Boring lineup, Lack of recent innovation, poor repairability and a CEO who has alienated people on both sides of the political isle. The 1 trillion dollar package the board is offering Musk is a joke. They need to find a new CEO.
The 1 trillion dollar package the board is offering Musk is a joke. They need to find a new CEO.
It's an attempt to rally the stock. It's tied to a $8.6 trillion valuation. It's basically a stunt for the public.
Problem for Tesla is that Musk is the reason it has a 200 P/E ratio (and increasing at that). Without Musk, they are likely to go all the way down to a 15 P/E or less ratio in my opinion because they're decreasing in growth. That'd make them go from being worth $1 trillion today to just $75 billion instantly.
I don't own TSLA but it could crash the market if it drops that low.
> Problem for Tesla is that Musk is the reason it has a 200 P/E ratio (and increasing at that).
The reason for the ratio is because he overpromises and lies all the time. The valuation is now hinging on Tesla being a leader in robotics when Musk doesn't even understand what sensor fusion is. But Tesla's astronomical valuation is a liability for them because it's the result of Musk defrauding both Tesla's customers and investors. The big number looks great but it's based on a fantasy.
> I don't own TSLA but it could crash the market if it drops that low.
TSLA is about 2% of the s&p. If they crash I think the market will shrug that off easily. Tesla's (lack of) success is not tied to the health of the larger market, and everyone knows they are overvalued so there would be no surprise factor either.
They were coasting for a while on false promises of self-driving abilities by "the end of this year" every year and consumers have finally caught on that Tesla's not trustworthy about such claims.
And their recent updates have made basic autopilot frustrating to use. Their reliance on only camera and map data is really showing how much Elon actually knows about self driving reliability.
Heck, the backup cross traffic detection only alerts when a car or pedestrian is already crossed and out of view. It’s absurdly bad.
I've generally advocated ignoring Musk, but it's impossible to defend him in good faith as a reasonable figurehead for a multinational company. His X page in particular portrays a man who cares deeply about 4chan/pol politics and very little about his car company.
If he cared at all, you'd see a better repair process with them. There is a Tesla repair hub in Calgary where I live, and I had to wait 5 weeks for them to see my car (including an un-explained situation where they bumped me, despite me being concerned about a safety issue). I eventually took it to an EV repair shop who did it for half of what Tesla quoted because, FFS, the world's most valuable auto company is "Resource Constrained" with mechanics.
Seriously, how can they afford a trillion on a CEO when they are parking expensive Cybertrucks on the front lawn of their Calgary store?
I still love driving my car (a 2019 Model 3), but I have no faith that Tesla will actually improve on it with their current leadership structure.
Unlike Tesla, legacy OEMs are prohibited from owning dealerships in the US. They make the same (or more) money selling the parts to an independent shop. They only lose out on things like certification / training / diagnostic equipment with third party shops that don't buy everything the way a dealership is required to.
The relationship between dealerships and OEMs is complicated, incestuous and fundamentally adversarial.
Tesla are also prohibited from running OEM dealerships by most states.
That they went with online sales only was an incredibly smart move and they cut out an unwanted middleman. I’ve been following Tesla for a long time. I made a small fortune investing in them in 2012.
The folks at Tesla Motor Club were very happy to buy directly from Tesla.
Tesla's genius move is just the opposite, it is to oppose online sales of cars through law. Let me explain.
Ever notice how defense of corruption is often described as something being a "genius move" by one company, totally discounting that the same move is illegal for all their competitors. Usually, to mask the open corruption, this is then masked as a detail of some law, or multiple laws. A law which when looked at is really complicated and detailed and "just happens" to target every competitor except one company?
The detail in question is that almost all US states prohibit "direct sales", meaning car manufacturers have to sell through independent dealerships. So technically you can buy a Ford online, just not from Ford, you have to go through a dealership. The exception in a number of states is that you can buy a car from the manufacturer if there are no dealerships ... and Tesla never had any dealerships. The other car manufacturers can't sell online, because their dealerships are independent, and they are legally forced to treat them equally. They'd have to force dealerships into bankruptcy and only then they'd be allowed to sell online. Not the dealerships in a particular state, mind you, all of them, across the entire US.
Of course, other vendors that are in the same position as Tesla, don't get this advantage, for example BYD, but also a number of European and even an Indian automaker that only have dealerships in a very limited number of states, and should, in theory, be allowed to sell cars directly in most states. Well, they're not allowed. Trade deals, tariffs, ... but somehow they can't do it (perhaps this is why Elon Musk joined Trump, if so, it would make Musk and Trump not just corrupt, but incompetent at corruption, given the title of this ycombinator story)
See how the "genius move" of Tesla really works? It is not at all the decision to sell online. The genius move of Tesla is exactly the opposite of what you claim: Tesla opposes online sales of cars, and for this to be enforced legally. Against everyone but Tesla, of course.
Of course, anyone who has gone to a Tesla demonstration knows that there is zero actual difference between a car dealership where you check out a physical car and then order on a computer over the internet with a salesperson assisting, and a Tesla demonstration where you check out a physical car and then order on a computer over the internet with a salesperson assisting.
And, obviously, yes, Musk is still lobbying and has lobbied [1] (ie. paid money to politicians) to keep things this way. Of course, other car manufacturers also lobby. I guess Tesla pays better.
The price was not the issue, the fact that they took 5 weeks for a potential safety issue was. (In my case, it turns out that the issue was related to a torn bushing in the suspension; a common issue with a Model 3 w/ more than 100k kilometers apparently).
The fact that they took longer AND were more expensive than local providers was ridiculous, and certainly not a good look compared to my experiences at Toyota with my Sienna.
-edit- (That and the fact that they shouldn't be resource constrained when the most valuable car company in the world)
the model y update to mimic the cybertruck made me groan.
I think the old model y looks great. It was a success!
But they messed with it and the new one looks like a duck.
in comparison the model 3 update looked ok.
But for me the relentless march to remove controls from the car is the worst.
It started with no dashboard on the model 3, (crowded central display off to side).
But then got worse and worse.
No stalks makes it unbuyable to me. No drive select stalk (it will guess), no turn signal stalks. Critical controls on the touchscreen. Small targets that are hard to hit in a moving car.
It looks minimal in the showroom, but day to day it makes you a worse driver. It is techno poverty.
The 1 trillion dollar package seems to me a bit like trying to pump a meme stock. Saying he'll get 1 T when the stock is 8 T will encourage people to buy in now when it's a bargain at a 1 T market cap.
I low key have a conspiracy theory that the "1 trillion dollar pay package" is just Tesla PR fluff - smoke and mirrors to steal attention away from the poorly performing cybertruck sales and falling stock. If they spin news with dramatic flair highlighting Musk’s bonkers pay package it's a distraction from Tesla’s more immediate and tangible troubles, political alienation of their buyers and ongoing regulatory and manufacturing operational crises.
I think it's a desperate attempt by the board to get Musk to focus on Tesla again. Tesla has a PE ratio of around 230 right now. If that comes back down to the reality of a declining-sales mid-sized car company, it's going to be an absolute blood bath.
The first thing I thought of when I saw that pay package being floated was the current state that Tesla is in. That's the primary reason such a package seems so fucking bonkers.
A pay package of that magnitude is a material business fact. If Tesla is lying about this, that would likely constitute securities fraud and risks imprisonment for the people involved in making it.
I would imagine the current administration has little to no desire to enforce this. There was already an executive order early on to specifically stop enforcing crypto regulation.
The company that had to pay out $20 million (in addition to Musk paying another $20 million) to settle with the SEC after being accused of securities fraud in 2018, and whose owner has just been accused of another instance of securities fraud by the SEC this year may, in fact, be engaging in securities fraud here?
Value of TSLA has been disconnected from the actual car business for a while, and instead vaguely betting on Musk figuring out something with robots, taxis, or AI or whatever.
Now I wonder if it's tied to any future of the company at all. It seems to be a Musk stock: if you want Musk have more power to do whatever he's doing, pump TSLA.
Nah, they're still the best cars you can buy[1]. It's all down to Musk's political antics.
[1] Seriously, it's hard to be lacking in innovation when other brands still don't even have walk-up unlock or 360° cameras, much less drive themselves around or launch like rockets. And the repairability thing is a meme from back when they had part production lag due to crazy scaling. Getting a Tesla fixed now (and yes, I have) is like "click three buttons in your app and come in tomorrow".
I’ve recently test-driven EVs from a few brands, including Tesla. One stood out for building an EV that actually felt like a functioning car: Kia. It actually has buttons for things that are commonly adjusted while driving. The current crop of Teslas don’t even have physical controls for reverse.
> Also, all the new models have an auto shift functionality so you don’t even really have to use any buttons at all.
This seems utterly insane. It’s already annoying that tapping somewhere on a phone screen has a different effect depending on whether I win or lose the race against some UI update. I do not want my rather heavy vehicle to move in a different direction depending on which way the computer thinks I want it to move.
You don't have to use it if you don't want to. You can turn it off and just use the headliner buttons only. Also, the vehicle is not moving when you don't want it to. The brake and accelerator pedals still function and it should be abundantly obvious if it's in reverse vs. drive, given the backup camera is on vs. off.
In practice, everything I've seen is that it works well, and predictably does what you expect it to do. And if it doesn't, you are one swipe away from fixing that.
Tesla was not first to market for keyless entry, 360 cameras, nor level 2 ADAS. In fact, they are behind. A couple of automakers are now shipping level 3 ADS systems.
It's the only non-luxury brand I'm aware of with all of those features. Who are you thinking about?
Also you're misdirecting: "keyless entry" isn't remotely the same as "your phone is your key".
And the "level 2 ADAS" business is a transparent attempt to troll an FSD argument to which won't engage except to say, again, that the user experience of letting your car drive a 200 mile leg of a long road trip is also not remotely the same as always bouncing around and stomping on brakes experience of the lanekeeping offered elsewhere.
You know both of these truths, which is why you want to redefine the features to make them false.
> It's the only non-luxury brand I'm aware of with all of those features. Who are you thinking about?
Most non-luxury brands offer these features today. Toyota Camry, for instance.
> Also you're misdirecting: "keyless entry" isn't remotely the same as "your phone is your key".
1. You didn't say anything about doing it with a phone. 2. If you do want to do it with a phone, for whatever reason, other automakers also offer this, e.g.:
> And the "level 2 ADAS" business is a transparent attempt to troll an FSD argument to which won't engage except to say, again, that the user experience of letting your car drive a 200 mile leg of a long road trip is also not remotely the same as always bouncing around and stomping on brakes experience of the lanekeeping offered elsewhere.
You shouldn't be taking your hands off the wheel while using systems that require your hands to be on the wheel. Other automakers have hands-free level 2 systems. Here's the list of brands that currently offer a hand-free level 2 system: BMW, Ford, Lincoln, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Jeep, Ram, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Infiniti, Toyota, Lexus
> You know both of these truths, which is why you want to redefine the features to make them false.
I think maybe you're just not aware of what is on the market right now.
Now you're playing games with "offer". I've never once seen a Camry with cameras. I'm sure it's on a trim somewhere, but not on dealers lots or at a price people want to pay.
Look, the simple ground truth is that the experience of driving a four year old Tesla (the age of my Y) is simply better than any vehicle I'm going to find anywhere at that price point or lower (or give a bit for inflation, even).
> You shouldn't be taking your hands off the wheel while using systems that require your hands to be on the wheel.
Sigh. I said I wouldn't be trolled[1], but it's a camera-based attention monitoring system now. There's no requirement for the hand on the wheel (well, it will yell at you if it sees you duck out of the camera center and you need a physical input to acknowledge), and hasn't been for more than a year.
The "car gets new features years after purchase" thing is another point in favor, FWIW.
Look, you're just wrong on this. You'll never believe that, because you'll never drive a Tesla. But I do, and I'm right.
[1] You also played the "level 2" game again, pretending that one number defines the feature set when you know very well it does not. That now has moved from "trolling" to simple lying, I'd say.
> Now you're playing games with "offer". I've never once seen a Camry with cameras.
I test drove one last year, it wasn't even the highest trim... A few of my coworkers are driving used cars with 360 cameras. These aren't really new features.
> Look, the simple ground truth is that the experience of driving a four year old Tesla (the age of my Y) is simply better than any vehicle I'm going to find anywhere at that price point or lower (or give a bit for inflation, even).
Yeah, they're not bad cars. I never said they were. I said other auto makers are also shipping some of these features. I'm not attacking your vehicle; you're allowed to like it.
> Sigh. I said I wouldn't be trolled[1], but it's a camera-based attention monitoring system now. There's no requirement for the hand on the wheel (well, it will yell at you if it sees you duck out of the camera center and you need a physical input to acknowledge), and hasn't been for more than a year.
Yes, they updated their system to do this last year. A lot of auto makers have hands-free systems today, many of them already had them shipped last year, and some shipped them years before Tesla did. And while Tesla still requires you to look at the road, a couple of auto makers are shipping level three systems.
I'm not making any sort of personal attack on your purchase. I'm just here to tell you that they're not the only ones shipping these sorts of features.
We have a model X and model S. I still like them but for our latest car we bought a Rivian SUV instead. The interior is just laid out better and there is a lot more space despite being roughly the same size as the X.
The Rivian has the 360 degree view and other stuff as well.
And as for the delays - our X was in a minor collision last November and is STILL not fixed. The only way to contact Tesla is through the app and so we make an appointment, take photos, describe the issue and then are told to wait two months for our appointment. Then invariably the day before the appointment, we are told that the center we had the appointment at cannot do the work and to go to another center, with another two month delay, which then tells us the same thing.
Not being able to reach a human to fix out $100k+ car is infuriating.
> And the repairability thing is a meme from back when they had part production lag due to crazy scaling.
Respectfully, bullshit; auto insurance companies I've dealt with certainly begged to differ, and have priced comprehensive/collision premiums for Teslas accordingly.
Insurance premiums for Teslas are well above the national average for insuring a new vehicle. Although, they've gotten better in recent years. The Model S used to be number one most expensive vehicle to insure in the US, even beating out exotic cars.
Repairability is a risk to insurance companies because they are liable to repair vehicle vehicles. When parts and labor are in short supply, they are more expensive. These expenses are something that an insurance company would pay in a claim for a vehicle they are liable to fix. Also, please remember that insurance companies also sometimes must pay consequential costs, e.g. a rental car, while vehicle repair repairs are pending.
I don't know why you're getting junked. A friend's Model Y was rear-ended, and he had it fixed in less than two weeks. Did have a sensor problem afterwards, but that was taken care of immediately. I think you're accurate that they are still ahead of the competition, but the race is getting closer.
Political issues aside, Tesla has a variety problem. If we converge the split between midrange and premium, their lineup consists of a midsize sedan, a midsize SUV, and a niche truck.
Early on this was in their favor, but with more automakers entering the fray with serious attempts to compete, they’re going to have to add at least a couple more models to reman competitive: something in the vein of a Chevy Bolt on one end and an SUV that’s the next step up in size from the Y/X on the other. A more conventional truck that more directly competes with the F-150 also couldn’t hurt.
Again, politics aside, I just find the lineup boring. Every model outside the Cybertruck looks like a ten year old car. Even the refresh of the model Y is still reskinning a design language started with the Model S, but with any interesting soul stripped out to reduce cost.
The nerd in me loves the technology, particularly behind the scenes features of the Cybertruck like 48v architecture. In the end I want to drive something that feels like it has a soul and substance. Teslas lineup right now is not that.
OTOH, Cybertruck is one of the only original car designs in modern memory. It’s dumb as hell, but I like it. That said, I have no idea who it’s for, I wouldn’t buy one. But I respect them for designing such a ridiculous vehicle, and for it actually being able to sell, albeit somewhat poorly compared to expectations.
I say all of this as a recent $TSLA bear with a healthy short position.
Yes, and there used to be a time when other automakers did crazy stuff too. Sometimes they sold well and sometimes they didn't. But the variety and creativity was nicer than what we have currently on the market, which is a bunch of midsize SUVs, which aren't good at being an SUV, aren't good at being a car, and all look like jellybeans.
I was quite enthused about the cybertruck when it was announced. A lot of it was using the same material as starship and I was quite into the multiplanetary stuff. Since then with Musk doing nazi salutes and DOGE I'd be somewhat embarrassed to have one.
shorting TSLA is never smart because TSLA investors are not driven by any rhyme or reason. Elon is the greatest salesman to ever live and people have been buying his sh*t for decade+ now. if TSLA was a reasonable company investment-wise I would mortgage my house to short the shit out of it :)
Yeah -- I am of the opinion that TSLA is rather obviously highly overvalued, but the market can stay insane for longer than I can stay solvent so there isn't anything I can do to act on that.
Yep, that’s why I clarified that I am a recent bear. I think that in the next year funds will reevaluate them and we will see at least a 20% drop in price.
It'll never drop by 20%. Either it keeps on growing, or it collapses.
Given that they apparently have no new models in development, I'd expect the latter.
- Their roadmap is just updates to their existing line-up, and vapourware crap that relies on their "Full Self Driving" somehow magically starting to work.
I kind of like it. It's one where the pictures and renderings look cool but IRL it looks like they messed it up. However, I've seen a few modded Cybertrucks with bigger wheels and tires and a wrap that actually make me think it doesn't look to bad. Concerns over build quality keep me away from Tesla as a whole, it looks too cheap to me and I've seen too many videos where things are just falling off.
> It's one where the pictures and renderings look cool but IRL it looks like they messed it up.
That's because they did. The initial plan was for the plates to double as the frame of the car. That's how they could have achieved the seamless look of the renders. Turns out they couldn't make it work for whatever reason and the plates are just on top of the frame.
But I know what you're saying. I give it credit for being out there when nothing else in the auto industry is. Sadly though, its failure will likely further entrench the rest of the industry.
I thought it was a neat concept but I'm surprised they took it directly into mass production. I thought they'd take the design language and make something a bit more mainstream with it.
The matte steel body and the unbroken slope on the front are cool, if impractical. There's something funny about the tray and the featureless non-grille though.
Electric does make it pretty important that the software is unusually good for a car, though, because the software has to compensate for non-ubiquitous charging infra. Tesla does this very well. There are some quirks around charge scheduling and charge limiting that Tesla does really well too. It's not rocket science but software in most "current cars" is terrible.
This is currently becoming a smaller and smaller problem with charging infra growing fast.
I guess it will become an issue again when "car" becomes synonymous with "EV" and there's a sudden spike in EV registration, but who knows when that tipping point will occur.
With every insane X post Musk makes we get closer to where having Tesla on your resume is a black mark the same way folks are judging Meta employees in the other thread.
When the politics are that front and center, it becomes a real liability to the company.
If Teslas were durable, built well, easily repairable, with strong aftermarket support, I would applaud them for sticking with the same bland design instead of endlessly tweaking it like every other car and tech company in a misguided effort to stay "fresh". However the opposite has occurred where Teslas appear to be bland, poorly made, and unrepairable.
My wife thinks they all look like jellybeans. Tesla makes them like that to maximize efficiency, and they’re still #1 on that metric, but people don’t care about that.
Citroen DS, Jaguar e-type, Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, MB Gullwing, BMW 507 and a whole raft of other 50's, 60's and 70's cars look much better than anything that I even remember designed in the 80's. Of course that's just my opinion, but those cars are so iconic, do you have any particular cars in mind for that period which you really liked?
My understanding is that the Lucid Air Pure is more efficient than Tesla’s offerings, but yes, Teslas have tended to be more efficient than compliance BEVs and a lot of other efforts from legacy automakers.
Interesting. I can't see the source for the data in your link (it cites Statista, but that's just a graph and requires a subscription to see the source data.)
Not saying it's wrong (I have no idea, that's why I googled), but would be interesting to know.
edit: but also, you're right that I inadvertently looked at US-only data. I did say it was a quick Google. :) Edited my original comment.
I think the target audience for a Toyota or Honda (boring but reliable car) isn't very interested in the kind of quality control Tesla has. They're supposed to make up for that in other features and the unique style of the truck is part of that, in theory.
IMHO, Toyota did an awesome job of taking the 2004 Prius funny wedge compact eco-nerd-mobile look (which might have been exactly what it needed at the time), and making it look sleek and modern and powerful.
I'm imagining a designer looking at the earlier windshield slant, and knowing they could work with that, and retain references to the iconic earlier design.
Toyota sells the most cars of any auto maker. What ground was lost?
It's clear Toyota has correctly assessed the market. They got it right.
As time goes on, BEVs will be a bigger percentage of the cars they sell. In the meantime they'll keep selling the cars they've got, including their current BEVs.
Given the initial success of the Prius, every Tesla you see on the road should've been a Toyota. (If not something from GM, who has even more experience in blowing an early lead in electrification.)
See also: Amazon's chances in an alternative timeline where Sears wasn't run by morons.
The people I see with Model 3 and Y are the ones who came from Camrys and Rav4.
Tesla EVs have the most data to support their reliability (at least the 3/Y), and they are clearly very reliable. Plus it costs just as much as a Rav 4, but has tons more torque. And the software is much better even though it lacks Carplay.
I thought that too, and then Toyota wanted $15 per month for remote start and made it seem like they were doing me a favor when I went to buy a car, so I ended up with a Tesla. Ended up not missing Carplay, and it cost $20k less for a car that seats 5 adults and 2 kids.
I don't know why we're putting politics aside. I'm sure those political escapades didn't help in cratering their stock.
All companies are trying to cut on variety right now. Of course, a software service used daily won't be hit as hard as a mid-class car company. Heck, even the affordable car companies are charging mid tier prices these days. The results are clear if things don't change.
I agree and actually think it’s the overwhelming factor. People loved Tesla and Musk until he started promoting his politics. It was a stupid thing to do as a CEO, especially for a company whose customers tend toward the opposite end of the political spectrum.
People loved Tesla and Musk while he was pretending to do green and progressive politics. That was a huge boost to the brand, because the cars, the batteries, and Starlink all made sense as an ecosystem that came with attractive branding and customer identification.
Then he did a 180 and set it all on fire. It's now a top-down zeitgeist, not a bottom-up one, and the most understated thing anyone can say about that is that it's causing growing resentment.
We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss. You're either cool with it, or Tesla is completely off the table. And nobody will likely be switching camps at this point.
Can someone be cool with it but also admit that it definitely affected the market share? I can do that with Bud Weiser's trans campaign, even if I agree with it.
They had no trans campaing. There was a single short video with a single personalized can. Calling it campaign is just validating conservative lies again.
Truth is, a single trans got a can of beer with own face, made short video and rught wing decided to make it into a campaing, because trans must be destroyed. That is it.
Very expensive beer! That six pack cost them a lot of market share. But I think the wishy washy interview with the marketing person in charge of that decision did not exactly help, with the typical beer chugging target demo.
The brand was already declining. Americans are drinking less beer and when they do, its higher quality beer.
Imagine you are brought in to grow the business. What avenues do you have? Lower the price? Its already low end product. Move upmarket? Its difficult since the brand has been around as low priced product for decades and it would risk other higher quality brands in the parent companies portfolio.
Whats left? Expand the user base to people that typically don't drink the product.
Once things fell apart, the fact that management overrode the marketing person's decisions and tried to backpedal pissed off the potential new customer base.
Meanwhile the existing base continues to decline either way.
Maybe some items just can't grow no matter what you do. We see this with a lot of processed food junk. People are waking up to how unhealthy a lot of pre packaged food is so companies are trying all sorts of nonsense to keep people (Just look at an account like @snackolator).
> We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss
I don't agree, as we are not quantifying the emotional aspect of the purchasing process. If people "love" the brand, they are willing to overlook a lot of things. Tesla was a status symbol and is now seen as a regret purchase and a toxic brand for many (see Europe and Canada for examples). I can't see how "politics" should not be considered as it does play a critical role in how people spend money. There is a reason why a lot of companies are not open about politics and I don't think I've ever seen a CEO that was so forth coming with their beliefs as Elon Musk.
It's particularly interesting because cars are probably one of the most emotional purchases for a lot of people. Car makers know this and put a huge amount of effort into brand identity. It's also hard to think of another company of any kind where the CEO is so synonymous with the company and so public facing. Maybe Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in their heydays, but even they had a lower public profile relatively speaking. And finally, it's hard to think of another CEO of a major company who has so aggressively adopted and broadcast very polarizing political views.
Tesla is such a perfect storm that it's actually kind of amazing the stock hasn't completely tanked, which itself makes it an interesting discussion topic. They make a product where brand identity is super important, have a CEO who is unquestionably the public face of the company, and said CEO continues to go out of his way to try to alienate a significant portion of the potential customer base. I frequently see Teslas driving around with anti-Elon bumper stickers, which I've certainly never seen before for a car company. It's hard to imagine a world in which such consumer sentiment among any non-trivial percentage of your customer base isn't a death knell for the company.
They haven’t released anything decent since the Model 3, which was a massive success. It’s baffling to me that they’re now betting the company on robotics, rather than improving and extending their existing lineup of cars.
I’m waiting for owners to discover water damage in the equipment under the hood liner: Cybertruck’s lack a scuttle/cowl/gutter [0] to collect and divert water from the bottom of the windshield. Basically every car ever has one, except the Cybertruck. This isn’t a QC problem — it’s just poor design.
They seem to be making similar mistakes in trying to build stuff from sci-fi rather than what works in the real world. I mean industrial robots have been a thing for ages and domestic roomba type ones are becoming popular but humanoid is a bit of a sci-fi thing. Similarly collaborative virtual worlds like Fortnite are a big hit ($20bn+ revenue) but not Meta's attempt to do the Snow Crash fictional thing.
There's no reason really why robots have to be humanoid, or that you have to interact with virtual worlds by strapping the screen on your face.
Musk is now reliably erratic. He's convinced his dramas are entertaining, and he's playing it all for the attention and the lulz.
None of that makes him a credible or even a competent CEO.
Considering that Tesla's P/E is the highest in the S&P 500, and is 3.5X higher than the next company in the list, it's been hinted that Tesla's valuation is coming from - cough - alternative sources and isn't a sensible estimate of potential earnings.
Mocking conventional investors seems very much the current MO, just as much as mocking customers.
So I don't care what he's betting the company on. Tesla is now a drama for the sake of drama stock, and anyone who is expecting it to produce credible products may want to reconsider that possibility.
The Model Y is an incredible car, way more than decent. Unfortunately Elon is a fascist traitor so I cannot upgrade it, and no one else makes anything half as good.
I love this comment. I've also been in similar conundrums with products vs my values, but I have made a rule to limit how much I'm willing to deprive myself in service of values.
they are not betting the company on robotics, they just needed something to keep the crazies buying stock now that full “self” driving fantasy is over :)
I thought the Rav4 had been outpacing it for awhile now. (Plus, that's also artificially limiting total vehicle sales which are, unsurprisingly, still trucks.)
> Tesla has a variety problem. If we converge the split between midrange and premium, their lineup consists of a midsize sedan, a midsize SUV, and a niche truck
I don’t know if you have checked out other OEMs lineups lately…Ford doesn’t even make a sedan anymore. That’s right. Just SUVs and trucks. And mustang supercar. Other OEMs have similarly trimmed their lineups. You can thank CAFE er al for that.
Somewhat, but I'll blame business finance way, way, way more.
The US automakers are doing the exact same dumbass thing they did in the 1970s with "BIGGER!-shouted (and more profitable)-whispered" until the Japanese automakers showed up and wiped the floor with them.
Well, BYD is coming and is going to wipe the floor with them.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It’s amazing that US automakers can’t foresee the bubble of $70k SUVs and trucks and the stretched out loans those entail popping. It’s practically guaranteed to happen, and with how the economy has been probably sooner than later.
Does it still? Used to see lots of Fords in Ireland, but my impression was that at this point Ford Europe was all but dead in the consumer market; you still see a lot of Transit vans etc, but it'd be very unusual to see a new Ford car.
Does it? Since they stopped building the Mondeo in Europe they don’t sell any sedans there or in most places I’m aware of. The only Ford sedan I’m aware of in production anywhere is the Chinese-market Ford Mondeo built in a joint venture with Changan.
But yes, I fully agree that deprioritizing/stopping the low-cost "Model 2" was a major mistake. Particularly with tariffs keeping Chinese EVs out, Tesla could have pretty much owned the space in the US. (Although Elon's DOGE antics would still have alienated a large portion of the customer base.)
As things stand, assuming that Nissan can manage to remain afloat, that “Model 2” market segment is going to be snapped up by the 2026 Leaf, which will start at ~$25k before incentives and is just a touch bigger than the Bolt EUV was and comes with NACS, fast charging, and a properly cooled battery. There’s little in the US EV market that comes close to competing at that price range.
Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
> Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
Seeing US salaries and the strength of the US dollar (and the weakness of the yen right now!)... I wonder.
At one point I don't know how you can be competitive with factories abroad. This is where protectionism comes in I guess!
It's a 6-seater, but I don't think it fills all of that category gap because it's barely a 6-seater.
All the other 3-rows have decent headroom in that last row. The Kia and Hyundai almost 42 inches. I haven't looked into the Cadillac or Volvo, but from the outside they look about the same.
All but the shortest adults and children will be uncomfortable in the Tesla third row. I'll bet it's used more for groceries than passengers.
To compete in the 3-row market, I think Tesla's gotta build something that can accommodate adults too.
The jump between the X and Y is too big. It’s more or less a 50-100% price increase depending on how you look at it. The Y is very small for the SUV form factor, and the X is very expensive. I have to imagine that there is a market for something between the two.
The problem is that the X isn't a particularly large SUV. The X is slightly wider and about 1ft longer.
And in many ways it's inferior to the Y. Tesla's mega casting and structural pack gives the Y excellent range and a lower weight for a cheaper battery.
I think the reason Tesla hasn't done mega casting and structural packs for the other lineups (besides the equipment costs) is because it'd make them eat into the revenue of the top tier models. A model 3 cutting down several hundred pounds would be range competitive with the model S. The shorter range LFP batteries could still land you in previously long range land.
Still the best EVs on the market in terms of range, performance and price(in the US). Chevy bolt competitor wouldn’t make sense because Chevy couldn’t even make the chevy bolt work and stopped production 2023. EV trucks don’t make sense at all, they can’t tow unless you want to recharge every 100 miles. Also range is severely reduced offroading. I don’t get why auto manufacturers keep pushing them on the public.
Tesla has image problem. Y refresh is getting praise. Edmunds says its the best car they’ve driven in 2025. It should be selling like hotcakes. I don’t think anything is fixing Tesla unless they fire musk.
The Bolt is coming back. Chevy’s reason for discontinuing it wasn’t that it didn’t sell, but that the platform was outdated. The new one is on their current platform and roughly analogous to the old EUV model.
Pricing is another question though, and no CarPlay/AA while also coming from an old guard auto manufacturer means no sale from me.
Normally when you have a popular car, you don't pull it from the market. Tesla hasn't pulled any of their products. Has a company ever done that? They sold it at a loss and now trying to make it profitable with LFP batteries and other cost cutting. I still doubt its coming out.
While it's a larger pause than normal, this actually seems to happen quite a lot when a manufacturer dumps an old EV platform; there was a gap between the Renault Zoe and 5, and between the second and third gen Leaf, say. I assume it's partially for retooling, but also "why not buy this car built on a 15 year old EV platform, btw its replacement is coming out next week" seems like a _very_ hard sell.
The bigger problem is that the Bolt would’ve been the only model on its platform, which I noted before, was outdated and not able to handle fast charging among other things.
GM stopped supporting both CarPlay and Android Auto in most of their EVs, except I think for those made by Cadillac, in effort to push customers into using the onboard infotainment where they can sell subscriptions.
I’m not sure that’s going to work out for them in the long run. Last I knew, Honda’s Prologue which is a rebadged Blazer EV and supports CarPlay/AA is outselling the Blazer.
It seems you don't have BYD in the US, except for buses? Here in Australia you see far more BYDs than Teslas by now. They're cheaper with a bit more range.
The only way I’d be interested in a Xiaomi (or any other Chinese car) is if they decided to make a Ford Panther platform lookalike that has no features dependent on phoning home to China.
For the sake of argument, why should I be more afraid of phoning home to China (a country I will probably never go to) than phoning home to the US or Canada?
If I'm making an inappropriate joke to my wife while we drive, I'd prefer the former than the later.
(Obviously, much like you I assume, I'd rather have no internet connection)
Battery tech is rapidly improving too, which will offset the hit to range that towing involves. Best to get the designs and manufacturing figured out to be ready for the day that battery tech arrives.
Lucid offers the best range of any EV. And while not really directly comparable to the Model S Plaid because it is twice the price of the Plaid—- Lucid’s Air Sapphire absolutely out performs the Plaid in every scenario. I think the days of Tesla’s dominance in the EV space are dwindling rapidly. If Lucid can get their midsized car out, at a reasonable price, I don’t see any real reason to buy a Tesla unless you just particularly fancy one. That’s not a great proposition for a company that was once considered a tech company with a huge lead over everyone else. It’s only a matter of time before the double whammy of lackluster innovation and Musk’s politics come home to roost.
Yeah, because BYD and other chinese makers are locked out.
Semi-solid state is coming for Tesla's lunch.
"Tesla has image problem." You mean the multiple nazi salutes? The "don't apologize to your past" to the AfD? Being high on something on national television? Unhinged posts on twitter? Kekius Maximus?
EVs are luxury products. You can get 90% of electification with a 50-mile-range PHEV and mitigate the charging infrastructure problem. I have a used Tesla and a PHEV, and if my PHEV only had 50 instead of the paltry 20 mile range, 100% of my daily trips would be fully electrified.
As for further examples of Musk's incompetence, there should be three different badges: Tesla, an ultra-high luxury brand that focuses on traditional cabin comfort, and a low end mass brand. They should have a minivan, station wagon, an actual large SUV, a subcompact city car, a real pickup truck, a work van, and where is the goddamn semi?
Tesla should have bought a struggling auto company for manufacturing, design, and suppliers, and used that for the low-end badge and for PHEVs. Nissan would have been perfect I would think.
Tesla should at this point have joint ventures with huge numbers of electrification avenues: construction equipment, prosumer lawn mowers, "side by sides", golf carts, ATVs, jet skis, boats, if it has an ICE motor, Tesla should be expanding into it with a good name brand.
Of course Tesla solar is moribund, the solar roof is nowhere.
And if anyone claims again that grid storage will deliver some massive sales to Tesla: any success is temporary. Grid will be won by sodium ion and other grid-specific storage chemistries that cylindrical cell manufacture won't be able to compete with.
And yet another point: Tesla's cylindrical cells were an advantage ... five years ago. It's not anymore. Sodium Ion, LFP, semi-solid state, sulfur chems, all will probably be pouch. Cylindrical is basically legacy manufacturing tech.
Musk's cozying up and inevitable fallout with Trump definitely put the EV credits in crosshairs. Probably wouldn't have survived the era of insanity, but that gravy train (1/3 of tesla's profits ... at least) is over.
Finally, let's not forget the total disaster that the dry-cathode 4680 battery cell is. Basically still vaporware, and the Chinese manufacturers have better tech already in manufacture.
AND YET, I'm sure the stock will go up based on the bad news.
Tesla sales growth was already slowing day significantly before Musk showed who he really is to the wider public. There was no way they were hitting their announced target - they were supposedly going to do +50% each year until 2030, and end up selling 20M cars / year. They dropped this prediction in 2024, before 'political issues'...
With more competition I'm not sure they have the room to do things different enough to really stand out like they used to.
Tesla had a whole "this is the future" thing going on for a while and now it's the past and I'm not sure there's a lot of future to sell in that space anymore, or at least not by them.
No reason to focus on politics - if it wasn't elon musk nobody would care cared that it was two pathetic attempts at it, you start at 90 degree angle from your heart, not flat on your chest.
The whole EV market is growing and everyone is racing to buy one before incentives run out. The article is framed as a hit piece and even has political statements in it. But here is an exact quote from the article:
"Sales of new EVs jumped more than 24% month over month in July to 128,268, according to the Cox data, driven by the looming end of a $7,500 tax credit for EVs and attractive deals. Tesla saw sales rise 7% to 53,816, even as its market share fell."
If EVs in general rose 24% due to rushing to get in before the tax credit ends but Tesla—the largest seller—only saw a 7% bump, isn't that a failure? #2 GM had a 10+% bump. Ford had a 19%. Hyundai, Honda, Kia, and Toyota all rose 60+%. Volkswagen rose over 450%. Sure it's fine in a bubble, but they are doing worse than most other car makers.
I mean, they sold 3,500 more cars out of the market's 27,400 bump. GM sold 2,000 more; Ford sold 2,400 more. Even in absolute terms, they're not exactly dominant. They're not dying currently, but they're never going to be more than just another car maker.
You can only cut costs so much before you're selling the equivalent of a $50k geo metro.
When they removed the center horn and the stalks from their cars, they officially jumped the shark. But I bet they saved at least $50 per car from their costs. I still can't believe the NHTSA hasn't issued a recall.
Having owned both, I’m not even sure where to begin with how laughably inaccurate that is. We can start at functioning automatic wipers, 360 degree cameras, parking assist that actually works, a knob to control stereo volume, accurate marketing numbers for range, a dealership network that actually will fix the issue, insurance that isn’t insane, headlight brights that actually dim at an appropriate distance for oncoming traffic, cruise control that doesn’t phantom brake (slam on the brakes for no reason) traveling down the highway…
Are you sure you owned both? You're sort of exposing yourself as never having owned a Tesla at all (at least not a new one). I've never experienced phantom braking in my Y (although I have in a ford escort), and the headlight dimming is pretty good (again in the new model Y, unsure about an old one).
Niceness is subjective, so I suppose it's inappropriate to declare it as nicer, but it is a premium car. The materials and experience are much nicer than, say, a Camry, and is on par with vehicles in its class if not better.
And with just that statement you’ve lost all credibility. The internet is literally full of endless people complaining about phantom braking including the Tesla forums. The “fix” is to pay for FSD which isn’t a fix at all. It’s extortion.
A base Model Y costs $18,000 more than a base Camry when the price is not being artificially lowered by the government. Different price range entirely.
I loved driving my 3 cylinder convertible geo metro! It was the 'sport' version so you could actually hit 60 if you held the peddle down long enough but it rode like it was on rails because of how light it was!
And turns out that a small torquey engine in a car with very little mass is actually pretty fun to drive! Even if you’d prefer not to be seen doing it.
Also has an instrument panel the driver can easily see.
I’ve driven a Model 3 and its handling and overall feel was worse than a barebones Honda Civic. I’d say a Model 3 is on par with how a low end Chrysler feels to drive.
I daily drive a Model 3 and when I rented a Honda Civic for a trip I thought it was broken with how long it took to get any speed. You're trolling regarding the Chrysler comment lol
Why are you staring at your instrument panel and not the road? The speed is just a glance at the top corner as you should be focused on driving ;)
No, the horn is in the middle, the capacitive horn only steering wheel existed on early builds of the model S refresh (when plaid was first released), but after ~6 months they added the normal horn back.
"even has political statements in it" is a wild take. It would be journalistic malpractice to not mention the political context.
If your CEO bribes voters to help elect a traitorous pedophile and then personally (and illegally) cuts aid funding directly causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and all of that hurts business, that's something you have to include for context! That's some crazy stuff!
Why are you calling this a hit piece? It's literally talking about falling market share in the title, which is absolutely accurate. Even the quote you tried to use as evidence of the hit piece says as much: "Sales rise, even as market share falls".
If you follow up on the story, Tesla was cleared of all wrong doing after an investigation. Tesla did sell that number of vehicles, they just were very behind on filing for the incentives, but still within the program guidelines. Once the government announced that the incentives were running low, they filed all of their backlog at once.
I love to hate on Elon as much as the next person, but everything was above board.
I think there's something else going on there, although yes, that was the statement.
> Tesla’s head of sales for Canada, emphasized in a March 28 letter that the filings followed program guidelines, which allowed post-delivery submissions despite recommendations for pre-delivery assessments.
but this alludes to something more:
> Despite the clearance, Tesla will still be excluded from future iZEV programs
If you read the rest of the sentence you removed the second quote from you will see why.
It isn't a mystery, the PM of Canada and several premiers have openly stated that Tesla isn't going to be eligible because Musk is Musk, and Tesla is American.
People are tripping over each other to pay $60k for suvs and trucks. There’s no incentive for smaller or cheaper cars as long as people are happy paying current premium prices.
These days often on ridiculous 108 month notes. Oof. Paying $95,000 for a $70,000 truck that depreciates to $50,000 the moment you drive it off the lot and worth maybe $10K at loan maturity?
Which is 50% more expensive than what Ford initially promised it to be in 2022, but they stopped taking orders because they couldn't (or didn't want to) actually deliver on their promises
Thats already happened in China. And when you think about it, it was inevitable after battery production was figured out and scaled up, and new battery chemistries will keep either allowing for more utility or for pushing price points down. ICEs simply won’t be seen as economical by 2035.
I live in NZ. Plenty of cheap EVs. Cheapest BYD is about 24k USD. Yet Tesla is still leading by far even when it's about 30% more expensive. https://evdb.nz/sales
There's no need for a pissing contest here. Neither the US nor the EU has a "stricter" set of vehicle safety standards than the other. They simply have different standards.
Sometimes the differences are very minor. Sometimes it's a matter of requiring different standard equipment. Different markets around the world take different regulatory approaches in requiring active safety features versus passive safety features. Some markets focus on the safety of the occupants within the vehicle, other markets balance that safety with other road users or people outside of the vehicle. The EU tests what happens when a vehicle hits a pedestrian but the US doesn't. The US tests what happens when somebody's not wearing their seatbelt, but the EU doesn't. The EU and US crash test vehicles into different objects at different speeds and in different directions. Saying that one system is "more strict" than the other is really a gross oversimplification of the global vehicle regulatory landscape.
Heck, sometimes European manufacturers have to remove safety features from an equivalent EU-market vehicle to meet US safety standards. (e.g. Audi matrix headlights) So, just because something doesn't meet US standards doesn't mean I'm calling it bad.
Although I'm not so sure in this case... the Dacia Spring EV has a one-star Euro NCAP rating. So even the EU thinks it kind of sucks. And if you look at where it struggled, you'll see it lacked in occupant protection specifically. Which is probably not good for it being imported into the US, because US standards for occupant protection are generally more difficult to meet.
And does it really keep up with Autobahn traffic? I'm guessing it probably does fine in urban areas. But even the higher trim takes 14 seconds to get to 62mph. This is about 40% slower than the slowest car currently sold in the US. This would not be received well in the US market -- the average vehicle sold here is twice this quick. Also the top speed is 78 mph. This is slower than maximum posted highway speeds in 20% of US states. And prevailing speeds on many non-urban highways in the US are 80+.
That's not to say these are dealbreakers in usability. But nobody's gonna pay 100% tariff to import one, when you could get way better vehicle for sub ~$37,000.
Nobody said roads couldn’t “handle” vehicles going slower speeds. I said people didn’t want to spend $37k of their own money on a personal car that couldn’t keep up with traffic. People don’t buy semi trucks for grocery getters, do they?
And trucks on US highways often go the speed of prevailing traffic, especially on flat ground.
Politics aside, Musk is lying there -- or at least telling some people what they want to hear while behaving differently elsewhere .. politics aside.
Tesla's received favorable attention for it's "claim" they are (were?) working on a $30k car.
And that techno-ideological claim that "all you need for self-driving is a camera" is a cost-savings solution. [ A robotics prof, ( I think at a university in Philadelphia ? ) cites a statistic that camera based navigation will succeed 97% of the time, max. So, 3% failures over all scenarios. ]
I disagree at least in the longer term, I don't think people want to own cars. Generally people are not car people, bike people or train people, most people just react to what makes the most sense.
In the 70s people in the Netherlands they were not 'bike people' but now that's what they look like.
Same in the US, most people are not car obsessed, they have simply been 'brainwashed' into a society where you 'need' a car. And therefore everybody says they want to own a car, because the idea of not having a car or not wanting a car is like hating Apple Pie and the American Way.
If you watch urbanist youtube, you will see the topic discussed, people who live their whole live in the subburbs don't even understand how people without a car get groceries. This is a common question that gets asked.
Yes, some people are 'car' people, just there are people on bikes, even when it is not very save. But that's going to be a small group of people, just as there is now for bikes in dangerous places. In a world where you don't need a car, and its cheaper to not have one, the waste majority of people will not adopt 'car' as a hobby.
That said, even optimistically if 'full self driving' happened, that would take decades. And the 'car' hobby in the US would survive a very long time, 100000000s of millions of garages and parking spot have already been built, millions of people have been educated on car repair and so on and so on. So I think even if full self driving was solved, the culture shit would take a generation.
This is expected. Tesla enjoyed a more than a decade long position as the leader. Even now it’s a strong pick because of the extensive charging network they built. No other company comes close, and this charging network will reap recurring revenue for them.
However the cars themselves are really shitty. I mean really bad for quality and do not offer any aesthetic value either, they appear very plain and generic at this point. I can see why people are picking other cars. Of course the whole nazi turn of their founder doesn’t help.
> Even now it’s a strong pick because of the extensive charging network they built. No other company comes close, and this charging network will reap recurring revenue for them.
Didn't they fire the team behind the charging network a while ago? How has it been since then?
My brother-in-law, who has worked for both Tesla and Rivian and owned a 3, a Y, an R1T, is now on his second CT, and is just as unhappy with the second as he was with the first. Creaks, rattles, things feeling flimsy or fragile.
It's complicated. Tesla sales rose 7% in July, month-over-month, but the expiration of subsidies hangs over the whole thing. This factor caused total EV sales in the US to jump 24%, month-over-month, as a whole bunch of sales got pulled from future quarters to the present. But because of the expiration of subsidies, those sales that got pulled ahead into July will probably not be there in September or October. This is why outside analysts expect that for 2025 as a whole, Tesla car sales numbers will decline versus 2024 as a whole. 2024 for Tesla as a whole, incidentally, was a 1.1% sales decrease over 2023. Two consecutive years of sales decline is a big warning sign, especially for a company that is considered a growth stock.
No i mean the goal that private companies and public policy makers are aligned to expand EV market share. Billions (almost trillions) are being blown to make that happen.
Is it because the creepy breeding kink, drug addict CEO playing a neo nazi edgelord who supports far-right extremist parties all over the world? Or is it the noncompetitive products that were oversold for decades? FSD scam? Humanoid robot scam? Cyberanything fail?
There is a lot of discussion of the brand being hurt, but I will say that personally I just don't want a new car period and Tesla specifically in large part because of privacy concerns. My understanding it that Tesla is one of the worst offenders in a group of massively offensive (to privacy) options. Are there actually privacy preserving options left in the market at all and in the EV market specifically? If Tesla promised, and delivered, privacy (actually didn't track) it would go a long way to rehabilitating them as a brand in my eyes. It probably wouldn't be enough, but I would at least look at them again.
The Slate truck might be the only one to have less digital tracking just due to how they are skipping so many electronic bells and whistles to keep costs in the $20k range.
The HN crowd does not reflect the majority of Americans, who simply do not care about "privacy", and are far more interested in whether their car has CarPlay or Android Auto - which Teslas don't.
The article is referring to EV market share, which is a useless metric. The whole point of Tesla opening their patents and their chargers was to encourage more companies to make EV's, which would necessarily imply a drop in Tesla's EV market share.
The metric that I would like to see is Tesla's market share of the auto market in general (regardless of fuel type).
I like the new Model 3 and Model Y. It is unfortunate that they didn't do a facelift for the Model S and X. I know they've updated the motors and batteries and interior, but unless you look closely the Model X looks pretty much the same as it did in 2016.
I have to agree with most of the points here (I own a Tesla Model 3). The only point where in my view they're still far ahead is infotainment: seamless experience, regular upgrades, very good security, new features every now and then. Hardware-wise the competitors caught up.
I'll add: they don't have a city/compact car (Euro A/B/C segment), their "smallest" offer starts at the D-segment Model 3, which is a big car by EU standards. I know that for US standards these look small, but for the rest of the world they represent huge chunk of cars. People don't need a Model 3 for daily driving, they need the equivalent of a Volkswagen Golf, with ~400km real range.
If instead of the CT they had released an 800V, V2L+V2G, 48V B/C-segment car, they'd have grabbed most of the market. The CT was a very expensive (and stupid in some places - exterior in non-painted steel) experiment in new tech, architecture and steer by wire that had 0 follow up so far.
Robotaxi is just Model Ys that have a FSD version that they let on to some cities. It’s again something that’ll never make it outside the US, even though the market there is big enough for it to be sustainable.
Cybercab is never coming out. It doesn’t make sense for it to exist and be sold to people.
200 mile range 2 seater? It mostly makes sense as a literal cab and if it’s going to be profitable for whoever buys it and lets it be a Robotaxi, there’s no point for Tesla to sell it, as they can just be the ones that take in that profit on every vehicle.
Cars tend to be more akin to fashion than consumer electronics. People care about how it looks, interior (eg cup holders) or what brand it is. Tesla is behind here as the traditional car companies have more experience in this.
Additionally, Tesla has not materially lowered their prices or spent a lot on marketing.
Way over here in tiny little Sweden, I've multiple times seen Teslas with custom stickers saying "I got this before Elon went crazy" or something similar on the trunk.
The situation might be different here though since there has been a rather long-running and high-profile conflict between Tesla and the unions, on top of all the other madness.
> Google, Amazon Robotics/Kiva, Hyundai/Boston Dynamics, even Nvidia are ahead of Tesla in AI+robotics.
Optimus seems to be much closer to actually being released as a product than Atlas. After over a decade, Boston Dynamics still hasn't shown anyone a live, unscripted demo of Atlas as far as I can tell (Tesla was showing those with multiple Optimus robots a year ago). And they don't appear to have any plans for actually selling it as a product anytime soon.
I'm skeptical of the humanoid robot market in general, but at the moment Tesla and Unitree appear to be the two companies ate the forefront of it.
This is a non-sequitur. The Optimus demonstrations so far have been partially controlled (though the degree to which they were appears to be overstated). This doesn't change the fact that they've done public demonstrations with the robots while Boston Dynamics hasn't.
This isn't true at all? Robots can be controlled externally, either fully or partially. ASIMO didn't stop being a robot because it was under external control for demonstrations (from what I can tell, much more external control than the Tesla robots).
The Tesla stock evaluation has little to do with what Tesla is delivering today and a lot more with what investors imagine they will be able to do in the future.
Based on their history I'm pretty optimistic that those expectations will not be met, but Tesla somehow still rises in value.
Yes. A lot of people, and obviously some "news" reporters, need to learn the difference between market share and stock price. And that as a market grows one company cannot maintain the same market share as competitors join in over time.
"Tesla is on track toward a second year of sales decline." - from the article
Consecutive years of sales declines is a situation where it does not matter if the market is growing or shrinking, it's bad for a company. The only way to grow if absolute sales go down is to raise margins on each individual unit.
"But with weakening sales and a host of competitors, Tesla has had to cut prices in recent years, squeezing its margins and worrying investors."
Hmmmm, I guess maybe the author of the article understands this better than you think?
I would say the smartphone market would be more stable in terms of market share by its nature. The only way that it would shift significantly is if there were a mass exodus of users from one platform to the other. But the vast majority of people are perfectly happy staying with whatever they have. Likewise, many new smartphone users who aren't locked into a platform yet get locked into whatever platform people around them are using.
In the vehicle market, there's a lot more competition space than just two or three brands. And just because someone is around, say, Ford drivers. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go out and buy a Ford for themselves. Rather, they're going to buy whatever they find appealing.
Taken to the extreme for example, say Apple had 100% of the market. If a competitor entered the market and gained 1% share,then Apple's market share will have decreased.
In Tesla's case, a number of competitors have entered the market. It would be impossible to maintain whatever market share they had no matter how good the product is or how well their stock price is doing.
Technically, I respect what Tesla has achieved, especially in terms of progress with autonomous driving. But honestly, every time I come across another report of a safety incident, it makes me hesitate. Even if it's a statistical issue, when it happens to you, it's 100%.
Very very risky (I'm still doing it though). Some very skilled short sellers lost a ton of money on Tesla - for example Jim Chanos - a guy who predicted the fall of Enron and shorted quite a lot of stocks that turned out trash - Beyond Meat, Wirecard, Hertz.
But he closed his fund late 2023, in big part because of his short position on Tesla. He's still a very vocal advocate of Teslaq. Feel really bad for the guy - Tesla will end up crashing, but it will take way way longer that anybody could anticipated.
Note that you would have lost 91% of your money over the last year with this. Gambling on the precise timing of a stock crash is really hard to make profitable.
Plus buying an inverse ETF has higher fees than actually shorting it and you can't make a pair trade or earn interest on the money.
As usual, articles against Tesla miss the picture. Of course their share would drop as other auto makers ramp up EV efforts. People here calling Tesla cars boring and bad are missing the point.
Company value is dependent on expected future profit/revenue/etc. not market share per se.
If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
While the U.S. market share has declined, Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017 to over $97 billion in 2024, though it saw a slight decline in revenue for the 12 months ending June 30, 2025.
> If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up, and Tesla was going to be doing laps around the competition with all of their additional business lines that grew out of their class-leading EV business.
If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
> Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017
2017 was forever ago in technology and economic terms. The most important problem right now is that their revenue isn’t growing while everyone else is getting better at EVs.
> The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up
This story never made sense. They sold about 1.8 million cars in 2024 (and also in 2023), VAG sold 9 million. Tesla is no where close to winning the car market. Until recently, Ford regularly sold more F-Series than Tesla sold cars.
Sure, for quite some time, Tesla was selling a lot more EVs than anyone else. But, building EVs is supposed to be easier than building ICE cars, and some of the old guard auto manufacturers have been building cars for hundreds of years... Once they decide to build EVs and figure out the logistics of batteries, they're going to have no trouble building EVs or selling them, and then Tesla is left with the moat of the Musk Reality Distortion Field which seems to be weaker now than ever.
When nobody else was making competent EVs, Telsa's market value was clear. Now, I don't know. There are so many to choose from, but what does a Tesla give you that some other EV doesn't?
Most of the issue is that their competitors are selling at a big loss. Ford admitted so recently and are starting to make fewer cars. Rivian and lucid are also hemmoraging money.
Without the tax credit these companies may cease to exist or stop making evs in the case of Ford.
> If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
Long-term growth is pinned on success in AI, robotics, robotaxis, and autonomous services.
2025 is half done, and Tesla is down about $3B/quarter compared to last year already. If that trend keeps up, then 2025 will come in around $85B or so. (Although analyst expectations seem to be that Q3 and Q4 will jump back to 2024 levels, which... really defies all the available evidence.)
Marketshare is how revenue is determined. If the market as whole grows but Tesla's share of it does not at least stay static, it means it is losing revenue.
That's not how revenue is determined. Revenue is determined by, well, revenue.
You can lose market share and increase revenue if the market is growing fast enough.
If you measure market share by units moved (as many markets are measured), you can raise prices and increase revenue despite lower unit sales and lost market share.
You could technically guess it that way, in an incredibly simplified market if you didn’t have the actual number available to you. The car market isn’t incredibly simplified, and we do have the revenue number.
The numbers cited in the article are units sold. Tesla has 38% of 128k cars sold. Now tell me what the Tesla revenue was using your method?
See why serious people just look at what revenue was to determine what revenue was? It’s not a “bottom up” approach, it’s a “look at that reported and audited number and tell me what it is” approach.
Did you figure out what the revenue is yet, I'm super curious about how close the "top down" approach is going to be to reality. Don't forget that Tesla has revenue from non car products!
reply