News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Roadster 3.0. Parent comment

Re:Roadster 3.0 by chatmasta on Friday December 26, 2014 @02:02PM (#8799796)
Automakers lock consumers into rebill programs via debt, i.e. a car loan. Tesla locks consumers into rebill via equity, i.e. a nice car, conveniently iteratively upgradeable. Thus Tesla gains capital advantage because it has no liability after disposing of a car asset, while automakers generate debt liability. For every car manufactured, automakers create a liability for themselves, while Tesla creates an automated income stream. Consequently cash flows better in Tesla than in its competitors. Relative to that of automakers, Tesla cash flow increases exponentially. Tesla is competing on a different level. The automakers will be lucky to earn a spot on Tesla's platform. At the very least, Tesla has a first-mover advantage in a surprisingly new market.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by threeseed on Friday December 26, 2014 @04:29PM (#8800478)
Is there any evidence what so ever that the financing arm of automakers is causing a systemic problem in their business ? Because I haven't seen it. And if it was a problem they would simply spin off a company like BMW does (BMW Financial Services).

And it's a bit early to be taking about how fantastic Tesla's cash flow situation is when they have been losing so much money in recent years. And they have so much cash locked up in a Supercharger network that has a questionable future (proprietary standard, embrace/extend model, no interest from other automakers).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by TwoBit on Friday December 26, 2014 @08:28PM (#8801281)
The interest from other automakers is irrelevant, because that's expected. No car maker is going to cooperate with any other in a way that makes the other look good. BMW electric car owners could desperately want to use the supercharger network, but there is no way in hell BMW would ever let them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by threeseed on Friday December 26, 2014 @09:41PM (#8801455)
They would if the basis for all of it were open standards. Many car components are standard sizes and can be used regardless of manufacturer. However because it is a proprietary standard and Tesla leads in adoption car manufacturers would be susceptible to the embrace and extend tactic. They would never stand for that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by ams6110 on Friday December 26, 2014 @02:41PM (#8800018)
You're saying people don't debt-finance Teslas?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by pinot on Friday December 26, 2014 @03:49PM (#8800307)
Sure they do, but someone who bought a Roaster in 2008 surely has it paid off by now. However unlike every other manufacturer that forgets about the vehicles it used to make (unless there's a recall), Tesla is improving existing products.

I have a 2004 SUV with a 7" satnav in it and some god-awful software package. Does Acura offer an upgrade path for this? Other than a way to update the roads database, no. Buy a new SUV.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by hnnewguy on Friday December 26, 2014 @04:27PM (#8800470)
>Does Acura offer an upgrade path for this?

Neither does my iPhone 1. Lets hold off on this comparison until Tesla is still supporting 11 year old vehicles.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by sjwright on Friday December 26, 2014 @06:20PM (#8800903)
The new-for-old replacement cost of an iPhone 1 is peanuts compared to an SUV. Pinot makes a legitimate point that some car components could be made upgradeable by their manufacturer -- like entertainment units -- but they don't, and they're missing out on those aftermarket dollars as a result.

I've owned a number of cars for which I would have spent thousands of dollars with the brand upgrading them if options were available.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by hnnewguy on Friday December 26, 2014 @08:49PM (#8801323)
>some car components could be made upgradeable by their manufacturer -- like entertainment units -- but they don't

Almost every single car part can be "upgraded", courtesy of the aftermarket. It's not necessarily a worse system.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by gaadd33 on Friday December 26, 2014 @02:48PM (#8800053)
Do the automakers still finance car loans directly? I know GMAC turned into Ally and is no longer owned by GM. I'm not so familiar with the other automaker's financial arms.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by zrail on Friday December 26, 2014 @03:25PM (#8800226)
In my experience buying a VW and a Mazda, the financing I've been offered has been through another company. I don't remember who the VW bank was (financed through my credit union at the time), but the Mazda financing is a co-branded Chase loan.

According to Wikipedia[1] Ford is the only one of the big three Detroit manufacturers to still have it's own financing arm. As you noted, GMAC spun off into Ally, and Chrysler Financial was bought by TD Bank.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Credit_Company

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by kylec on Friday December 26, 2014 @06:42PM (#8800975)
I bought a VW earlier this year and financed it through VW Credit, which is part of the Volkswagen Group.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Roadster 3.0 by maxerickson on Friday December 26, 2014 @04:00PM (#8800350)
The 'new' GM bought a bank. They do a bunch of financing:

http://www.gmfinancial.com/

[ Parent | on HN ]