"How does Edmunds make money? Edmunds sells advertising to marketers who have contextually relevant messages for site visitors. Also, car-shoppers who visit Edmunds have the opportunity to request price quotes from dealers and providers of insurance, financing and extended warranties. Edmunds is paid by the automakers, dealers and other service providers for the lead referrals." http://www.edmunds.com/about/faqs.html
The resell value may be less than a comparable "normal" car, and there's the risk that some government regulation makes all the technology in a Tesla today obsolete or illegal to use in the future.
(and I believe Tesla quietly killed their promise to artificially inflate resell values by footing the bill themselves a while back)
Some people naturally won't care about resell value - of course, others will.
As much as I anticipate more cool stuff from Tesla, one could say the same about akin-ness of people to find everything that Tesla does "super innovative" and "revolutionary" while the same features already existed in other cars for quite some time.
I actually laughed out loud when I saw the Headline of this submission "Tesla released a video of a car driving itself" being the number one entry on HN - sorry but this speaks volumes about the "neutrality" of HN regarding Tesla.
That "someone" would have to be a world leading AI research team, to "hack" something that would be a few decades ahead of the current state of the art. But alright.
Well, you can get a "not very safe" self-driving car by tying a brick to the gas pedal. It'll sure "drive" itself (in a mostly straight line).
Whenever Tesla is the topic it's almost guaranteed every negative comment on HN will be downvoted (I just see that right now with my comment above. It's constantly gaining and losing me karma).
Besides that, the self-driving Tesla isn't news. That is the joke here. It's a press release that gets frenzied on HN's #1 spot.
They drove 50 miles on a fairly challenging road and recorded the number of times they had to grab the steering wheel. BMW and Mercedes were twice as often, infiniti about 3 times.
The #2 BMW "City streets also foil this equipment; occasionally the BMW lost the trail on clearly marked straight sections of pavement for no obvious reason at all."
The Tesla (with driving hardware 2 revisions ago, and software at least on revision ago) "the Tesla Model S locks onto the path ahead with a cruise missile’s determination and your hands resting on your lap.","The Tesla’s Autosteer performance can be distinguished from our other contenders by two words: no wobbling.", and "This system rises well above parlor-trick status to beg your use in daily driving.", "to Tesla’s credit, this is the only car capable of hands-free lane changes.", and " but by tallying only 29 interruptions in 50 miles, Tesla’s Autopilot app lives in a class of one."
So do other companies have lane following and related features... yes. Do they do as well as Tesla, not from what I've seen.
Assuming that others downvote over differing opinions does paint you in the light of doing that yourself, though...
I'm both surprised and sad to hear that the downvote button's intended purpose is disagreement. This seems like it would discourage people from posting alternative points of view if their view is the minority.
As much as I tried looking for it on my own, I couldn't find one, so would you mind posting a source as to where the founders stated the purpose of voting?
http://jacquesmattheij.com/the-unofficial-hn-faq#downvoted
That said, the author currently has karma 111515 so he likely knows something about it.
The guidelines[0] do mention "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I often upvote both sides of a polite to-and-from between two parties with differing opinions, if the discussion is interesting, since that, I feel, adds to the quality of the whole page. I frown upon learning that it is encouraged to downvote if you disagree. Isn't it an equivalent of childish sticking fingers into your ears and hoping the other opinion goes away?
Same thing happens with other companies of course. Er, Apple, in particular. If you ask most people "what was the first smartphone?", they will probably say "the first iPhone"... even though there were a few earlier devices that used the same tech and would have been called "smartphones" today (by the same token as the original iPhone). They just never caught on in the same way as the iPhone did.
It's marketing, innit. I don't think you can win against it.
The iPhone is synonymous with smartphone technology because its debut was a quantum leap ahead of the competition at the time (Blackberry, Palm, etc.). Google was working on a phone that used a physical keyboard until they saw the iPhone announcement and then quickly modified Android to ape iPhone/iOS.
I'm really sick of people trying to downplay Apple's innovations as nothing more than slick packaging and marketing. It's a stupid meme that refuses to die.
Exactly. I would go as far as saying it's simply infotainment.
Here is a test that I would use to determine the value of this. If it wasn't infotainment, it probably wouldn't need to be set to a soundtrack and would stand on it's own w/o music. The music creates an emotion and helps stave off the boredom.
Cameras are cheap and I suspect the 12 cameras have overlap to help with depth perception and maybe even fault tolerances. I suspect as soon as LIDAR becomes a better solution for the price (if that happens) that Tesla will use them. Or maybe a hybrid of both so they can use the strengths of both as needed.
For example with the parking would the car know if the other vehicle has a driver and when that driver moves or is about to move?
But what stops that iPhone metaphor for me is Design, Materials and Finish. Apple Products look and feel like luxury. Where as Tesla only achieves that on the software side - and in your pocket.
Source: I owned Windows CE / windows mobile devices since as early as 2001 if I recall correctly.
Source: I owned Windows CE/Smartphone/Mobile devices starting with the Samsung i600 and was actively using a Treo 700w when the iPhone was released.
That seems to be Ms. Caldwell's point: Without the software or regulations in place, it's impossible to know if the "equipment is ready." I don't disagree with her on this one.
(And I am long TSLA.)
He's doing what he does best: forcing a hard change on an established system.
Autonomous driving not allowed? Well, we'll give them "Autopilot"-- make sure to keep your hands on the wheel! Nope, it's not autonomous, it's Autopilot! It just happens to have all the hardware needed to be fully autonomous, and Autopilot will "gradually gain new capabilities." Questionable? Sure. Best way to make an extremely hard industry transition? Almost definitely.
It would be a chicken and egg problem if he didn't do this. Can't test the system extensively beyond the lab without regulations, can't have a system that doesn't meet regulations because it hasn't been tested enough yet. He's just sidestepping this dilemma.
All this in spite of tremendous uncertainty not just with regards to the regulatory environment but to the not yet fully developed capabilities of their own software.
Tldr: I suspect Tesla know what they're doing with the pricing of this thing.
In a big way. They are using data gathered by the self-driving ready hardware to develop the software that will use it.
Thousands of cars out there collecting data is a huge advantage over groups working with a handful of prototypes.
I'm not sure this is true. At least for Google, it seems like the main bottleneck to progress is engineering time to fix the problems that arise. The problem is not a lack of vehicles driving and finding problems.
I say this because Google has made very little effort to expand their fleet of testing vehicles. The last big expansion, from 28 to 48 vehicles, was in Sept. 2015. Since then they've expanded from 48 to 58, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. [1]
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v0BBTDOXvD8JdhrySFy6...
It just isn't reasonable for Google to build and manage a fleet of that size for a development program. It would cost Google half a billion dollars, but for Tesla it's just a bit of cost they roll into the product.
But saying it's an "autonomous car" because it has the sensors and computers just isn't so. When it gets the software, then it's an "autonomous car."
To use GPs analogy to the iPhone1: If Apple had just shipped the hardware without iOS, it wouldn't have been the iPhone.
Yeah, well... it's not really autonomous. It's a slightly better cruise control + assisted lane change. In fact the "Autopilot" marketing term makes it sound much more like fully autonomous driving than it actually is.
Elon Musk does what he does best alright: make billions. The rest is just educated guesses at best.
At worse, any attempt to "explain" marketing strategy as some sort of passionate drive to improve the technology, or similar, is just so much cold-reading yourself at for the benefit of a commercial company's bottom line.
So I think it might be from an investment standpoint; just think of Tivo they made the DVR, but once others saw what they were doing there are plenty of other DVR choices and Tivo didn't win the category.
Tesla might be forging ahead and blazing the trail for others, who will actually capitalize on it.
I think that the Tesla brand is sexy enough that they'll maintain their niche (as Tivo has to some extent), I'm not sure if that will translate into investment returns.
When Tivo was a simple as plugging in the analog coax signal from your cable or antenna, it made a lot of sense. But once the signal from the cable company needed digital decoding, it hurt them, despite Tivo having a better UI.
It's probably because there is a substantial gap between what Musk spins, and reality.
Take Tesla 3 pre-orders, for instance. Tesla spins 400,000 pre-orders for a car that you might not receive in the next three years as the most amazing innovation in automobile manufacturing.
Historically, there have been a few other companies that had hundreds of thousands of pre-orders, where you would end up waiting years for your car to be built and delivered to you. Their names were Lada, Volga, etc. Soviet auto companies had the exact same problem Tesla has - inability to meet demand.
Because genuine competition in the Soviet Union was not allowed. Don't want to wait for Mr. Musk's Magical Mystery Car? Then buy a damn Honda Civic or something. A huge pre-order list is notable when it occurs in a context where people have many other options not involving a long wait. It proves the existence of real demand, not "demand-because-of-a-lack-of-alternatives". Proving this demand is important for a small company which is trying to scale up.
The reality is that they are the first serious electric car company. A tiny enterprise that took on the old Detroit giants and is winning.
When you see people putting down hard earned cash for something three years into the future, they are not being tricked, they are investing in disruption. He's such a terrible orator you couldn't describe him as a charlatan. It's his actions and people's wallets speak the loudest.
Meanwhile, Detroit produces more cars then that in two weeks.
Tesla might win eventually, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Context : No other car manufacturer will have a comparable EV on the road in the next 3 years. I will take what Tesla gives me.
It doesn't have the self driving hardware, it's otherwise comparable to the Model 3.
Once it is released then we can talk about the rate of mfg vs backlog but it is pure silliness to argue against a product because lots of people want it.
By this logic, Apple is a huge disappointment because they won't give me my iPhone 8S until 2019.
In what way are they "winning" against Detroit? Certainly not in revenues, profits, miles driven or cars produced.
Yes, they "own" one segment": high end electric vehicles. No one there is close. But Detroit owns many others. Why does the one that Tesla dominates carry so much weight?
> Why does the segment that Tesla dominates carry so much weight?
The stock market is adjusting for a <10% market share of ICE cars in 2050. It's a Schroedinger situation: If the <10% hypothesis is wrong, then we're all dead (more precisely: Half of us are living under giant cataclisms, the Gulf Stream has stopped, the costal cities are flooded, and our economy is so disorganized that we can't plan where the money will be), so markets don't need to account for this situation. So all Detroit/Toyota industries are slowly shrinking in comparison to Tesla, unless they adapt. It may be hard to imagine if you live in USA because they rely so much on cars for their lifestyle, but our civilization will get rid of petrol cars within our lifespan. This is also the genius of Musk: He saw a version of the future that is obvious but that no other American citizen could understand, and he executed on it. Hence the importance of travelling the world or meeting many people when we want to innovate.
By the way, maybe a sweeping change is preparing that the petrol generations can't foresee. We could imagine things like an international agreement on global warming suddenly reducing the worldwide production of cars. It's impossible today, but educated people may have good reasons to believe something like this will happen, in which case Tesla wins all.
I'm not sure how having a disproportionately high market cap indicates "beating" anyone. It's the whim of the markets.
>If they execute well on the Gigafactory, they may apply a multiplier on this market cap, reaching above Toyota ($200bn)
Based on what, exactly? This is Silicon Valley math. Who on earth is going to pay Toyota prices for a company that you yourself say might only have a fraction of the production? What sort of investment would that be?
I know this is taboo around here, but one day high-growth slows and companies become "established" and it's about how much money they make and return to shareholders. If Tesla is making as many cars as Toyota and as much profit is Toyota, then they'll be priced like Toyota. Why would it be any other way?
>So all Detroit/Toyota industries are slowly shrinking in comparison to Tesla
There were over 70 millions cars sold in 2015. Tesla delivered about 50 thousand, for about a 0.07% market share. Are you surprised that they are able to grow relative to specific players in a massive industry?
But maybe Toyota will return fewer profit per car? Ah, you've already accounted for that. There are other variables: If production is equal today, but if Toyota is expected to halve its production in 2040, the Toyota share will get lower and lower until it's half of Tesla. Other variables can be the health of their distribution system (a vendor with no cardealer lock-in will save a lot on sales), customer trust, innovation methods (e.g. Toyota's methods only led to the invention of Prius, whereas Tesla's methods led to the invention of a fully-electric car with a lot of autonomy, so it's a predictor that Tesla's innovation scheme will produce better things than Toyota in the future), marketing methods (They spend little in advertising and are able to have thousands of viewers watch their keynotes without pushing ads in the newspapers), a legacy of employees that might be hard to re-train, or a forecast that huge R&D expenses will be necessary to keep being relevant in the market of 2040. It's not "a whim of the market", it's that Toyota is shrunk by default in 2050 whereas Tesla is alive by default in 2050.
> Tesla delivered about 50,000, for about a 0.07% market share. Are you surprised that they are able to grow relative to specific players in a massive industry?
..and Tesla plans to deliver 500,000 in 2018, for about 0.7% of the market share. Then I personally think they'll become even more popular (because of law advances, both against pollution and in favor of self-driving cars, and because of social status, geeks, comfort and market-specific innovations like the air filter that will be appealing in China, etc) and that means 7% market share in 2022, etc. So I'd buy Tesla shares for a higher price than Toyota's because I'd trust them more for delivering good dividends in the long term.
Note: I'm neither a financial advisor nor an owner of Tesla shares.
Because it kind of is when we're talking about an electric car. Tesla's competitors can't come up with those numbers for EVs combined (even with hybrids). GM is expected to make 30,000 Bolts for next year, for instance (and it may or may not sell all of them).
That said, I'm skeptical the Autopilot 2.0 hardware is a "Level 5 autonomous system". I think a good rule of thumb would be to subtract about "one level" from what Musk promises, as he always tends to be a little overoptimistic, even if what he creates still ends up being better than the competition.
Take the first Autopilot, which Musk said is "Level 2". It's probably more like a real Level 1. It only works under very specific situations, and even when those specific situations are met (a highway) it can still fail, because Tesla may have accounted for US highways but not European ones, or other road quirks. See the recent Autobahn accident because the Autopilot couldn't properly identify "yellow lines" as opposed to white ones.
So yeah, I expect this to be more like Level 4 ... three years from now (as ready for mainstream use, not just a demo). I don't think we'll see true Level 5 until the 2020s. I think there are still many unexpected things Musk and his engineers aren't foreseeing right now.
Check your sources, we're at well over a million EV/PHEVs[0] combined nowadays and the model S is a bit over 10% of that. It's been a while since I last saw an EV parking spot with chargers that was empty.
Now that I checked it, the Leaf alone is past those numbers for the Model 3.[1]
[0] http://gas2.org/2015/09/22/1-million-electric-cars-now-in-th...
[1] http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/channels/Global-Sales...
When we get to level 4 the game is over, it's just an adoption curve at that point.
Under those conditions, it's pretty much Level 5 or bust. But yes, that doesn't mean Level 4 cars won't start getting adopted, especially if the autonomous systems are just another "feature" on a regular car (hopefully EVs in all or most cases).
Other manufacturers aren't simply responding to Elan.
These other car companies have had so much more time and resources, and they have not pushed the way Tesla has.
They'll cool down in a few years (or disappear).
Traditional car investors look at certain tried and proven market indicators to judge stocks. When new tech comes along, they don't know what to think. So they think here and there like in this case.
The real value in bringing self driving tech here is to provide cool features to the buyer, not necessarily bring the stock of the company up. If investors do not know how how to place value on this, I only shrug.
I see the opposite Musk seems to be the new Steve Jobs people are crazy over him and seem to think he can do no wrong.
That said, if some company had manufactured bluetooth hardware last year way in advance of the release and full spec, I would argue that it was a pretty bad move. Clearly this is not a perfect analogy, but it should illustrate that this can seem counter intuitive. Building in the cost of beta tech that doesnt fully work and is not legal is a huge gamble. I just wouldn't personally bet against tesla and for the reasons i outlined; it is likely the right call
They will always say such things.
I cannot judge for myself having not read them yet.
The only people who suggest them are people who I do not respect (rich assholes or people who think they should be rich assholes) or people I not do not know mixed with people insulting them.
Basing your entire philosophy on a cartoon is a mistake, but bashing an author when you haven't read any of their work is a grosser mistake.
Her one good book in my opinion is "we the living" - oh, and Anthem was an interesting novella - think she inspired Tom Disch's 334
Oh, rly?
I prefer her early stuff, from before she lost her ideals to her ideology.
Rand was a mundane, myopic, self righteous ideologue with the philosophical depth f a puddle and the macroeconomic wisdom of a 6 year old with a 20 dollar bill.
Randian politics are a comic strip masquerading as a political movement.
Worthless except as a study in sociology of those people who hold it up as a worldview.
IMNSHO
The classic literature (and Atlas without any doubt belongs to so called modern classic) much like classical music, is a complex and highly artificial phenomena. The word for referring to a piece of art is artifact.
In the case of classical music there is absolutely no objective criteria to judge symphonies. It is possible to compare the pieces of music, and lots of pseudo-intellectual assholes do it for living, but it will be nothing but a joggling with a metaphorical jargon. Nevertheless, one almost always could distinguish some fragments from this or that piece of classical music which he likes for some not very articulable reasons. Bach, arguably, composed most of such sources of a beautiful fragments, Mozart is the second, etc.
These notions could be applied to literature. Like a symphony, a big novel, even a small poem, cannot be judged by a single criteria, but some parts of it we might find delightful and beautiful. The question, as it is in the case of classic music, is who is the reader (or listener).
In case of Atlas Shrugged, there are too many to count arguably beautiful parts (majoring in physics and philosophy is one of them), fragments or even passages, which appeals to the mind of modestly educated reader. The best personages she created were, ironically, not the central, heroic and positive, but all the crooks and weaklings, mediocrities and minor idiots. This, perhaps, is why Rand is hated so much.
As a student of philosophy, Rand got most of the philosophic and economic aspects right. Indeed, her Hegelian professor is a true masterpiece, her bureaucrats are convincing, James Taggard is remarkable. Her main characters are overloaded with virtues.)
Certain naivety of the plot - the miraculous alloy and especially the perpetuum mobile, for which the book has been criticized so often by idiots, actually are mere nuances. The real story is about focus and persistence, accepting the challenges, adapting and evolving and never giving up - all the postulates of a sound moral philosophy, which goes back to ancient Greeks. No one takes the plot of Atlas seriously.
She is also right that the motivations which drive us should be simple and pure (the Greeks, again), should be grounded in our human nature (shaped by evolution, constrained by biology) not in some abstract nonsense, dogmas, fleeting fashions, or even social norms. Rigid social norms are always reflect the ugliness of urban societies. While her main characters are rather angular and clumsy, the driving forces behind them are clearly recognizable and proper. Let's not blame Rand for this angularity.
I could do it for hours, but I think you got the idea. Good literature requires a "good" reader to be able to appreciate what is behind the words in a sentence.
You may well be right - many might read atlas and empathise with the antagonists, and dislike rand's treatment of them. Certainly many self proclaimed conservatives disagree with her philosophy, because it doesn't agree with protecting their rusting vested interests at the expense of innovation and the taxpayer.
An awful lot of people who like rand are assholes, however. The average randroid is more representative of James Taggart than Roarke, bitter and small, scathing of those who disagree with their narrow opinion.
Ah, irony.
No, it's because she advocates for being a jerk.
Clicking on the article for humor's value, I continued to read:
> However, Edmunds.com, Inc. analyst Jessica Caldwell questions the value of purchasing a self-driving car before regulations catch up. Caldwell said that, meanwhile, competitors could introduce better solutions, potentially making Tesla’s hardware “obsolete almost as soon as it’s activated for prime time.”
It's just hilarious the contortions of logic people will go to in order to put Musk down.
Having the equipment ready and in action first is somehow a disadvantage by this argument, and now you're better off being later to market.
These same people have written that Tesla will be left in the dust as its competitors beat it to the market because it can't keep up with their manufacturing, and thus being first to market is only an advantage if you're not Tesla.
You can't win.