[awkwarddaturtle]

> Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?

From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?"

$5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable".

> Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?

Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.

What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it.

Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. "

to be upvoted on HN.

Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.

[vvanders]

> Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.

Go watch "Who killed the electric car", then you'll understand what a travesty the EV1 was. Electric cars have always been compliance cars before Tesla. Heck, Bob Lutz credits Elon Musk with why they build the Volt.

[tpolischuk]

So? Why does this bother you? Why can't people be fans of a person, company or product?

[ckastner]

The grandparent's argument wasn't against fans, it was against cults.

[zamalek]

Tesla is polarizing and, as always, both camps are making equally absurd statements:

> $5-10B Losses

$5-10B expenditure.

Which has not yet been shown to be a profitable decision, but unless the product flops it's not a loss either. $5-10B is merely a number that we're uncomfortable with - it is likely a necessary number because Tesla is now racing to grow in the EV market before bigger players (BMW, Toyota, etc.) enter it.