The other side of this is the standard uses a significantly worse connector in terms of weight etc vs the Tesla connector to preserve backward compatibility to an earlier standard at low cost. That’s always the issue with industry standards where it’s less about creating a useful standard than minimizing the changes required to existing infrastructure.

The whole situation sucks. The US Tesla connector can only do single-phase AC charging, which makes it suboptimal for other countries and not fantastic for US commercial installations. The Tesla EU connector is a real standard and can do 3-phase charging. For reasons I haven’t fully deciphered (technical or regulatory?), EU Model 3 cars seem to use the CCS combo connector for supercharging, which is standardized but ugly and heavy. EU Model S cars use the regular (non-combo) adapter in a proprietary mode.

So there is an unnecessary difference between US and EU cars, even from the same manufacturer.

It seems fine that they create a standard of their own as long as they also allow others to make use of it and don't wall it in.

There’s really no good solution for problems like this that don’t make someone upset.

Tesla wants to profit off the fruit of their labor and extract some value from their product that is providing value to others and fund its development. It also is used as a sales vector since their charging network is a huge selling point for their cars.

Consumers don’t want to be stuck with two standards for no reason other than corporate politics and pay higher prices via those licensing fees. Or be locked out from certain charging stations just because of the model of their car.

And other automakers don’t want to be put at a competitive disadvantage because they have little choice but have to license the tech from Tesla.

And the world doesn’t want to put up with having to duplicate the massive human effort of setting up a charging network n times just because of corporate politics.

I always thought this was the basically the perfect situation for gov’t to step in and “fix” the market by just funding the development of the charging technology and providing it to all automakers for free/at cost so everyone gets the best charger on the cheap.

Wouldn’t the normal thing be for Tesla to license/rent their existing infrastructure out to other brands? It mainly becomes an issue if Tesla decides its part of their car value — but otherwise they could basically 100% own and entirely govern the development of America’s charging network

Elon Musk has repeatedly offered to allow other manufacturers to use the Tesla supercharger network, he's been saying it for years:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-elon-musk-open-supe...

https://www.gearbrain.com/tesla-supercharger-accessible-othe...

He's even fine with them using adapters for Tesla's plug, they just have to pay "their fair share" to use the Tesla superchargers. Of course the devil's in the details who knows what a licensing agreement like this would cost.

And how much it would cost when you're trapped

It’s not just the amount of capital. Tesla put its capital at risk when the risk was much higher. When it’s company was smaller relative to scale. Volkswaggen got a free ride to see if the experiment works, at no cost / risk, and now they need to somehow contribute otherwise to build your own and let antitrust law break all the proprietary channels into one common later (and risk your capital).

Yes, Tesla could allow other cars to charge but require them to have a Tesla-to-standard adapter and an account. But there is another side effect: At a Supercharger, you meet other Tesla owners, i.e. quite wealthy people, and you are surrounded by the brand. Diluting that would be like seeing a McDonalds with people who eat KFC. Tesla may want to own the visual space.

There's also the option of giving a fine to corporations that don't want to cooperate on infrastructure. They should have freedom to shape the deal, in some proportion to their power on the market, but they have to cooperate.

Nothing problematic.

If they think they can build a better infrastructure, they should. That's the free market.

I bet they can't, worst case Tesla can always buy these charging locations at a discount.

I much agree that the best should build the infrastructure and they should be allowed to profit from their investment.

The problematic part is if they choose to shut out other players without any better reason than wanting to dominate the market.

Free markets aren't infallible and they can quickly become unfree when moats have been established. (Amazon feels like the obvious example of that. Competing with them is close to impossible.)

Apple stores are by far the most profitable retail locations per square footage. Yet you don't see them selling Dell computers.

You aren't just buying a car with Tesla, you are buying an ecosystem that just works.

Legacy automakers had almost a century to create this network. And look at the current reputation and state of their dealership network.

> You aren't just buying a car with Tesla, you are buying an ecosystem that just works.

This is the key.

You can just punch in a destination in a Tesla, it'll map out the correct route with chargers. Other cars can usually do this too.

The car will pre-heat the battery for optimal charging temperature before arriving at the charging location. Not all EVs do this, they should. Cold-gating during charging is a big deal when traveling long distances in below freezing temperatures.

A Tesla can also check if there are free spots in the charger. No other car does this as far as I know.

Having Apple stores in every big city doesn't represent a considerable moat for Apple. If you had to go to a computer store every couple of hours to be able to use a computer then your analogy would be more applicable. Apple stores are not infrastructure components. If you own infrastructure you have some responsibility to share it.

> If you own infrastructure you have some responsibility to share it.

Inasmuch as GM had responsibility to help build Tesla’s supercharger network, I agree.

Legacy car makers have an extensive network of dealerships they can leverage to build their charging infrastructure.

The fact that an SV startup managed to build itself what might be considered a moat by some regulators in a few years while being laughed at by the legacy carmakers is very ironic.