Putting Tesla anywhere near a list of factors for "ending strategic dependence on oil dictatorships" is pure hyperbole at best.

Maybe, but what about what Musk has done as a whole? If he can drive home-battery adoption, solar, and electric vehicles, and create markets where companies like GM, Ford, and the Euro manufacturers have to chase the new market, that has to make a huge impact. Obviously it's not going to completely remove our dependence (mainly plastics and shipping) but it will absolutely hit the bottom line of the most oppressive regimes funded by oil (Saudi Arabia). Also this will help us you know stop destroying entire mountain ranges and the largest CO2 sinks in North America for tar sands mining (Boreal Forest).

On the plastics front, just look at the news from earlier this week of Lego working to replace all of the plastics used in their toys with bio-plastics (or other non-oil based polymers). A few more efforts like that and plastics won't be anywhere near the driver of oil consumption they are now. That doesn't address shipping (which is horrendously polluting), but if that's the last one standing that's still a massive improvement.

Commercial aviation as well will never be electric. It would require two orders of magnitude energy to weight density, and quadruple flight times.

People also thought we would never get man into space :)

There is a big difference between simply thinking that something is too hard and having numbers to back it up.

Tesla has been proceeding according to his plan for a bit over a decade. He foresaw the value of it in 2006. At the very least, his insight accelerated the development and adoption of electric cars and solar power.

> I'm not sure why you're so upset.

I'm not. But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters.

> The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context.

The context makes it even worse.

"None of us can unlearn what Tesla has taught us. There is no way back now. Tesla has already won.'"

I can't believe you think that the "context" makes it any less cultish. The comment is almost messianic.

Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable? Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?

If any, I think it was baby steps made by Toyota Prius. Original poster specifically pointed that profitable part of your answer isn't there for Tesla, in reality.

Isn't the parent's point that they are not profitable?

Sure, maybe for Tesla, (and other similar growth at all cost technology companies) it it's not immediately profitable. Let's check back in 10 years and see if this makes Tesla and their investors any money.

By that logic, any company not yet bankrupt could be called profitable.

Profit is a reflection of past performance, not future potential.

By this metric just about every single new business is a failure, including 100% of YC startups. At that point is it a useful distinction to draw?

Your conclusion is wrong.

A profit is a realized financial gain. In a given period, income surpassed expenses.

A business failure is a business that has failed, it has ended.

A lack of profit can lead to failure, but in no way implies it.

That doesn't jive with your original argument. So GM made the Bolt because Tesla proved (??) that they "would be profitable in 10 years"? That is what your argument amounts to.

Toyota may have had a part in that... The stage was set before TSLA was a household stock symbol.

> Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?

From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?"

$5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable".

> Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?

Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.

What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it.

Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. "

to be upvoted on HN.

Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.

> Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.

Go watch "Who killed the electric car", then you'll understand what a travesty the EV1 was. Electric cars have always been compliance cars before Tesla. Heck, Bob Lutz credits Elon Musk with why they build the Volt.

So? Why does this bother you? Why can't people be fans of a person, company or product?

The grandparent's argument wasn't against fans, it was against cults.

Ya well calling it a cult is a pretty extreme exaggeration.

Tesla is polarizing and, as always, both camps are making equally absurd statements:

> $5-10B Losses

$5-10B expenditure.

Which has not yet been shown to be a profitable decision, but unless the product flops it's not a loss either. $5-10B is merely a number that we're uncomfortable with - it is likely a necessary number because Tesla is now racing to grow in the EV market before bigger players (BMW, Toyota, etc.) enter it.

The Bolt, etc. exist because of federal subsidies mostly, not because of some billion-dollar-losing company showing that the idea is viable.

"Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?" No, they didn't.

Nobody doubted they were viable or profitable, only desired. If TSLA accomplished anything, it was convincing people they are desired. That demand definitely did not exist before TSLA.

Your comment implies all these things were already the case. That electric was "always inveitable", and tesla just proved it. That's, IMHO, quite wrong.

as is this: "Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?"

You understand, for example, the bolt started design in 2012, right?

IE At the same time the model S did.

Others in your list are similar.

It's like saying success of the iPhone caused Google to release Android.

I'm with the OP, every single one of these threads seems some combination of cultish love for tesla and messianic adoration of elon.

As a complete outside observer, the distinct impression i get is of people who always loved electric cars, etc, who felt like the rest of the world was "wrong" about something, thinking they have now been proved "right" about something.

The only practical difference between TSLA and the other auto makers I see is that the others by and large followed demand (IE they wait for people to want a thing, then build that), and TSLA was able to create some demand.

That's awesome and a testament to great PR/etc. But it's pretty also pretty normal successful startup behavior,and may or may not be related to any of the "moral goodness" people see in electric vehicles.

You already got downvoted, but your info is pretty wrong. Let me clarify one thing. Tesla delivered the model s in 2012. I know because I got one in December then. I don't know when the bolt was designed, but starting in 2012 sounds about right. The Tesla was available for getting in line in 2011 and a little before (cause I put my money down to get in line in early 2011), but delivered in 2012. Other manuf. were not taking it as seriously as Tesla way back then. They already had experience with the roadster being on the road before then.

>But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters.

Losing an argument? Better accuse the other side of being paid shills.