The future of Tesla

[Broken_Erika]

Tesla's Future?

 

[Zkribbler]

The actual number of fires per car with electrics ...

I researched Tesla. What relevance do other brands have in this thread?

 

[Synobun]

Was Tesla ever expected to actually be successful in regards to profit? I thought the entire point of making their technology patent-free was to stimulate the industry.

Elon Musk from 2014 seems to agree with my impression:

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

[...]

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis.

At any rate, is there any precedent for Musk's tweets indicating actual action on his part when it comes to sensitive matters? We know that Trump uses Twitter as a megaphone, but does Musk?

I don't like him very much, and I don't really like the cult surrounding him, but I am not sure if this SEC thing is particularly valid based on what I know (which, I admit, is not much).

 

[uppi]

Was Tesla ever expected to actually be successful in regards to profit? I thought the entire point of making their technology patent-free was to stimulate the industry.

Musk certainly made investors believe that it could be profitable. Whether he was lying is anyone's guess.

At any rate, is there any precedent for Musk's tweets indicating actual action on his part when it comes to sensitive matters? We know that Trump uses Twitter as a megaphone, but does Musk?

I don't like him very much, and I don't really like the cult surrounding him, but I am not sure if this SEC thing is particularly valid based on what I know (which, I admit, is not much).

For example, he announced on Twitter that SpaceX would be sending a Tesla as test payload for the Falcon Heavy. Which is exactly what happened. So Musk announcing a crazy scheme and then following through with it does have precedent.

That tweet about the buyout of Tesla would be questionable, even if it was true. If he cannot come up with evidence that it was, it is clearly illegal in my opinion and the SEC are on to something.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Elon Musk and Tesla to pay $40m to settle SEC case over tweets

Elon Musk forced to step down as chairman of Tesla, remains CEO

 

[Synobun]

For example, he announced on Twitter that SpaceX would be sending a Tesla as test payload for the Falcon Heavy. Which is exactly what happened. So Musk announcing a crazy scheme and then following through with it does have precedent.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Alright, I'm sold.

 

[innonimatu]

I researched Tesla. What relevance do other brands have in this thread?

There have been way more than 3 fires.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Was Tesla ever expected to actually be successful in regards to profit? I thought the entire point of making their technology patent-free was to stimulate the industry.

Elon Musk from 2014 seems to agree with my impression:



At any rate, is there any precedent for Musk's tweets indicating actual action on his part when it comes to sensitive matters? We know that Trump uses Twitter as a megaphone, but does Musk?

I don't like him very much, and I don't really like the cult surrounding him, but I am not sure if this SEC thing is particularly valid based on what I know (which, I admit, is not much).

The patent thing was an empty guesture. The patents aren't widely usable without buying into Tesla's supply chain and infrastructure which would help them lower prices by leveraging economies of scale. Plus the patents weren't that revolutionary in and of themselves. The juiciest stuff won't be patented anyways and just remain a trade secret.

Musk certainly made investors believe that it could be profitable. Whether he was lying is anyone's guess.




For example, he announced on Twitter that SpaceX would be sending a Tesla as test payload for the Falcon Heavy. Which is exactly what happened. So Musk announcing a crazy scheme and then following through with it does have precedent.

That tweet about the buyout of Tesla would be questionable, even if it was true. If he cannot come up with evidence that it was, it is clearly illegal in my opinion and the SEC are on to something.

He announced he would start a company to dig giant holes and followed through. He said he would sell flamethrowers to support that company and did. He flew a giant wheel of cheese on the first Falcon 9 and put iron Man and cylon statues in his rocket factory.

He said he thought the Amos-9 explosion was sabotage and he'd investigate by shooting a LOX tank with a rifle. A few weeks later we pumped out the 'pony keg' (as we called it) LOX tank and hauled it out to Texas and shot it with a .50 Cal.

The man says crazy stuff regulary and follows through much of the time


I do believe he wants to take Tesla private. I also believe he was lying about the situation in an effort to gin up support with big investors.

He got off easy for textbook stock manipulation. Doesn't matter that it was Twitter. It was public record and mass media, no different from the NY Times in this matter.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Doesn't matter that it was Twitter. It was public record and mass media, no different from the NY Times in this matter.

Take a close look at this line and tell me if it was what you are really trying to say.

 

[Moriarte]

I do believe he wants to take Tesla private. I also believe he was lying about the situation in an effort to gin up support with big investors.

Alright, he is tired of playing a clown, but what Other choices are there? Sure, you can use public funds in the way that he does - by creating a cult as a front, while burning through the cash. Can you do the same with private money? Highly unlikely.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Alright, he is tired of playing a clown, but what Other choices are there? Sure, you can use public funds in the way that he does - by creating a cult as a front, while burning through the cash. Can you do the same with private money? Highly unlikely.

Yes, he can. He did it with SpaceX. It's still not clear if SpaceX is making money yet big institutional investors have poured cash in to what could easily become an endless money pit.

Having to deal with the scrutinity and fickleness of small and medium size investors makes it really difficult to act in the long term interests of the company if doing so requires lower margins in the short term. For SpaceX, he convinced very big investors, public and private, to back his vision with enough capital to put the company on sure footing. Even if SpaceX isn't massively profitable now, they have eaten a huge chunk out of the market and clearly have massive technicalogical advantages and a clear path to profitabilty. Tesla is in a spot where it could break out like SpaceX or crash and burn.

I am not necessarily saying that Musk could have or would do better running Tesla as a private company. But I do think that taking it private could help them pass through a difficult growth phase and I also believe he could get big investors to back him.

But he did not have that support when he crossed the line and broke the law.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Take a close look at this line and tell me if it was what you are really trying to say.

Some people have suggested that because he said this via Twitter that it is unclear if the regulatory framework is capable of handling that. Clearly it is per the outcome of this episode. But what I was getting at is that he said it in a public forum that is a matter of record. He could have written this tweet as an Op-Ed in the NYT and had the same affect on the market. Therefore the regulatory framework covers this.

 

[Moriarte]

Yes, he can. He did it with SpaceX. It's still not clear if SpaceX is making money yet big institutional investors have poured cash in to what could easily become an endless money pit.

One thing is substantially cutting costs of satellite launches Today. Making electric cars is something else. There is no observable benefit, which can attract big crows specifically. A distant chance to be a pioneer for the future tech? Maybe. But you are already competing with toyota and vw.. I believe public funding with twitter-addicted CEO at the helm is just right for Tesla. The “go private” move was another eccentric attention-seeking escapade aimed to attract more funding. They (the board) need to learn how to control him better though )

 

[adcarrymaokai]

If it's not clear yet, I absolutely hate Elon Musk, but I'll give him one thing: going after electric cars surely brings a lot of rage and fury from the oil industry, so he is pretty much one musky boii fighting against stagnant corporations and oil moguls who only care about filling their pockets and dying before the Earth get completely destroyed. That takes some guts.

I know for a fact some car reviewers and events were scripted to give Tesla terrible reviews just to gut the idea of electric cars and make it never happen, so what it's worth, at least he is doing something anti-establishment. I guess.

 

[Hrothbern]

In my strange example. I was maybe defrauding Friendly Fire and having Zkribbler buy him out, because I thought the three of us were the only ones paying attention to the thread...but when you came cross posting along I didn't want to leave you out.

The problem with Musks statements "having no basis in fact" is that said statements weren't in any way official statements on behalf of the company...they were tweets. If someone took action based on them that's their problem...maybe. Clearly the law is going to have to be adapted to these new information pathways.

ok, understand now

And yes, strictly tweets etc are no official statements.

But I do not like it when people in a role of authority can cloack themselves with a cloud of confusing statements to the general public. It undermines the value authority for the general public. It has become a race to the bottom.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

ok, understand now

And yes, strictly tweets etc are no official statements.

But I do not like it when people in a role of authority can cloack themselves with a cloud of confusing statements to the general public. It undermines the value authority for the general public. It has become a race to the bottom.

We are way past the race to the bottom. We are at the bottom and competing to see who can dig the fastest.

 

[Cheetah]

Take a close look at this line and tell me if it was what you are really trying to say.

For what it's worth, I would absolutely say that it is true. Twitter is publishing, and information published there should be treated as any other mass-media publishing.

 

[Hrothbern]

We are way past the race to the bottom. We are at the bottom and competing to see who can dig the fastest.

yeah
The deeper your trenches the less you see around you from others, the more entrenched you become

What I love about being a citizen of a small unimportant country is that you have to look around you all the time, to the bigger players.... and yes, we are always lagging behind a bit in the big developments..... most new things start in the US, where they often go to extremes..... and lagging behind 10-20 years or more... gives some cushion to counter before you are amidst of the turmoil and things get rapidly more complicated.
Whereby noted that globalisation is decreasing that cushion time.

What is happening now in the US with the erosion of authority is for most politicians and regular people in my country an example and an argument against similar developments that started to emerge slowly here as well.
And why would the US not get out of that pitfall ? The US got out of the Prohibition period, got out of the McCarthy period.

I think that regulating fake news, misleading public statements to the press and social media of (leaders of) public companies could be an excellent step up to a framework of considerations that can also be applied to politics and newsmedia.

EDIT
I ignore by that tactics that I do as such agree with your "buy out" example. If greed as driver influences a person to gamble on what he makes up out of hearsay info, I do think it is his own fault and risk.
But if that principle is the cause of grand scale erosion of trust and good faith in authorities, which is an achilles heel of representative democracies/republics, then it must be made subordinate to the higher principle of trust and good faith.
And for sure that will be easier to put in regulations, laws, constitutions when you are not in the turmoil as you are in the US right now. In my small country we had lately a Euro 750 million fine to a very Dutch bank on money laundering. That fine was not that high because of the amount of laundered money, but because of the breach of trust. And this spring that same bank had to undo the 50% salary increase of the CEO because that salary was perceived as moneygrabbing and undermining the trust in that bank. Because a bank is seen here as a combination of for-profit and as a public utility for the public as well.
The threat was ofc that that bank would lose being the housebank of the government for the tax collection.
=> trust is or can be at least a powerful tool to attack abuse.

 

[Colon]

The patent thing was an empty guesture. The patents aren't widely usable without buying into Tesla's supply chain and infrastructure which would help them lower prices by leveraging economies of scale. Plus the patents weren't that revolutionary in and of themselves. The juiciest stuff won't be patented anyways and just remain a trade secret.

Aren't the batteries Panasonic's anyway?

 

[uppi]

One thing is substantially cutting costs of satellite launches Today. Making electric cars is something else. There is no observable benefit, which can attract big crows specifically. A distant chance to be a pioneer for the future tech? Maybe. But you are already competing with toyota and vw.

The demand for electric cars will be there once cities start banning ICE cars within their limits. And if there is one thing that Tesla accomplished, it is that they have shown that there is enough demand for electric cars right now. The problem with Model 3 is not that nobody is willing to buy them, but that Tesla's production costs are currently too high to make a profit with it. Mass production of cars is just much harder than scaling your internet startup by adding more servers.

When Tesla started, the established car manufacturers didn't really take electric cars seriously. So there was an opportunity there for a new company to set themselves up by filling that gap. The challenge was to establish the new company in the market before the established players can take it over. It remains to be seen, whether Tesla will ultimately fail or succeed at that.