I don't know the details of Tesla's batteries exactly, but I'm pretty sure they're just use a ton of 18650s. If too many of them won't hold a charge, then instead of fixing it they can just call it a 60 rather then a 75.

https://electrek.co/2016/07/26/tesla-upgrade-software-limite...

That's a bit silly. I suppose in someways it is nice for the consumer that they have the 60kwh version if they're basically selling it close to a loss with the hope that you'll pay for the battery upgrade, but obviously it begs the question why the 75 model can't just be the same price.

Because Tesla would make less off of each 75, which is no good when you need cash to expand operations. Have to squeeze every dollar out of each sale, manufacturing and R&D costs money!

There usually isn't anything notable about a business approximating a rational economic actor.

Definitely not true. The parts are the same, the support contracts are not.

Price discrimination is bad for consumers.

The vast majority (in the US at least) of price discrimination instances are cases where anyone is free to choose the cheaper option. Rich people can clip coupons too, they just decide it's not worth it for them. Heck, the whole reason for a Tesla Model 3 and Model S is price discrimination. I think it's a great thing I'll be able to get a Model 3 while richer consumers can choose a Model S if they care to.

Let me give you an extreme example.

Imagine that a company perfectly knew the exact maximum amount of dollars that you personally are willing to pay for their product. Then, they offer you that product for 1$ less than your maximum.

This is called perfect 1st degree price discrimination, and results in ~zero consumer welfare, because consumer welfare is the difference between actual price paid, and max willingness to pay price, which in this case are both ~equal to one another.