think if Tesla has any sense, yes, they really want to. Model 3 was supposed to be the volkswagon, yet ended up being expensive. They may market themselves as a premium brand, but consumers may not be convinced. The build quality, fit & finish aren't exactly premium, neither are the features. Some people may like the minimalism, some may like the interior being easy to wipe down like a cheap diner. Others may prefer EV models from Audi, BMW, Mercedes etc. Then from the opposite end, China, India etc are making cheap EVs. So I think Tesla's getting squeezed with competitors making better product and high & low end.

[Lurko]

"What Tesla really need is new and improved versions of the S (which is over 10 years old) and X, based on a new platform that is cheaper for them to build, and better build quality and reliability overall. The question is, can they achieve that??"

Even if they do, I can't see it will give them the hoped for growth that is the absolute and single foundation of the Tesla share price. Almost everybody who wants and can afford a Model S or X has one, sales of these models are tailing off and the company has a circa 50% EV market share. Even when Tesla replace these ageing models, will that open up new volume, or just be existing Tesla buyers?

Musk is finding out the hard way that making a car is easy. Making several cars is difficult. Providing service on cars you've sold is harder still. Renewing your model line up is even more challenging.

Turns out the existing care makers new a lot more about making, selling, servicing cars than Musk ever gave them credit for, and they know a whole lot more about model life cycling.

[MachDiamond]

"Renewing your model line up is even more challenging."

Elon has never even tried. The 3 and Y are so similar that they have to be seen side by side to tell the difference. The silhouette they teased as being the low-priced model really looks like the Model 3 yet again. While the S has had some facelifts, it's grossly the same as it's ever been and the X needs loads of work starting with abandoning the problematic gull-wing doors. This may all be moot if the production space those models occupy would earn the company more money if it were used for that long promised Roadster 2.0.

Yet another sedan no matter the price will still only appeal to certain buyers. A coupe could bring in a few new buyers, but something like a wagon (estate) or a fleet-optimized model could gain the company more new customers and those that need to move from a sedan(ish) conveyance to something better for a family or carting the dogs around. A fleet vehicle would be a perfect government lash up for Elon that he should pursue before he's found out and politicians stop taking his calls.

[MachDiamond]

"I suppose now he's actually made the Model 3, Tesla can revisit that and figure out what parts can be stripped out or sold on subscription plan to make it cheaper."

The CFO wrote on the handout for the last earnings call that the Model 3 is hitting the natural lowest price possible as it currently stands. Regardless of whether they can get people into a subscription, the hardware has to be installed. If it's a purely software product, if it isn't a new thing, people will get really pissed if what used to be standard is now behind a paywall.

The "Next Gen" Tesla will have to be paired to the bone and even then a $25k MSRP is hard to believe. If they delete 2 doors and all of the driver assistance hardware, that might shave enough weight to allow a smaller battery pack for a range comparable to the M3. 250 to 300 miles for the US market is de rigueur. Any less and it will be derided as a 'city' car. More than that means a bigger battery pack which is the biggest cost of an EV.

What might be a winner is a bare bones 2-door built for fleet service. That would include fleet management software and things like being able to use employee ident cards to access vehicles to get rid of a lot of physical key management. The system would also need to track distance driven and be able to fix costs to departments/projects. With a fleet charging system, cars reserved for longer trips could be prioritized for charging overnight. There could also be cars with smaller batteries for local driving at a lower purchase price. Paint them green and they can be used on a military base.

[lglethal]

A guide to American speech for everyone else...

What words Americans use tends to have a different meaning comapred to the rest of the English speaking world. Let me give you some examples:

What Americans say - What it actually means:

Awesome - Good

Fabulous - Good

Amazing - Good

Great - OK

Fine - Bad

Ok - really bad

Not so Great - Really, really, terrribly bad.

As such, Musk simply stated the truth - that Tesla had an OK year... He was just speaking in American... :P

[Charlie Clark]

Reminds me of Scully's time at Apple

So, no sales growth because we're working on the "next great thing", or the thing we didn't plan for in an industry that is notoriously cyclical and you have to have multiple generations of models on the go all the time. Then there's the idea of licensing the bits that we do have (charger network, autopilot crap, etc.) as if the competition can't build better mousetraps once you show them how.

I can't wait for someone to call a credit note on this house of cards, which has a joker as king.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Reminds me of Scully's time at Apple

Reminds me of Osbourne computers. If I was thinking of buying a Tesla, I'd now be thinking of holding on to my current car and waiting to buy the next model to save some money.... Who knows, it might even come with real switches instead of a touchscreen.... (Just joking, everyone knows you have to buy something other than a Tesla to get real switches!)

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

"This was a 101 how not to do a conference call," Wedbush managing director and senior equity analyst Dan Ives said on Bloomberg Surveillance this morning. "We're still bullish

They're still bullish? Why? I mean, yeah, they're still up compared to this time last year, but then so was the whole stock market in August 1929.

[Lurko]

"They're still bullish? Why?"

Wedbush are brokerage and wealth advisor. Their corporate profits are reliant on people wanting to invest. In December, Wedbush set a 2024 Tesla stock price target of $350 a share (it's now $183).

He can hardly say "Fair enough, our previous advice was crap, we've sold you a pig in a poke and it's worth a whole lot less than what you paid when we told you to buy"

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-gets-price-target-boost-to-350-as-wedbush-s-ives-foresees-ev-giant-regaining-1-trillion-market-cap-in-2024-1032921088

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

Good point. It would be rather a career limiting move.

[imanidiot]

"Frankly, I think if there are not trade barriers established, they will pretty much demolish most other companies in the world," Musk said. "They're extremely good."

Most people here seem to focus on the price being the reason for Chinese car makers (like BYD) doing as well as they are compared to Tesla, but I think that's only part of the story. Service and parts availability is also (far) better than Tesla, though that's not a very hard bar to clear. Currently most Western brands still have a far, far superior support network to both Tesla and Chinese manufacturers. If they can ever overcome that, indeed I think Chinese brands are going to be strong contenders. Right now I see them mostly successful in the lease/commercial/company vehicle market where long term reliability and comfort are less important and customers care less about their car being at the shop because they receive a replacement vehicle for that time. Personally I'm just not convinced of the engineering on the lower end models. The brands like Polestar, Lync & Co and Volvo (all Geely) that lean heavily on the Swedish engineering legacy of Volvo seem fine, but BYD (and MG) i'm just not convinced on.

[Kristian Walsh]

To be honest, there are vintage car models that have better service and parts support than Tesla.

Tesla ignored life cycle support so that it could spend its cash on sales growth. Now that it has a large customer base it really needs to invest heavily in that repairs and parts function, because customers who lose the use of their car for a month while waiting for a simple part to arrive will remember that when choosing the brand of their next car. But that investment isn't happening. They're still chasing growth, and not paying enough attention to the customers who have trusted Tesla.

Anecdotally, I hear that while EV owners stick with EVs, Tesla is starting to look like a "one and done" brand, with owners moving up to models from other manufacturers.

[MachDiamond]

"because customers who lose the use of their car for a month while waiting for a simple part to arrive will remember that when choosing the brand of their next car."

Or truck. If you look at the front end of the Semi you notice that it's very different from other brands in that it doesn't have a proper bumper. In fact, it looks a lot like a front end accident would transmit into that huge windscreen taking it out, as well as a whole bunch of fiberglass. An expensive truck like that waiting for parts and a Tesla factory technician, if they won't release service information, is many credits per hour of down time.

[imanidiot]

That Semi of theirs is never going to end up seeing large scale commercial use beyond a few pilot programs. And most customers of those pilot programs are probably going to run away screaming. Heavy hauling is a very demanding industry with little tolerance for failure on the reliability and service side of things. Something Tesla just isn't delivering. And I have no reason to think they would be able to deliver for the semi.

[MachDiamond]

"Heavy hauling is a very demanding industry with little tolerance for failure on the reliability and service side of things."

I found it interesting that most trucks in the US "cube out" more often than they hit the limit on max weight. Pepsi/Frito lay hauling packets of crisps from the factory to distribution warehouses is a good application for the Semi. For that it's more about volume than mass. The runs are also well known and regular so there's no questions about running out of battery and charging can be installed dock-side on both ends. As a general purpose vehicle for sale to owner/operators, it's not that attractive.