Right the argument isn't sound. It basically boils down to if big company x hasn't done it already, it's because it's not worth doing it. We know this isn't true because small players make improvements in their fields all the time. Big players aren't perfect, don't have unlimited resources, are prescient, and most of all, are ruled by people.

Many do, for that exact reason.

If you ever pitch your startup idea to a VC, you're expected to explain how you're going to deal with this risk.

>Many do, for that exact reason.

Sure, and many don't.

>If you ever pitch your startup idea to a VC, you're expected to explain how you're going to deal with this risk.

And that is exactly my point. Tesla certainly has strategies to respond if GM/Toyota enter their markets. You and TAForObvReasons are responding as if those companies will easily beat Tesla as soon as they make that decision.

> Tesla certainly has strategies to respond if GM/Toyota enter their markets.

Elon Musk's stated purpose for Tesla is to kill the fossil fuel industry, not to create a profitable enterprise. And he is tracking well towards that stated purpose. He actually wants those much bigger companies to start doing what Tesla is doing at scales that they can achieve and Tesla can't. He said this very clearly in an interview with DiCaprio. I don't know why people keep thinking there's some master plan to be profitable when the guy steering the ship has repeatedly said the plan is orthogonal to profitability.

As an investor, I am well aware of this. I'm also well aware that the profits of SpaceX eclipse what Tesla could achieve even in its best case scenario, so he probably really doesn't give a shit about making profit via Tesla.

GM already entered Tesla's market with the Bolt. How's that working out for GM?