Apple's got a whole other line of portables that the Surface is supposed to compete with. The iPad was close to $5B in Q3.
If an iPad won't compete with a Macbook (and that is what Apple maintains - they do not compete with each other), then an iPad would not compete with a Surface. A Surface is a full-blown computer, every bit as much as a Macbook.
What? Next you're going to tell me that socialism means that we have a permanent "ruler class" who decides how much everyone gets to share, and how much everyone gets to pay, and we basically serve them! This is unpossible!
Mac as a whole was around $5.3 billion for Q3 2018; Macbooks are not the only Macs there, so it's safe to assume Surface is a fairly large percentage of Macbooks, at $1.1 billion.
Thirty years ago we were told the Maldives were going to disappear by now, from Climate Change and sea level rise. In fact, the Maldives Cabinet met underwater to highlight their plight. However, they obviously are still there considering they just expanded their airport.
So before we consider the claims from a given set of models projecting sometime in the future, let's look at the accuracy of their previous claims. If they weren't very accurate (as we're seeing with this and 95% of the models in the IPCC), then we should ask for further justification why we should believe their models this time.
And that has NOTHING to do with massive subsidies, tax breaks, and freebies for those purchasing an EV, right? It seems to me that EVs that stand on their own are tiny, low-range, and really low cost - the exact opposite of Tesla. The only way Tesla seems to survive is with lots of subsidies and giveaways.
Yeah yeah, mass and ice and stuff... What I want to know is, if we have a Super Earth just sitting out there, then why the heck is Elon screwing around with Mars instead of getting us to the nice big Super Earth? Think of the beaches that place must have!
What you're missing is that moving entirely to these new energy sources, the "game" can be restarted, and maybe this time the economic winners will be someone other than white guys, which means it will be fair. This isn't about protecting the environment or "stopping climate change" - this is about forcing a reset economically and changing who wins and who loses, because it's "not fair" how it currently is.
Yep, BYD has shown that real consumer demand is for something like the MIEV or the Leaf, but at about $20K. In other words, nothing at all like Tesla imagines.
Show me where they make a profit. You can't - because they don't. Current profits do not "accumulate" to cover past expenditures - past expenditures are already accounted for in the cash flow of past quarters.
So what we've learned is that the ONLY market for EVs is rich folks wanting to show "how much they care about the Earth" by buying $60K cars (well, $50K and then with tax and license putting you at $60K). While the average person spends about half that on their new vehicle. Congrats, Tesla, on building a car for the rich only, and letting all those around them see how good and noble and Earth-caring they are!
In the real world (you know, where the real volume of vehicles is sold), EVs are a non-starter because you simply cannot get the type of range or capabilities families want at the price families can afford.
Interesting you also jump in this thread, and were basically silent on the one where Musk was forced out as Chairman, given a couple more watchdogs, and fined 400 Model 3's worth of money. We'll see how much money they lose for Q3, too!
The other AC got it right - there is NO PLACE where it says they make profit; that's why they lost $717 million last quarter, and are burning money at nearly $2 billion per year... That's not a profit.
You know, delivery issues are exactly what a DEALER NETWORK solves. Oh, and it also slashes the SG&A (which is 20% of Tesla's revenue - about 3X that of any other car maker) and makes you profitable. For the dealer taking a few thousand off the top, you can save thousands more in direct SG&A costs, and you can actually get CARS INTO THE HANDS OF PEOPLE that much faster.
But Tesla is different. It's post-dealer. It's hip, trendy - and loses money on cars it cannot deliver.
The Bolt does about 240 miles on a charge, and it's available at $36K today. The Model 3 - as shipping today - doesn't have competition because there aren't any all EVs other than Tesla and the BMW i8 at prices above $50K. Now, when the Model 3 starts shipping in the $30-$35K range (like the Leaf and Bolt), then yes.
Are they? Are you sure about that? Tesla has consistently claimed they're profitable - but their financial reports say otherwise. My guess is it's a solid $650MM+ loss for Q3, we'll find out soon enough!
I know a few people who got cancer in the US - and they did not lose their house, their car, their everything. Payment plans with vastly-reduced costs were worked out, no interest, and ultimately paid off in each case
So, the UK Government uses no tax money to pay for your health insurance?
I used to pay about $96/month until Obamacare basically invalidated my policy (not acceptable for new enrollees, grandfathered allowed, but with a 15% typical movement between policy styles, the company shut it down because it would be gone in a few years anyway). I now pay about $380 per month for pretty complete coverage, and it's fixed at that price for 5 years. Unfortunately, by law, I have to pay for psychiatric, pediatric, and ob/gyn services (even though I have no history of mental health issues, I am not a child nor do I have children, and I am not a genetic female), but that's what it costs me.
I'd be surprised if your insurance cost was only £117 and there aren't additional income from your taxes paid.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's got a whole other line of portables that the Surface is supposed to compete with. The iPad was close to $5B in Q3.
If an iPad won't compete with a Macbook (and that is what Apple maintains - they do not compete with each other), then an iPad would not compete with a Surface. A Surface is a full-blown computer, every bit as much as a Macbook.
What about bo staff skills?
What? Next you're going to tell me that socialism means that we have a permanent "ruler class" who decides how much everyone gets to share, and how much everyone gets to pay, and we basically serve them! This is unpossible!
Mac as a whole was around $5.3 billion for Q3 2018; Macbooks are not the only Macs there, so it's safe to assume Surface is a fairly large percentage of Macbooks, at $1.1 billion.
A billion dollars a quarter worth of Surfaces are selling. That's about 40% of Macbook sales. So - it's small, but it IS selling.
Thirty years ago we were told the Maldives were going to disappear by now, from Climate Change and sea level rise. In fact, the Maldives Cabinet met underwater to highlight their plight. However, they obviously are still there considering they just expanded their airport.
So before we consider the claims from a given set of models projecting sometime in the future, let's look at the accuracy of their previous claims. If they weren't very accurate (as we're seeing with this and 95% of the models in the IPCC), then we should ask for further justification why we should believe their models this time.
And that has NOTHING to do with massive subsidies, tax breaks, and freebies for those purchasing an EV, right? It seems to me that EVs that stand on their own are tiny, low-range, and really low cost - the exact opposite of Tesla. The only way Tesla seems to survive is with lots of subsidies and giveaways.
Yeah yeah, mass and ice and stuff... What I want to know is, if we have a Super Earth just sitting out there, then why the heck is Elon screwing around with Mars instead of getting us to the nice big Super Earth? Think of the beaches that place must have!
We will find out pretty quickly what will happen to him.
What you're missing is that moving entirely to these new energy sources, the "game" can be restarted, and maybe this time the economic winners will be someone other than white guys, which means it will be fair. This isn't about protecting the environment or "stopping climate change" - this is about forcing a reset economically and changing who wins and who loses, because it's "not fair" how it currently is.
Three of the top four States in GDP are Southern (well, CA borders Southern and middle). So...
Warmer air tends to hold moisture better, doesn't it? And what about increased CO2 increasing plant growth?
Yep, BYD has shown that real consumer demand is for something like the MIEV or the Leaf, but at about $20K. In other words, nothing at all like Tesla imagines.
Show me where they make a profit. You can't - because they don't. Current profits do not "accumulate" to cover past expenditures - past expenditures are already accounted for in the cash flow of past quarters.
So what we've learned is that the ONLY market for EVs is rich folks wanting to show "how much they care about the Earth" by buying $60K cars (well, $50K and then with tax and license putting you at $60K). While the average person spends about half that on their new vehicle. Congrats, Tesla, on building a car for the rich only, and letting all those around them see how good and noble and Earth-caring they are!
In the real world (you know, where the real volume of vehicles is sold), EVs are a non-starter because you simply cannot get the type of range or capabilities families want at the price families can afford.
Interesting you also jump in this thread, and were basically silent on the one where Musk was forced out as Chairman, given a couple more watchdogs, and fined 400 Model 3's worth of money. We'll see how much money they lose for Q3, too!
So how many will they sell (most likely at a loss) at $35K? Because right now, Tesla is well out-sold by other car models, let alone car brands.
The other AC got it right - there is NO PLACE where it says they make profit; that's why they lost $717 million last quarter, and are burning money at nearly $2 billion per year... That's not a profit.
You know, delivery issues are exactly what a DEALER NETWORK solves. Oh, and it also slashes the SG&A (which is 20% of Tesla's revenue - about 3X that of any other car maker) and makes you profitable. For the dealer taking a few thousand off the top, you can save thousands more in direct SG&A costs, and you can actually get CARS INTO THE HANDS OF PEOPLE that much faster.
But Tesla is different. It's post-dealer. It's hip, trendy - and loses money on cars it cannot deliver.
The Bolt does about 240 miles on a charge, and it's available at $36K today. The Model 3 - as shipping today - doesn't have competition because there aren't any all EVs other than Tesla and the BMW i8 at prices above $50K. Now, when the Model 3 starts shipping in the $30-$35K range (like the Leaf and Bolt), then yes.
If you define successful as selling all your products at a loss, then yes - Tesla is successful.
Congrats! They're half-way to monthly sales of a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry!
But they are profitable this quarter.
Are they? Are you sure about that? Tesla has consistently claimed they're profitable - but their financial reports say otherwise. My guess is it's a solid $650MM+ loss for Q3, we'll find out soon enough!
"US Census Bureau, median household income by member of household". Archived from the original on 2006-05-28. Retrieved 2006-07-07.
Yep, 2006. And somehow my use of 2011 to 2014 data is bad, but data from nearly a decade earlier is good?
I know a few people who got cancer in the US - and they did not lose their house, their car, their everything. Payment plans with vastly-reduced costs were worked out, no interest, and ultimately paid off in each case
Contrary to the typical memes and beliefs, bankruptcy for medical issues is extremely rare: about 4% of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Given that 0.3% of households file for bankruptcy each year, and there are 126 million households in the US, that means there are about (126MM * 0.003 * 0.04) 15,000 medical bankruptcies each year in the US. Yes, a large number, but nowhere near the oft-quoted 643,000 annually (which is actually more than the number of bankruptcies filed overall).
So, the UK Government uses no tax money to pay for your health insurance?
I used to pay about $96/month until Obamacare basically invalidated my policy (not acceptable for new enrollees, grandfathered allowed, but with a 15% typical movement between policy styles, the company shut it down because it would be gone in a few years anyway). I now pay about $380 per month for pretty complete coverage, and it's fixed at that price for 5 years. Unfortunately, by law, I have to pay for psychiatric, pediatric, and ob/gyn services (even though I have no history of mental health issues, I am not a child nor do I have children, and I am not a genetic female), but that's what it costs me.
I'd be surprised if your insurance cost was only £117 and there aren't additional income from your taxes paid.