According to a presentation slide, SpaceX recently completed a “successful dry run of Day of Launch Closeout Crew procedures with representative crew members, space suits, and Model X’s.”
If that were the case, data hungry companies like Google and Facebook, which sell data about you to advertisers, wouldn't even exist.
And here's where it's shown that the submitter knows nothing.
Google does NOT sell any information to advertisers. They keep the data to themselves. Google will USE that information to decide which ads are shown to which people. But the advertisers don't get to see any of this data.
You may still not like the fact that Google gathers all of that personal data, and that's a legitimate concern, but you should make a basic attempt to understand exactly how they use that data before spouting this sort of misinformation.
Why can't they fulfill people's pre-orders in the mean time by cutting the margin slightly?
They've already done that to an extent. They've dropped the price on all of their vehicles within the past month. But they also need to bring down costs.
...compared to say Hyundai-Kia who are already profitable well below $35k and at lower volume...
Where did you get the impression that Hyundai sells a profitable EV?
“We have minimal margin, just slightly above breakeven, as it’s a highly competitive market from a pricing standpoint,” Mr Grant said.
Hyundai has no margin on the Ioniq. And they are unable to create it in higher volumes. They can't source enough batteries at their current cost. The Ioniq EV is nothing but a compliance car. I stopped by my local Hyundai dealer and asked if I could test drive an Ioniq EV. Guess what? I can't. And I can't buy one either. Because I don't live in California.
And here's the quote from the article, including a quote from CFO Ken Gregor:
The problem is that it won’t help profitability, not initially. JLR CFO Gregor admitted that the I-Pace’s margins are lower despite being priced 15 percent above an equivalently equipped F-Pace. In fact, he said the I-Pace was more useful to help JLR reach tougher forthcoming CO2 targets in markets such as Europe and China. “Those electric vehicles are really important for balancing out the vehicles that have higher CO2 footprints,” he said. They also mean Jaguar eventually will not need smaller cars to achieve that compliance
Selling an EV that hurts profits, for the purpose of "balancing out vehicles that have higher CO2 footprints", is the definition of a compliance car.
But... but... I thought you were saying that Musk was a fraud and that Tesla was a non-profitable failure. Therefore investing in Tesla will result in losing money.
It will not run continuously. It will only be run when the car is charging, and perhaps also when specifically requested by the owner (to prepare for a race, for example).
Musk isn't talking about putting rocket engines on the car. He's talking about adding cold-gas thrusters. These thrusters are what is used to help steer rockets. Basically, he's going to add compressed air. The thrusters won't last for very long, and refueling them basically means running an air compressor. But it's going to be an awesome addition to have when visiting a drag strip.
It had been leaked previously that the Shanghai factory would only be producing the Model 3 and Model Y. Model S and X would continue to be built exclusively in California. But earlier this morning Elon tweeted that it would only be producing the least-expensive versions of the 3 and Y. The Performance version of the 3 in particular is apparently going to be made only in California. That was a bit surprising. It looks like the rest of the world is going to have to pay a rather sizable premium for that top versions of the Model 3 compared to the price of the base vehicles.
" one of the best-selling cars, period in the US" by what metric? and citation please, because that seems like a huge claim and is overly generalized.
Seriously? Have you been living under a rock?
Here, let me spoon-feed you.
In terms of revenue, the Tesla Model 3 was the best selling car in the USA in September, by a wide margin. It pulled in nearly twice as much money as the second-best car, the Toyota Camry.
It was the fourth best selling car in the USA during the month in terms of numbers. Take a look at the graphs in the article. Tesla is producing (and selling) the Model 3 in quantities similar to Accord, Camry, etc. But they charge 2-3 times as much for every one they sell.
Tesla - to this day - still hasn't paid any money to advertise their product.
None.
Pick just about any magazine off the shelf and count how many Ford advertisements you see in it. Watch an hour-long TV program and count the number of Chevy commercials shown. Think about how much money traditional automakers spend on advertising. And realize that the only reason they spend that much is because it *works* to create more demand for their product. That advertising is worth the cost to generate sales.
If demand for Teslas ever slows down to below their production capacity, all they have to do is start advertising just a little bit. The short seller's "no demand" thesis is one of the least-believable ones out there.
The complete reversal and over the top priase, doesn't at all smell like money changed hands.
Oh, money changed hands all right. But it didn't involve Tesla.
UBS (an investment company that has been consistently anti-Tesla) paid Munro Associates to perform the Model 3 teardown. Munro's initial impression of the Model 3 was prior to the teardown, and they rightfully focused on the car's poor fit and finish. But after completing the teardown and realizing just how inexpensive the car would be to manufacture, Munro had to "eat crow", and publicly, otherwise his company would look foolish and it would hurt his business in the long run.
How quickly we forget Amazon's missteps. Do you not remember the little bug they had in their website that allowed you to "choose your own price" for whatever you bought? That was fun. $100 books for however many pennies you wanted to pay.
Tesla executes the easy parts ("no profits") but fails at the hard parts ("no missed delivery")
The goal isn't to meet arbitrarily-chosen deadlines. The goal is to sell as many cars as possible. And they're able to sell every last car they can build. Without paying for any advertising at all. They are supply-constrained.
But if this is rubbing too much salt in your TSLA-short portfolio, I guess I can stop here.
Agreed. I'm just saying that they're following the same strategy. Worry about growth, not profit.
Amazon has always been able to deliver on its orders, has rarely, if ever, slipped in delivering the solutions they promised to,
Completely irrelevant. Tesla is following the same plan, regardless of how "well" they are following it.
Besos has never bailed out his other failing businesses with Amazon money,
Solar is going to be huge. There is a great synergy between Solar panels/tiles and Powerwalls. That's not a bailout - that's Tesla tacking advantage of another company's short-term misfortunes to position themselves to be a dominant player in the long term.
Yes, you don't go straight from "I have an idea for a business" to "profit". There's the part called "investment" that happens in there, and it takes a LOT of money to create a new car company.
Tesla's goal is to switch the world to sustainable energy. They're doing that buy becoming an automobile manufacturer. This is an old, well-established market where it's more likely that an existing company dies than for a startup to succeed. Now, you could plan on being a "boutique" manufacturer, like Lamborghini. Make a few, very-expensive cars, sell them to rich people, have a profit, and call it a day. But selling $200k roadsters isn't going to switch the whole world to sustainable energy. For that, you need to sell less expensive cars, and you need to make a lot of them.
The short-term goal is to gain a ton of market share. All revenue is shoveled back into additional development of even more vehicles. If you're trying to grab a big piece of the market, you better borrow as much money as you can so that you can develop additional vehicles more quickly.
I don't buy it. If the Tesla chargers are at risk then the 50/100/175kW third party changers are going to be too.
LOL
First, show me a 100/175kW third-party charging network in the wild. No, I don't care about somebody's 1- or 2-location little proof-of-concept charging station.
Second, Tesla doesn't own those third party chargers. So Tesla's not interested is protecting them.
The charging system already has plenty of safety tech built in to it. Tesla are just being dicks.
The superchargers include a direct low-resistance connection between the charger and the car's battery. If the battery has a short of some sort, the "safety tech" that communicates between the car and the charging station won't know about it. Tesla has decided that they don't want to risk destroying one of their charging stations when a car has been reported as being "totaled". I don't blame them.
They really should provide a way to get a salvaged car "recertified" though. Maybe they will at some point - it's still "early days" in Tesla's lifetime.
To be fair, please acknowledge the context: mainly battery, motor, and controller technology available at the time. We now have LiON, very efficient power switching transistors to control the motor, neodymium permanent magnets and switched reluctance motors. An electric car of 20 years ago would have far less power and range, still be expensive, and only a few would buy it
To be fair? If you're trying to be fair, why are you talking about 20 years ago? Tesla Motors was founded 15 years ago. They produced their first car 10 years ago. Yet it's only been within the past 3 years or so that "old auto" is finally starting to talk seriously about electric car development as something more than "compliance cars".
I agree. But that's implied in my statement. People wouldn't buy the cars either because they would cost too much, or wouldn't be able to go far enough on a charge, or couldn't be recharged quickly enough for long trips. My point is that Tesla is in the process of proving that the rest of the auto industry was wrong. If Elon had listened to them, Tesla wouldn't exist.
Would that be the same 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry which said it was impossible to design and develop an electric car that people would actually buy?
Slashdot Mirror
NAC provides Starliner, Dragon 2 update – Commercial Crew preps entering final leg to launch
It amazes me that people think that this is a Tesla-specific issue.
And here's where it's shown that the submitter knows nothing.
Google does NOT sell any information to advertisers. They keep the data to themselves. Google will USE that information to decide which ads are shown to which people. But the advertisers don't get to see any of this data.
You may still not like the fact that Google gathers all of that personal data, and that's a legitimate concern, but you should make a basic attempt to understand exactly how they use that data before spouting this sort of misinformation.
They've already done that to an extent. They've dropped the price on all of their vehicles within the past month. But they also need to bring down costs.
Where did you get the impression that Hyundai sells a profitable EV?
Low margin, huge potential for Ioniq: Hyundai
Hyundai has no margin on the Ioniq. And they are unable to create it in higher volumes. They can't source enough batteries at their current cost. The Ioniq EV is nothing but a compliance car. I stopped by my local Hyundai dealer and asked if I could test drive an Ioniq EV. Guess what? I can't. And I can't buy one either. Because I don't live in California.
And here's the quote from the article, including a quote from CFO Ken Gregor:
Selling an EV that hurts profits, for the purpose of "balancing out vehicles that have higher CO2 footprints", is the definition of a compliance car.
Yes. It's a good think that well-established auto companies like Volkswagen don't have these issues.
http://youtu.be/bkSuyXnCSO4
The frunk doesn't leak. I'm not sure where you heard that rumor.
The storage compartment under that front hood has a proper gasket and is water-tight.
But... but... I thought you were saying that Musk was a fraud and that Tesla was a non-profitable failure. Therefore investing in Tesla will result in losing money.
So, then, how is this "about money"?
Continually running a compressor
It will not run continuously. It will only be run when the car is charging, and perhaps also when specifically requested by the owner (to prepare for a race, for example).
Musk isn't talking about putting rocket engines on the car. He's talking about adding cold-gas thrusters. These thrusters are what is used to help steer rockets. Basically, he's going to add compressed air. The thrusters won't last for very long, and refueling them basically means running an air compressor. But it's going to be an awesome addition to have when visiting a drag strip.
Randy Pobst disagrees with you.
We're going to start seeing lots of track records being broken by race-prepped Model 3s in the coming year.
It had been leaked previously that the Shanghai factory would only be producing the Model 3 and Model Y. Model S and X would continue to be built exclusively in California. But earlier this morning Elon tweeted that it would only be producing the least-expensive versions of the 3 and Y. The Performance version of the 3 in particular is apparently going to be made only in California. That was a bit surprising. It looks like the rest of the world is going to have to pay a rather sizable premium for that top versions of the Model 3 compared to the price of the base vehicles.
What's your excuse going to be in three years when Tesla starts selling a pickup truck, and it outsells the F-series?
Seriously? Have you been living under a rock?
Here, let me spoon-feed you.
In terms of revenue, the Tesla Model 3 was the best selling car in the USA in September, by a wide margin. It pulled in nearly twice as much money as the second-best car, the Toyota Camry.
Tesla Model 3 Is Best Selling Car In USA In Terms Of Revenue
It was the fourth best selling car in the USA during the month in terms of numbers. Take a look at the graphs in the article. Tesla is producing (and selling) the Model 3 in quantities similar to Accord, Camry, etc. But they charge 2-3 times as much for every one they sell.
Tesla - to this day - still hasn't paid any money to advertise their product.
None.
Pick just about any magazine off the shelf and count how many Ford advertisements you see in it. Watch an hour-long TV program and count the number of Chevy commercials shown. Think about how much money traditional automakers spend on advertising. And realize that the only reason they spend that much is because it *works* to create more demand for their product. That advertising is worth the cost to generate sales.
If demand for Teslas ever slows down to below their production capacity, all they have to do is start advertising just a little bit. The short seller's "no demand" thesis is one of the least-believable ones out there.
The complete reversal and over the top priase, doesn't at all smell like money changed hands.
Oh, money changed hands all right. But it didn't involve Tesla.
UBS (an investment company that has been consistently anti-Tesla) paid Munro Associates to perform the Model 3 teardown. Munro's initial impression of the Model 3 was prior to the teardown, and they rightfully focused on the car's poor fit and finish. But after completing the teardown and realizing just how inexpensive the car would be to manufacture, Munro had to "eat crow", and publicly, otherwise his company would look foolish and it would hurt his business in the long run.
But then some "unknown entity" sued Munro over his latest "Model 3 is insanely profitable" pronouncement. It's pretty clear to everybody that the unknown entity is UBS. This didn't fit in with their narrative on the Tesla Model 3. Shortly afterwards, UBS put out their own hastily-organized teardown analysis of the Tesla Model 3, stating that it is unprofitable. By that point, a second teardown analysis by a German firm confirmed Munro's finding that the Model 3 will be profitable.
An upside-down 6 is a lowercase g, so it was commonly used as well.
Amazon has always been able to deliver.
How quickly we forget Amazon's missteps. Do you not remember the little bug they had in their website that allowed you to "choose your own price" for whatever you bought? That was fun. $100 books for however many pennies you wanted to pay.
Tesla executes the easy parts ("no profits") but fails at the hard parts ("no missed delivery")
The goal isn't to meet arbitrarily-chosen deadlines. The goal is to sell as many cars as possible. And they're able to sell every last car they can build. Without paying for any advertising at all. They are supply-constrained.
But if this is rubbing too much salt in your TSLA-short portfolio, I guess I can stop here.
Tesla is no Amazon.
Agreed. I'm just saying that they're following the same strategy. Worry about growth, not profit.
Amazon has always been able to deliver on its orders, has rarely, if ever, slipped in delivering the solutions they promised to,
Completely irrelevant. Tesla is following the same plan, regardless of how "well" they are following it.
Besos has never bailed out his other failing businesses with Amazon money,
Solar is going to be huge. There is a great synergy between Solar panels/tiles and Powerwalls. That's not a bailout - that's Tesla tacking advantage of another company's short-term misfortunes to position themselves to be a dominant player in the long term.
Silly me and my antiquated notion of profit!
Yes, you don't go straight from "I have an idea for a business" to "profit". There's the part called "investment" that happens in there, and it takes a LOT of money to create a new car company.
Tesla's goal is to switch the world to sustainable energy. They're doing that buy becoming an automobile manufacturer. This is an old, well-established market where it's more likely that an existing company dies than for a startup to succeed. Now, you could plan on being a "boutique" manufacturer, like Lamborghini. Make a few, very-expensive cars, sell them to rich people, have a profit, and call it a day. But selling $200k roadsters isn't going to switch the whole world to sustainable energy. For that, you need to sell less expensive cars, and you need to make a lot of them.
The short-term goal is to gain a ton of market share. All revenue is shoveled back into additional development of even more vehicles. If you're trying to grab a big piece of the market, you better borrow as much money as you can so that you can develop additional vehicles more quickly.
This isn't the "local pizza shop" business model you learned in Econ 101. This is the Amazon model. Grab the entire market, damn the costs.
Some references:
Amazon Never Makes Money But No One Cares
Amazon’s epic 20-year run as a public company, explained in five charts
I don't buy it. If the Tesla chargers are at risk then the 50/100/175kW third party changers are going to be too.
LOL
First, show me a 100/175kW third-party charging network in the wild. No, I don't care about somebody's 1- or 2-location little proof-of-concept charging station.
Second, Tesla doesn't own those third party chargers. So Tesla's not interested is protecting them.
The charging system already has plenty of safety tech built in to it. Tesla are just being dicks.
The superchargers include a direct low-resistance connection between the charger and the car's battery. If the battery has a short of some sort, the "safety tech" that communicates between the car and the charging station won't know about it. Tesla has decided that they don't want to risk destroying one of their charging stations when a car has been reported as being "totaled". I don't blame them.
They really should provide a way to get a salvaged car "recertified" though. Maybe they will at some point - it's still "early days" in Tesla's lifetime.
To be fair, please acknowledge the context: mainly battery, motor, and controller technology available at the time. We now have LiON, very efficient power switching transistors to control the motor, neodymium permanent magnets and switched reluctance motors. An electric car of 20 years ago would have far less power and range, still be expensive, and only a few would buy it
To be fair? If you're trying to be fair, why are you talking about 20 years ago? Tesla Motors was founded 15 years ago. They produced their first car 10 years ago. Yet it's only been within the past 3 years or so that "old auto" is finally starting to talk seriously about electric car development as something more than "compliance cars".
I agree. But that's implied in my statement. People wouldn't buy the cars either because they would cost too much, or wouldn't be able to go far enough on a charge, or couldn't be recharged quickly enough for long trips. My point is that Tesla is in the process of proving that the rest of the auto industry was wrong. If Elon had listened to them, Tesla wouldn't exist.
Would that be the same 120 year old trillion dollar auto industry which said it was impossible to design and develop an electric car that people would actually buy?