Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Earnings Show Record Revenues With Record Losses (techcrunch.com)
TechCrunch reports of Tesla's recent Q1 2018 earnings: Tesla reported its Q1 2018 earnings today, posting adjusted losses of $3.35 per share with revenues on $3.4 billion. This is technically a beat, as analysts expected Tesla to report a loss of $3.48 a share with revenues of $3.22 billion, up from $2.7 billion a year ago. Tesla also ended Q1 with $2.7 billion in cash, down from $3.4 billion in cash at the beginning of the year. This quarter, Tesla's net losses were a record $784.6 million ($4.19 per share). So, while it's revenue was higher than ever before, it also reported record losses. At market close today, Tesla was trading at $301.15. In after-hours, Tesla is trading around $287. In its letter to investors, Tesla provided some updates to its Model 3 production, noting it hit 2,270 cars produced per week for three straight weeks in April. Tesla said demand for the Model S and Model X is still quite strong as it hit its highest order number in Q1. "Tesla said it produced 24,728 Model S cars and X vehicles, while delivering a total of 21,815 of them," reports TechCrunch. Tesla also went on to say that they expect to be profitable in Q3 once they reach their 5,000 Model 3 cars produced per week goal.
CEO Elon Musk said the automaker will launch production of the Tesla Model Y crossover in 24 months, which Musk claims to be a "manufacturing revolution." Additionally, Musk said Tesla will publish quarterly reports about the safety of its Autopilot driver assistant feature following a high-profile Autopilot crash in March.
CEO Elon Musk said the automaker will launch production of the Tesla Model Y crossover in 24 months, which Musk claims to be a "manufacturing revolution." Additionally, Musk said Tesla will publish quarterly reports about the safety of its Autopilot driver assistant feature following a high-profile Autopilot crash in March.
and disappointments for the present.
Keep in mind that currently only the more expensive Model 3 is produced, which is supposed to yield in higher profit (or lower loss in Tesla's case) than the base model, which most people want.
And the model Y will be a manufacturing revolution? I would be more inclined to believe that it if Tesla got their shít together on producing the Model 3.
Finally Musk's behaviour on the phone conference was more than awkward. The pressure seems to be leaving marks on him.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
https://ycharts.com/companies/GM/
Revenue: $36.1 billion
Net income: $1.05 billion
Yet GM has a *lower* market cap.
Car making is a long term investment. In the industry this is still a startup. Remember how Amazon lost a lot if moneyduring the few first uears?
And Musk is not in it for the miney. People keep forgetting that, probably because they do not understand that.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Model Y crossover? Isn't the X a crossover already?
And they are pushing negative news all over the place. I see it show up in my Yahoo feed.
If Tesla doesn't fail, they will take huge losses.
I'm rooting for Tesla.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Sorry, S 3 X Y.
Those profits, they will be S3XY.
GET IT?!?!?! IT'S A JOKE!!!!
Until now I've been shrugging off much of the criticism of Tesla "losing" money as it has been recording gross profits on each vehicle sold, but overall "losing" money because it has been spending a lot on capital plant and equipment.
The latest results though show that Tesla is selling each Model 3 at a loss. While the company states that it expects to break-even in Q2 and start making money in 2H, the only version of the Model 3 that it is currently selling is the high-spec one which should be more profitable.
Ramping up production and selling at a loss (negative gross margin) isn't exactly a recipe for corporate longevity....
Once Fords, GMs, Toyotas seriously push electric then Tesla will be a niche player ... or purchased by one of the aforementioned in a liquidation sale
Didn't you hear? Fords pulling out of the car market to focus on trucks instead. 25% protection tariffs from Uncle Sam if they do that.
Who gives a damn about what GM or Ford do any more? Call me when Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan and Hyundai [...]
I certainly do, because they have volume, in the same way that the groups you mentioned are very large and cover most market segments.
I'm based in the UK and the media here has an expectation that the Vauxhall/Opel Corsa will have a battery model in 2020. As a GM group member, these guys have sold a LOT of these cars, and now they are part of the PSA group they should still sell a lot. Here's a chart.
It's all very nice there are 10 different models in the "over $50K and over 300bhp" market segment, but it's when Ford, GM, Renault, VW, PSA and the big Asian manufacturers mass produce cheap electric cars that we'll get over petrol/diesel for passenger vehicles. Tesla can probably live well as a specialist high end brand, and/or a supplier to everyone else.
Before you get your hopes up too much about Jaguar...
It's not an "American problem", it's a capex problem. Until other manufacturers start throwing the sort of capex at EVs that Tesla has, they'll struggle to compete. They can make price/feature uncompetitive models and mass produce them, or they can make price/feature competitive models via subsidy and then limit the supply. But they can't mass produce and subsidize, and rob from their gasoline sales at the same time. It's capex that reduces your per-unit cost.
A couple manufacturers have announced plans to start putting serious capex toward EVs. Volkswagen, for example. That will start to pay off a few years down the line. But not today.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
And Nissan only spends $16k per car in incentives to move them. The leaf has sold ~310k units since 2010, and the Model S ~230k since 2012... at very different price points.
... but make it up in volume!
Exactly. The market space for a nearly-six-figures car is vastly smaller than for a $30k car. The fact that Tesla has sold nearly as many Ss as Nissan has sold Leafs (in 2 more years) is not a comparison to the Leaf's favour.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
S3XYR?
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
Didn't you hear? Fords pulling out of the car market to focus on trucks instead. 25% protection tariffs from Uncle Sam if they do that.
Yes and despite this being Slashdot some of us actually read past the headline. Ford is phasing out some of it's redundant models and will be introducing new cars, many of them EV or Plug-in Hybrid.
It's revenue != its revenue. It's (not its) a mystery that so many seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp the very simple, straightforward and unambiguous rules that govern this. Its (not it's) rationale (rather, lack therefore) is intriguing.
Maybe where you live. But even in Europe, in 2017 while 10,5% of European BEV sales were i3s, 11,5% were Model S. Nissan was barely ahead of Model S, at 12,9% (Zoe had the lead at 22,7%), which I'll never understand.
As for the UK specifically, in 2017, 41,1% of BEV sales were Leafs, but Model S was #2 at 17,9%. i3 was 5th place at 8,3%.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
BMW is the current EV king with their I3. For ever Tesla I see on the road, I see 5 or 6 I3's.
Not in Northern California. For every i3 I see, I see about a dozen Teslas. Range is a problem up here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The reason that EVs have been more common at taking over the higher end has nothing to do with "who's producing them". It's because - opposite of gasoline cars - adding range is expensive but adding power is cheap. You need a roughly constant amount of batteries whether you're going for the high end or the low end, and those batteries cost money that makes it hard to compete at the low end. So you might as well start at the high end and work your way down.
And capital costs do not stem from "who's making it". They stem from "how much you invest in making it". Historically, Tesla has invested far more in capex than the major automakers, and that puts the latter in a competitive disadvantage from an economics situation - either having to make less competitive vehicles, or having to subsidize them (and thus limit total production to keep costs down).
This situation looks to be changing (e.g. VW's capital plans are no slack, for example), and I look forward to a more competitive market a few years from now. But you can't make up this sort of deficit overnight.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
Why is it that the hype from competitors never plays out as a serious threat? We're back to capex. Making good, profitable EVs takes vast amounts of capex, both in R&D, and in production. And at present, Tesla is the only company that's been doing that.
No they are definitely not the only company doing that. The big auto makers are making big investments in EV tech but largely in R&D rather than production. Why? Because for them the production is actually the easy part. They have plenty of cash and experience building cars. Right now the EV market is too small to justify production for them so they are letting Tesla do the heavy lifting of building and proving the market. But Ford, GM, etc could bring an EV to market within 18-24 months. They do this all the time since that is approximately the development time of one of their cars. Their strategy is to be a fast follower which is a very sensible strategy in principle. (Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, and others do this very well) Whether it will actually play out to their favor is an open question but they have the cash to do it. In the mean time they make fairly handsome profits off their ICE powered vehicles and let Tesla take the lions share of the risk in the short run.
Now the risk is that they can't follow fast enough or with a good enough product and Tesla eats their lunch. Anyone who claims they know how it will play out is deluding themselves. I think Tesla has a strong chance to become a long term player IF they can keep their funding going (ala Amazon) long enough to get to minimum efficient scale on production. Their stock is hugely overvalued but as long as Elon can keep the hype train on the tracks that's entirely to Tesla's benefit. The incumbent automakers had better be watching what Tesla is doing carefully and taking notes because Tesla is the ones really pushing the innovation envelope in the industry and they clearly have shown there is strong demand for EVs and features not currently offered by the traditional automakers.
The EV parking slots at my company that are half filled by Chevy Volts would disagree with you. We also have Bolts, Leafs, Prius, Tesla, Focus, Golf, Hyundai and, yes, Tesla EVs/PHV vehicles. But the Volt by far is the favorite. I have one of the Volts and it's a fine car. GM is working on 20 EV or partial EV vehicles to be delivered in the next 5 years. Ford is working on a lot of EV projects, including the F150, delivery time is supposed to be 2020/2021.
So you agree with me? The Leaf is the best selling electric car in the world, and is $30,000 (a different price point).
Uh, why? The Leaf is delivering a $30,000 EV (and has been for years). Tesla is delivering a car for the rich. I don't get why you guys are such fanboys. There are other car companies producing better EV for the masses (which you guys claim you want).
Wrong. The Nissan Leaf is the best selling EV.
BMW is the current EV king with their I3. For ever Tesla I see on the road, I see 5 or 6 I3's.
Not in Northern California. For every i3 I see, I see about a dozen Teslas. Range is a problem up here.
Cali is usually one of the first to adopt the worst motoring trends... they popularised the Prius.
The I3's range is a problem here in the UK too. If you wanted to go from London to a pub in Newquay to see Rodger Daltrey playing, you may as well take the train because an I3 wont make it. Honestly a Tesla would struggle as well as its about 280 miles. My M240i does about 400 miles on a tank (combination of a powerful engine and tiny fuel thimble). Jokes aside, some people in the UK commute 300 miles a day because living in London is so bloody expensive.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Cali is usually one of the first to adopt the worst motoring trends... they popularised the Prius.
The Prius is great. Not only is it fuel efficient, but when I see one, I know that there is about a 99% chance that the driver is a bastard.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Our model s is 5 years old. Still has around 95% on battery. with exception of some early roadsters that used other battery cells, they are above 90%. All Model S with over 250,000 miles on them above 85% , with most having over 90%. Likely, these cars will last 15-20 years on batteries, and I suspect that battery will then cost 1-3k, which less than an engine OR transmission for a Mercedes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yup. And Tesla will never sell more than 10,000 cars total. Oh wait, not more than 50,000. Um, ok, not more than 100,000 total. Ok, not more than what Porsche sells. Oh damn, I know, it will be less than GM. Yeah. Right.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So you're telling us that there were delays in the Model 3 production schedule? No way! Tell us more!
Tesla's accelerated "15 months from the start of tooling" production schedule was insanely fast by automaker standards. The current timeline is actually closer to the original timeline (before they realized how many orders they were going to need to fill and tried to accelerate the schedule), and still a very good rate at bringing a new model line up.
BTW, have you ever looked at who the "stupid people" dumping cash into Tesla are? Might want to do that.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
No. Ford is pulling out of sedans in North America only. They will still do sedans in other parts of the globe.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
they still have 2.7B in cash according to the earnings report
Which dropped by $1Bn in just one quarter. At the rate of burn that $2.7Bn cash could be $0 by Christmas.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Wrong. German car makers are also push H2. In fact, all of the top ones are. They can make large profits with these, which is why Tesla is able to build up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yep, agreed. The current strategies roll out the new tech gradually because of battery density and manufacturing constraints runs in parallel with wanting to avoid cannibalisation of ICE sales. This slow uptake makes a lot of sense as you point out, but the whole situation is really bad for reduction of emissions.
One thing I'm guessing that could be different in the BEV world is that existing market segments and performance expectations do not correlate with range.
If Ford made lots of Fiestas with 150miles winter range today, they might struggle to convince people to spend significantly more for the same range on a heavier Focus or Mondeo.
Today, they can just have overlapping price ranges between the high end Fiesta and low end Focus and people will choose on different factors, not necessarily related to real life road performance. A Focus or Mondeo with 130miles winter range because of extra weight would look quite silly next to the mythical 150 miles Fiesta, especially if the prospective buyer is a lone commuter. Maybe this is why some manufacturers are spinning off their electric car range into separate brands (Polestar, DS, Opel). That way their marketing won't have to compare and explain ICE specs with BEV specs on the shop floor.
The question he didn't answer was about the ratio of people who chose an early config vs. a later config with more options available. In what way is that "holding his feet to the fire over the horrible numbers"? And to reiterate, the numbers beat market expectations. In general, the mood of the call (which I can only presume you weren't listening to, based on your description of it) was very upbeat, both on the Tesla side and the questions side.
Tesla has had several profitable quarters. Each time, however, it's rolled everything and more into scaleup - and managed quite successfully to scale up at a dramatic rate. Which has proven very profitable to stakeholders, which is why people are in general very happy with the company's performance under Musk's tenure. I guarantee you, there's nobody on that call who wishes Tesla had stuck with making Roadsters and never gone into debt to scale up for the S. I guarantee you, there's nobody on that call who wishes Tesla had stuck with making Ss and had never gone into debt to scale up for the 3. Of course with the benefit of hindsight various details would have been done differently. But the overalls strategy of capex-heavy growth rather than switching to dividends and slashing capex / growth after stabilizing any particular model line is very much wanted by investors. The largest investors being major funds, not retail investors.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
Didn't you hear Ford plans to have sixteen electric vehicles (including hybrids, plug-in hybrids and full EVs) by 2022?
http://www.hybridcars.com/ford...
What about this isn't plain English?
"The market space for a nearly-six-figures car is vastly smaller than for a $30k car."
There are two orders of magnitude more people who can afford a Leaf than an S. Yet the S sells nearly as many as the Leaf. That's not to the Leaf's credit.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
Model Ss depreciate slower than its gasoline competitors, and Model 3's battery chemistry should be even more stable.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
70%? Lol. Tesla has one of the highest margins going.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Didn't you hear Ford plans to have sixteen electric vehicles (including hybrids, plug-in hybrids and full EVs) by 2022?
And Kodak had a line of digital cameras.
Once Fords, GMs, Toyotas seriously push electric then Tesla will be a niche player ..
Where will they get their batteries? A tier one supplier? There aren't any large enough. Somebody will have to invest a huge sum of money to get the battery production capacity high enough. The established automakers are too risk adverse to do it. The only company making that investment is Tesla.
Tesla has a huge advantage in not having any legacy investments in IC technology. The established automakers have to shed that burden and invest in battery tech. You think Tesla has problems? The establishment will have twice the problems.
Working in the automotive sector, the supply chain for batteries is a huge issue right now. Everybody wants them, nobody has them, and the prices are high. The Gigafactory is Tesla's greatest gamble, but I think it will pay off huge.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Wrong. The Nissan Leaf is the best selling EV.
Did I say highest selling... Let me check... no I said "king". As in the EV that is making the most money. BMW is about the only company not losing cash on their EV program and are the one taking all the positive press (I think GM might have made money with their bolt, but sales are abysmal despite it being a decent EV... which kinds of sounds like the most preferable of the sexually transmitted infections).
Nissan/Renault are losing money on the Leaf/Zoe, not sure about the Twizy, but that was expressly designed to be affordable.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I 3 ? You are talking about the same I 3 sold by BMW, body designed by a collaboration between Mattel and Fisher Price?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If Aunt Gemina has a moustach she would become Uncle Ben.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That's my thinking. Ford has announced 16 electrified vehicles by 2021. Volkswagon 80 by 2025. GM 20 by 2021. Daimler 10 by 2022. BMW 25 by 2025. Renault-Nissan 20 by 2025.
Some will be hybrids or plug-in hybrids, but the coming years will bring dozens of EVs to market.
Read my other posts elsewhere in this thread, where I've discussed their investments. I think it's great that some of them have finally, recently started making (frequently backloaded) capex investments of appropriate scale. But these won't pay off for several years. I really look forward to seeing real competition several years from now. But pretending that this is equivalent to the short term market is wishful thinking.
Developing technology that works in a real world, mass-manufacturing environment, while simultaneously securing market share and real-world data collection, is in no way "spending money just to spend money". Weak EV R&D spending and weak production volumes just do not compete; they guarantee you fall behind.
Actually, EV chassis are generally quite different from ICE chassis, at least in design. The battery pack functions as a stiffening element, and the loadbearing needs and available space are totally different. Real-world driving data shows how effectively your designs play out in practice.
Given that even well-known Tesla hater Sandy Munroe has referred to the Model 3's new suspension design as amazing and among the components that other automakers ignore at their own peril, and its handling has received glowing reviews, you could have picked a better example. No, it's not EV specific, but since you bring it up... (and actually, being an EV does affect suspension because of the lower weight distribution)
The "dinosaur technology" is something any company - including Tesla - can hire countless existing people from the existing auto industry all around the world to fill its ranks with. That's a meaningless issue. The problem is that the rest of the auto industry can't do the reverse, at least not nearly to the same extent. They can leach random Tesla talent, and do from time to time, but there's just not enough people with EV component experience to go around. And not nearly as much EV tech is public and well established knowledge.
EV tech is the core of the vehicle. You start with the batteries, which are in turn a composite of cathode, anode, electrolyte, separator and structural tech elements and their integration thereof into an efficient mass manufacturing process. I know your plan is just "hire an existing batterymaker". Sure, if you've got years and billions in capex, go ahead. But that's precisely the point: these things don't happen overnight or without massive investments.
Cells are of course just a small part of the picture. From the cells you make batteries, which are far more complex beasts than most people give them credit for, in regards to charge management, heat management (between different vehicle subsystems), fire protection, structural integrity, etc. The charger's costs need to be kept down and the power kept up. Motor tech is a particularly complex research field with many fronts advancing simultaneously, and Tesla's PMSRM work is at the forefront. Again, motor tech determines cost, weight, power, and efficiency, and thus other factors like range and handling.
Then you have the broader infrastructure developed alongside the EV powertrain. For example, Tesla has already migrated the Model 3 to a hub-based communication and power system, cutting the wiring harness in half compared to a typical car (both connections and weight). Model Y is looking to take it even further and upgrade to a HV wiring harness, eliminating most of the 1
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
Ramping up production and selling at a loss (negative gross margin) isn't exactly a recipe for corporate longevity....
Actually, this IS exactly the recipe for corporate longevity. . . Gross Margin ((Revenue - COGS) / Revenue) includes fixed costs in its calculation so the primary goal is to improve that number by increasing production volume. There is a common confusion between US GAAP COGS (which includes fixed costs) and the Economics concept of variable costs.
.).
I agree, if their variable costs were greater than the revenue per unit, then they should stop producing immediately (actually, Economics likes to use a concept of "marginal costs" to predict economic behavior because people make decisions based on changes to "opportunity costs", but lets stick to the basics for now. .
Anyway, besides the negative hype motivated by huge short positions, this is business as usual.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The problem is that rapid growth can cause losses, and offering multiple dishes (vehicle and panels and batteries) can cause confusion and reduce profits if the components or labor increase in price (tariffs, supply constraints, training, building fabrication facilities).
Technically, you'd be better off with a Chinese plug-in electric truck for $4500 than a Tesla truck, or even a Chevy Bolt made for Canada or Mexico than a Tesla car, but you're paying a premium for a premium "dining experience". The lobster you eat is still lobster, if you eat it at Denny's or at the Space Needle. But the cost is different.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Welcome to this article. Kool-aid is being served.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Really? And going with the model 'E' would have been just to obvious I suppose.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It would have even stood for 'economy'
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You are not taking into consideration that the Leaf has a much lower range than the Tesla S and is therefore less useful. Pretty amazing that they have kept up.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
investing in equities - especially in a company like Tesla - was totally idiotic
The only idiocy is that statement.
All investment is a compromise between risk and return. Equities are a very valid and frequently sensible investment choice. High growth equities come with higher risk but are nonetheless a very valid and frequently sensible investment choice.
How many engines has it been through?
How many door handles?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Tesla has been selling vehicles at a loss.
No, they god damn haven't. Stop saying this, it's completely and utterly incorrect.
Please learn what gross product margins are, and the difference between capital expenditure and operational expenditure. They just filed paperwork with the SEC showing their profit margins and they aren't negative. So either you're massively ignorant to how a business works, or you're intentionally oversimplifying the situation to the point of just posting things that are incorrect. A business can be unprofitable, but still be selling products at a profit. See: Amazon.
The profits from sales are being invested back into the business in the form of capital expenditure - more manufacturing capacity in Fremont and Gigafactory 1. Factories and robots don't grow on trees - you have to buy them. And because Tesla has a $2.7B cash pile, they're taking an overall short-term loss right now in order to get those factories and robots. It's being re-invested in the business in order to grow future revenues by producing more product.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
capex capex capex CAPEX.
Hey look everybody, I'm a business guru!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Especially when it is the most shorted stock of any American company right now. It's hard not to think that whoever is holding all that short interest might be able to yank the strings of their whore puppets in the financial press in order to help give the stock a bit more headwind to help their position pay off.
It doesn't hurt with Musk going and berating the press for doing their job, either. Something about pissing off people that buy ink by the barrel...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You know that when you're hoping for the failure of Tesla to spite one man, you're hoping for tens of thousands of people to become unemployed, right?
Who's the asshole again?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Want it in simpler terms?
You Don't Get Thing Without Paying For Said Thing
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
Meanwhile, in the real world, Consumer Reports rates Model S as above average in reliability. But thanks for playing.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
It's risen back up there, from below average. Model X is "Least Reliable". Model 3 is predicted "Average" so far, but who knows? Consumer reports puts TSLA at #21 of 27 car brands in reliability, and that doesn't really weight cost-to-repair which is expected to be pretty bad. https://www.consumerreports.or...
I expect high reliability from something at TSLA's selling point (unless it's a supercar or something). Of course, this isn't a dealbreaker for everyone-- Cadillac does OK.
The thing is, this particular criticism is kinda unfair. TSLA is increasing production rapidly, which is bad for quality, and has relatively few design cycles on things, so I expect them to kind of suck-- there's a lot of chance for improvement.
"once Microsoft releases Zune, they're going to crush the iPod" - some idiot on Slashdot in 2006
That's not how market disruption works, genius.
who said that? Many asshole ACs on /., as well as analysts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
it's not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
Yes, they were actually the pioneer in the field, like Tesla. Where are they now?
Yes, they were actually the pioneer in the field, like Tesla. Where are they now?
Pioneer? They tried to adapt to the new technology but failed. The usual comparison is to Fujifilm, which did survive the transition to digital.
Will Ford be a Kodak, or a Fuji? While Ford is more adaptable and competitive than Kodak was, Ford has already been bailed out by the US government, and their main competitor GM went bankrupt.
Adapt to the new technology? Kodak engineers invented it back in the 1970's, introduced the first commercial products in the late 1980's, was among the slate of the first consumer products in the mid 1990's, and was the market leader for much of the 2000's.
They ultimately underestimated the speed of the shift from film to digital (as well as the shift from discrete cameras to camera phones) and their diversification efforts were less successful than Fuji, but that doesn't change the fact they were the primary innovator in the field. For that matter, part of what hastened their demise was the lapse of their patents on digital photography in the late 2000's cutting off yet another revenue stream and increasing their competitors margins.
Also, unlike GM and Chrysler, Ford did not accept any TARP funds, though it did accept loans under a DOE program (with most of the funds earmarked for improving fuel efficiency).
But it really doesn't matter if Ford remains a market leader during it's transition. There are far more and far bigger automakers in the world and they are all aggressively pursuing electrification at this point. This is not Tesla v. Ford; it's Tesla v. Toyota v. GM v. Volkswagen v. Nissan-Renault v. Hyundai-Kia v. Ford v. Fiat-Chrystler v. Honda v. Peugot Citrogen v. BMW v. all the other smaller players or new entrants to the market.
In other words the challenge for Tesla is not whether they can best any particular competitor, but if they can maintain market dominance in face of the inevitable commodification of EVs. A better analogue is probably Tivo, who has become a relatively small player in the product segment they largely created.