Tesla Motors Shaken Up, Laying Off

tjstork writes "Tesla Motors, the darling of technorati for its high performance electric car, may be about to go belly up. Venture capital is cut off, layoffs are under way, and construction plans are being stretched out. Elon Musk has ousted the CEO and taken the reins, blaming the global credit crunch."

Comments

Credit crunch my butt

[Gothmolly]

If your product works, or at least appears to, and you have a sound plan for getting it to market, where it will be purchased, then SOMEONE will loan you the money. If you're a slick dot-com shop with a foosball table and free soda for everyone, and your product consists of a slick name and spiffy presentations, then not so much.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[neokushan]

Sadly, if Dilbert has taught me anything, it's actually the other way around....

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[morgan_greywolf]

If your product works, or at least appears to, and you have a sound plan for getting it to market, where it will be purchased, then SOMEONE will loan you the money.

Not necessarily so. For one thing, Tesla Motors has a long list of pre-orders, IIRC, and I believe they started shipping cars, so there is apparently sufficient demand for their product.

In this tight credit market, lenders are reluctant to lend money to even stable, established companies. They're not even issuing commercial paper -- which are short-term loans to other banks.

Venture capital usually doesn't mean that VC or "angel" fronts cash right out of their own bank account or even out of their investment accounts. Many times, they themselves are operating on loans -- if you have a lot of assets, like many VCs, it may be more better to keep your cash locked up and invest borrowed money because the interest rate you pay on the loan may be much cheaper than losing the interest from those investment accounts, especially if they have golden credit.

And if the VCs with the golden credit aren't getting loans, well, that shows you just how bad the credit market is.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[baldass_newbie]

You really don't understand market economies. There are a lot of great ideas that never reach the market. It isn't enough to have a 'good idea'. Betamax was a 'good idea'. How was their market share?

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[theaveng]

During the Great Depression lots of people had great products (cars, houses, radios), but since one-quarter of people were jobless, almost nobody was buying these products.

About the only 1930s industry that profited was the movie industry, mainly because people wanted to escape reality, even if only for three hours.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[Savage-Rabbit]

Not necessarily so. For one thing, Tesla Motors has a long list of pre-orders, IIRC, and I believe they started shipping cars, so there is apparently sufficient demand for their product.

In this tight credit market, lenders are reluctant to lend money to even stable, established companies. They're not even issuing commercial paper -- which are short-term loans to other banks.

How many of those pre-orders for their sports-car do you suppose will survive contact with this recession? My guess is not all that many. Of course there are new people that are making their fortune in this Bear market as we speak so perhaps it will even out for Tesla?? One thing Tesla could do in this market is to ally it self with one of the big US car makers, one of the ones that has no kind of experience in making 4-6 seat passenger cars that weigh in at below 5 metric tons and pack less than a 250 hp engine. These companies must be desperate to acquire expertise and engineering talent on how to make the kind of car that will sell in times of recession and toughening environmental legislation. That, IMHO, will be cheap and light electric or plugin-hybrid cars.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[Chris Pimlott]

that's a cute joke, but really, the first thing they tell you in any class is why the subject matters and what you'll get out of it.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[larry bagina]

It's a $100,000 car. If you were going to buy one, you'd either write a check or you have enough (verifiable) income that you can still get a loan.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[sunking2]

Bonds. People use there savings to help fund the government to fund the war.

While I'm not sure of the accuracy, this is really the underlying story of Flags of Our Fathers. In the movie at least Bond purchases had dried up so much that the war was on the brink of not being fundable and peace may have had to be negotiated. Thus the whirl wind tour of heros to drum up public support. Accurate or not, I don't know, but basis is valid

Also, since we aren't with a gold standard we just print more money and deficit spend. Which is what we are doing now with the bailouts. The downside here being by increases money in circulation you devalue the dollar, ie inflation. That's usually not seen as a problem in the timeframe of a war and can be corrected late ron.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[BlueGecko]

Some deficit spending...and a 94% tax rate. Seriously.

Look: I'm extremely fiscally conservative. But even I'm more than willing to grant that there's a definite balance point between anarchic free-market capitalism and nanny-state socialism: putting aside morals, too much wealth centralized in the hands of too few kills the economy because no one can afford to buy anything, while too much wealth distribution kills the economy because no one's motivated to innovate.

During WWII, we had extremely aggressive taxes to pay for a massive war, where those taxes are going to local industries, thereby supplying tons of previously unemployed laborers jobs. That's effectively labor-based socialism. At the end of the war, Europe had bombed their industry to oblivion, while ours had just been rebuilt, so we were in a wonderful position to get rich--if we had buyers. Critically, the Marshal Plan basically amounted to international socialism, giving Europe money with which to buy American goods. They then used those goods to rebuild their own economies, giving them new income, with which to purchase American goods legitimately.

So, in summary: WWII caused domestic socialistic policies that got us out of the Depression, and the Cold War caused international socialistic policies that kept us out of it.

Can we all agree now that maybe a little wealth distribution isn't necessarily a bad thing 100% of the time?

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[Chris Burke]

Consider a similar situation: the government places orders for all sorts of war supplies. Tanks, planes, food, ammo, etc. They all get loaded up on trucks and trains and taken to sea ports. At the ports they are loaded onto cargo ships. Once full, the ships leave port, sail out to sea, and shove everything into the ocean.

And just for good measure, a large fraction of the ships themselves are also sunk.

Don't forget the part where they take a few hundred thousand young men onto those ships and shove them into the ocean as well... I'm sure that stimulated the economy... At least it fixed any unemployment problem we had...

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[Hognoxious]

it takes people to create all of that stuff (ships, ammo, machines, etc.), so suddenly that quarter of the population that was unemployed is now earning a wage which they will then circulate back into the economy.

That's the answer, right there - wealth is created by people doing stuff and making stuff. They trade with other people who make and do other stuff. When people stop doing and making stuff, they haven't got anything to trade with other people who you get a vicious spiral. The means of prodyuction are still there, but standing idle and nobody wants to make the first move.

The governement is often the only actor that can make the first move. It doesn't have to be tanks and battleships, you could equally get everybody building roads or railways or schools. But that's getting a but close to Keynesianism which is akin to communism in some folk's opinion.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

stock market != the economy

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[Thelasko]

Maybe extra government spending on the war stimulated the economy. But nothing about that stimulus required a war, and indeed without the war it could have been done much better and less wastefully.

You forget that economics has a psychological aspect to it. During the depression, people were fearful to spend and loan out money. There was a sentiment of distrust among people. The war changed that, it united people to a common goal. Unions ended strikes, and people began to loan out money in the form of war bonds. The money from those bonds were given/loaned to companies to hire and train more people. These people could then afford to buy bonds, completing the economic cycle.

Our economy is a closed loop system that works because people believe in it. Without confidence in the system, it fails. This is why surveys of consumer confidence are made, and the results of which are used by the Federal Reserve to determine its policies.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[BlueGecko]

Keying the end of the Depression to the return of the DJIA to 1929 levels is wrong, in my opinion. The only reason that the market of 1929 was as high as it was in the first place was that everyone was buying stock on margin, which resulted in hilariously large P/E ratios and absurd market caps. In 1929, as now, the market crashed because the "wealth" was really just debt and didn't really exist . So I don't think it's fair to say that the Depression didn't end until the market legitimately achieved the level that it had artificially achieved thirty years earlier.

A better mark--and why most people do consider that WWII ended the depression--is that the unemployment rate all but evaporated. In the Depression, unemployment was as high as 25-30%. By 1948--the first year in which we started properly tracking unemployment in the Federal Government--it was about 3.5%--a level it held relatively consistently until the 1970s oil crisis.

If you don't like the unemployment rate, let's look at the GDP. In 1929, the GDP was $103.6 billion. By 1933, it had declined to $56.4 billion. It had crawled back up to $92.2 billion by 1939.

By 1945, the end of WWII, it was $223.1 billion.

So, although you're correct that the Dow didn't return to its 1929 levels until 1960, I think trying to make the argument that the Depression didn't end until then is weak, and, ultimately, simply wrong.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[TheLostSamurai]

One thing Tesla could do in this market is to ally it self with one of the big US car makers, one of the ones that has no kind of experience in making 4-6 seat passenger cars that weigh in at below 5 metric tons and pack less than a 250 hp engine. These companies must be desperate to acquire expertise and engineering talent on how to make the kind of car that will sell in times of recession and toughening environmental legislation. That, IMHO, will be cheap and light electric or plugin-hybrid cars.

While I want Tesla to survive, and I want the major car companies to adopt more green engineering talent, I hope that would never happen.

The reason I love Tesla and the reason their Roadster is so great, is because they are not burdened by all that red tape and ignorant executive banter like the big companies are. They are innovative and in a certain sense reckless, which is what makes them great. This world would be a lot cooler if more people where a little more reckless and willing to go out on a limb for a great idea.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[jguthrie]

Tesla motors has no proven ability to make anything except prototypes. It costs a lot of money to start a car company, because the factories are so expensive, and recouping the tooling costs requires that you amortize that cost over a large production run, which a startup really can't do because they have very little of the supporting infrastructure (dealers, trained mechanics, etc.) in order to be able to sell what they make to a mass audience.

What that means is that Tesla was always and still remains a long shot at being a viable company. At the present time, all Tesla has is a prototype and a story while GM has a lengthy history of actually building a lot of cars and making a profit by selling them. That is why Tesla has trouble getting financing while GM has less trouble. GM has assets they can sell and lots of momentum behind them. What does Tesla have except a following among the sort of people who regularly visits Slashdot?

You don't need to imagine a conspiracy to see why this is so, only a view of history. There is a long history of even established auto manufacturers finding it difficult to enter new markets. Remember Renault or Sterling (nee Rolls Royce)? Well, you probably don't, not as manufacturers that sell cars in the United States, anyway. The thing is, they both tried to enter the North American market and both were pretty dismal failures.

In fact, I remember reading an article praising the virtues of the cars made by Gordon-Keeble, which is a sports car manufacturer that you've probably never heard of. That car was actually put into production to be sold into exactly the market that the Tesla is targeting at about the same real cost, and without requiring the invention of a lot of the new technology that had to be invented for the Tesla. Despite the relative advantages (relative to mass market electric cars, I mean) it enjoyed, it eventually failed because it wasn't viable.

Most big-ticket manufacturing items are like that. It's tough to start a new company to build aircraft, for example, or ships or trucks. New entries face higher costs and can hope for much lower revenues than their more established competitors, and because of that a little thing like higher interest rates (in the late 1970's, the interest rates on mortgages were in the 20% range) can spell the end of a hopeful company while a larger company has the resources to weather the storm.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[nasch]

If they were made to last 100 years, they would cost twice as much and nobody would buy them. There will always be a market for reliable cars that last a long time, and electrics will presumably expand that market. There will also be a market for cheaper crappier cars that don't last as long, because some people would rather have a new less reliable car than a used more reliable one for the same price. IMO longevity and reliable are continually improving and becoming more important to consumers across the board.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[_ivy_ivy_]

given the American auto industry's reactionary and disingenuous attitude towards eco-vehicles, i think Tesla would be better off allying itself with a foreign company such as Honda or Toyota, both of which have shown a genuine interest in meeting public demand for environmentally friendly vehicles.

I'm not sure why they would bother, as Tesla has nothing to offer either Toyota or Honda (or frankly GM or Chrysler).

Their battery, motor, and chassis technology are all purchased from other firms. Furthermore, all four of the above companies have more developed technologies than Tesla does.

Japanese auto makers seem more willing to research and develop new technologies than American car manufacturers.

Actually, you'll find European makes pushing the technology barrier further, at great cost. The US makes typically follow the EU lead, with varying amounts of success. Japanese makers typically implement tried and true technologies in a very efficient, cost effective manner.

The exception to this is hybrids. However, Europe has avoided them, as they can get equivalent or better performance from Diesels.

Re:Credit crunch my butt

[kesuki]

"Tesla makes cars. They've shipped quite a few (by their standards, amounts to a few dozen), and there is one in our area."

and the san jose plant which will be their first full scale production plant for the roadster, is unaffected by the credit crunch. their plans to build a more practical daily use vehicle and a Michigan plant, have died from the credit squeeze. so tesla will be making a sport car in a down economy and the more practical vehicle they were going to design is dead.

clearly the rich are being hit a lot less than the middle class if a product targeted at the rich is still in full swing and a product meant for soccer moms is in the toilet.

a 700 billion dollar bail out of banks failed to sustain wall street, why? the whole banking system was screwed up, and buying bad debt doesn't change fundamental flaws that were put into place to cause financial instability in the first place. I've yet to hear anyone coming up with a credible solution that does what everyone in america wants, higher standards of living, and stable jobs and financial sectors.

Unappealing except for early adopters

[Futurepower(R)]

There is limited desire for the first generation of a car that costs $110,000.

Re:Unappealing except for early adopters

[Yvanhoe]

This is a *sport* car. That can go to 60 MPH in less time than most Ferrarris and Porsches. Your regular telecommuter does not need this, your average eco-yuppie will love it.

Unrelated : Slashdot tells me I was to concise in my post and that I must wait 5 more minutes so I guess it is okay that I add garbage at the end of this post. Really, what purpose does this 'one post per 5 minutes' rule is supposed to bring ? Discussions on an article can only occur during its 3-4 hours of visibility, and usually by people who spend a 5 minutes break on the website. I am really tempted to make a second account...

Irony

[Lil'wombat]

GM losing billions and getting loans to retool for
Greener, more efficient vehicles like hybrids and while the real innovators go under.

Re:Irony

[Yvanhoe]

Being ready to let new innovative businesses die to let old, obsolete businesses to live, whatever the social cost, is a bad policy. Tesla Motors could become the GM of the future. Or both could go bankrupt.

Re:Irony

[Lord Ender]

The problem is that GM is bankrupt, but it also has made a fantastic amount of pension promises without funding them. At some point, GM will be crushed under that weight, and there will be an army of angry pensioners suddenly thrust into poverty. They will blame whichever government is in power. This is a disaster for the politicians seated at the time.

As a solution, our friendly government has decided to loan ever-increasing amounts of our tax money to GM in hopes of prolonging it's life until their terms are up.

Tesla may be exactly what America needs, but it isn't a political issue, so it isn't going to get free loans from the taxpayers.

I'm not terribly surprised

[GuloGulo]

They make a very interesting product, but the price, combined with the low production numbers and quality control issues, meant the roadster at least would never be anything but a niche product.

Now that the money is drying up, any chance to transition from a dreamy eyed startup to a real manufacturer may be drying up with it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:We need tech startups to live

[Knuckles]

Tesla was building something amazing.

A Lotus with lots of mobile phone batteries thrown in that would become an environmental nightmare if it caught on in the mass market. Goodbye Tesla.

Great idea

[copponex]

What would die would be the GM/Ford brand names along with the pension plans and other UAW union benefits. Which frankly is a good thing for the US auto industry in the long run.

Yes, because the wage declines experienced in America due to competition for low paying jobs with no benefits leads to more low paying jobs with no benefits.

Germany still manages to have strong unions, competitive products, and they actually pay their pensions, because they're required to by law. The only people that benefit from union busting are the CEOs that make 300 times their average worker's salary, versus European CEOs who make about 35 times more than their average worker.

If you want to know which policy is more valuable, take a look at the Euro and the Pound versus the Dollar. This anti-Socialism nonsense is based in a fantasy world where facts are non-existent, and anecdotes trump reality.

Economies of Scale

[Software Geek]

There are economies of scale in the auto industry, but the price of an individual model still doesn't drop much.

The choice of car body material is illustrative. Fiberglass is cheaper than sheet metal for small production runs, since you don't have the up front cost of tooling up expensive sheet metal stamping machines. Sheet metal is cheaper than fiberglass for large production runs, since you can amortize the cost of the stamping machine over many units and there is less labor cost per unit. Once you have gone into production with a fiberglass body, it is not feasible to re-tool your assembly line to use sheet metal instead of fiberglass, so as to achieve an economy of scale. Such a change would a) totally disrupt the assembly line, and b) force you to redo all of your safety tests, etc.

Generally speaking, in the auto manufacturing business, you decide how many vehicles you are going to make and what economies of scale you will see years before the first vehicle is made. If you guess wrong, you don't get a chance to change your mind.

So, in the case of Tesla, if the current model is wildly successful, its price is still unlikely to come down. Instead, they will introduce a follow-on model with more planned units and a lower price from day one.

Re:We need tech startups to live

[LWATCDR]

Tesla is nothing but a exotic car company. They build toys for the rich and often go out of business unless some real car company buys them for a halo brand.
Yea Tesla was cool but not really important. What bothers me more is I fear that GM will build the Volt and nobody will buy it That will be a real blow.

Re:We need tech startups to live

[Chris Burke]

environmental nightmare

So... not familiar with the environmental risks of LiIon batteries, eh? Hint: The whole battery pack is less of a "nightmare" than the 12V lead-acid battery your car contains as a mere auxiliary to the environmental problems it causes in normal operation.

Tesla deserves to go.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

we don't need a few hundred electric cars that go 150mph. We need a few million electric vehicles that can go 40mph.

RS

Re:Tesla deserves to go.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

No. Because the physics of aerodynamics and thermodynamics works against that.

The battery pack, from their own literature, states:

The pack operates at a nominal 375 volts, stores about 53 kilowatt hours of electric energy, and delivers up to 200 kilowatts of electric power.

Now the trike I linked to uses 750w - so just on poewr alone, the Tesla equals 266 electric trikes. True, Tesla will seat two, but odds are, it will usually seat one yuppie jackass on his way to work up and down I-280 or 101.

Tesla, like the idiocy of "trickle down economics" serves the rich and powerful, and squanders an enormous amount of resources that could and should be better directed to masses of people we need to move from home to work.

RS

Re:What the programmer had to say about the car...

[noidentity]

It's crazy-fast. It handles like a jet fighter. It gets the equivalent of about 140 mpg. It has no gears. It requires almost no maintenance.e It's gorgeous. It's whisper-quiet. And, in Seattle, runs off hydro power.

So it gets 140 miles per gallon of water? I'm confused. I thought it was electric. What meaning does MPG have for an electric car?

It is NOT always possible to raise money

[sjbe]

If your product works, or at least appears to, and you have a sound plan for getting it to market, where it will be purchased, then SOMEONE will loan you the money.

That is not even remotely true. I've tried to raise money and fairly often work with bankers and VCs. Having a good product and a good plan are rarely enough by themselves. A very significant part of getting capital is what the lender thinks of you, the borrower, personally. Your character, how you present yourself and your track record of creating successful ventures usually matter more than the particulars of your product and plan.

Lending is a relationship business and anyone who has tried to raise money (like me) or lent money will tell you so. Lenders don't really invest in business plans - though business plans are important; what they really invest in is you, the borrower. If you are some random person who is not known the the lender and you don't have a track record of successful ventures, you are going to have a MUCH harder time raising money.

Furthermore in a market like right now formal lending institutions sometimes simply won't lend to anyone - regardless of their credit worthiness. The banks and investment houses are afraid of losing their capital because they can't predict who is safe to lend to. They don't know who they can reliably lend to because there is so little transparency in these exotic securities we've all become far to familiar with recently. Credit markets work on confidence. In 1999 it was extremely easy to raise money, in 2002 and right now not so much. There is always money being lent but that doesn't mean everyone with a decent plan can get adequate funding.

Comparing Tesla Motors to Nikola Tesla?

[fnj]

Maybe, like Nickolai Tesla, they were just destined to have a great beginning but go nuts toward mid life.

Nikola Tesla had a uniquely staggering natural insight. He was almost single handedly responsible for AC and polyphase power systems, and the AC motor; and made great contributions to ballistics, radio, radar, robotics, remote control, nuclear physics.

Tesla was a millionaire at 40 (when a million dollars was an astounding amount of wealth), and would have been the world's first billionaire had he not torn up his contract with Westinghouse because of his social conscience.

I hardly think Tesla Motors can be compared with Nikola Tesla, but at least they recognize his greatness, and the fact that he invented a key part of the technology that enabled their dream.

Re:Electric Cars

[Rei]

Several dozen. They're only a small fraction of the way through the preorder list, though.

This headline is quite misleading. Tesla is not about to go "belly up". Tesla had an extremely ambitious scale-up plan (one might say overambitious), trying to get the Model S not only onto the market, but in mass production. The current credit crisis really can't support that kind of expansion from a new company like Tesla. Which, really, is why this crisis is such a disaster, especially for cleantech. Innovative cleantech companies are generally high risk, high reward. Right now, the market can only tolerate low risk. Hence, Tesla is basically undoing part of their expansion and will be focusing more on Roadsters until they get into the black rather than trying to leap ahead to the Model S. Given their preorder list, Tesla is guaranteed a revenue stream so long as they can deliver product faster than they're burning money (and they just cut some of the burn)

Who Fuckin' Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla had an amazing opportunity to capitalize on an emerging market yet, like most rich-prick driven, Valley companies, chose to ignore the masses at their own peril.

Tesla will no doubt become the Deloren of our time!

Bravo fucktards!

Re:Electric taxis

[Gordonjcp]

I love the idea of electric taxis! Most taxis are only used to ferry one or two passengers, so there is no need for the huge six cylinder sedans currently in use.

Here in the UK, taxis (well, minicabs, not "London Taxis") are usually Skodas/VWs, Mercs, Toyotas/Lexuses or Citroens/Peugeots, in no particular order. Why? Because they all have excellent diesel engines...

I have noticed more Prius taxis getting about, and can't help thinking this is something governments should be encouraging. A lot of taxis run basically 24hrs a day, so a full electric would be impractical until super-capacitors are a reality, but hybrids are a great fit for the purpose.

Exactly. There probably isn't a better use for a hybrid - it's almost always only ever going to do town speeds, and as you say it's running almost continuously. Since the "London Taxis" went from big clattery old Landrover engines to smaller lighter PSA Group engines, there's loads of space under the bonnet - a hybrid black cab would be utter win.

Woosh...

[Animats]

The Tesla is a great idea, but they tried too hard to make it really fast. The original idea was to have an air-cooled electric motor and a one-speed transmission. But they couldn't quite get the top speed they wanted, which was somewhere above 125. So they went to a two-speed transmission, and the first transmissions wore out rapidly. Then they went back to a one-speed transmission, and tried water-cooling the motor so they could pour more current into it. This ran up their costs, delayed shipping of the product, and made the thing more complex. If they'd settle for a top speed of 110 MPH, the thing would be much easier. It would still have the acceleration.

More fundamentally, "bling" is dead. It died about two weeks ago. The luxury industry is terrified right now. It's very clear that we're in for a long, worldwide recession. Expensive status symbols are so over.

I see Tesla cars on the road regularly. But that's because I live near the Silicon Valley dealership. I think they demo the thing by driving past my house and out to Canada Road near Crystal Springs Reservoir, which has a nice scenic route with little traffic where they can speed. I just hope they don't wipe out a bicyclist out there.

They do "woosh" by without engine noise, as advertised.

Stupid Rolls Royce Business Model

[istartedi]

Which would you rather own, 5% of Hyundai Motors, or 50% of Rolls Royce. I've confronted this model in software startups too. Early stage, people love to do "4 legged sales for six figures". I think maybe it's easier to sell to VCs. I've never been with a company that had a good plan to move downscale and increase volume, where MOST OF THE MONEY IS.

The smarter money is on Aptera. It's got roughly a $30,000 price tag. That's still a bit more than a low-end economy car; but the Apteras are sleek and different looking. At least a few people will want to have their "space ship" looking car in the driveway, and when the neighbors find out it gets 150mpg, the looks won't matter. Of course, a lot of this depends on how gas prices move. I hate to say this, but if we have just one year of sub $2 gas, people will forget about mileage until the next crisis.

I was tempted to put down my $500 and reserve an Aptera; but given the track record of these companies I decided not to do that.

Re:We need tech startups to live

[MobyDisk]

Is this the same Slashdot who jumps on everyone as soon as they someone says that NASA never did anything useful? How about the gerabox that Tesla developed that was unlike what any other manufacturer did? Or the engineering involved in making an electric car with the range this had? Or how much it is pushing the demand and money going into battery development? A lot of good things come out of Tesla.

Lots of new technology starts out as toys for the rich. Don't knock them for being that. Tesla is doing what we have wanted GM to do for decades and they have refused: innovate. That innovation doesn't have to solve every problem, or even any problem at all. It just has to push what we can do. Tesla is doing that.

Next time Intel comes out with a high-speed chip that wastes heat and is too expensive for you. Just remember that in 2 years that same technology will be shrunken, optimized, and 10,000 a low-end laptops.