There's something that's been bothering me about this whole thing. Not the Tesla, but the rest of the market. Is that it? Is it that easy? A guy who made his money selling a phonebook and then an online payment processor can read a few books, hire a few people out of the same industry he's disrupting and build a goddamn amazing car (electric or not)?
Why can't the existing industry do this? Why all the mediocre product that's the tail end of pumping billions of dollars into R&D staffed by largely the same folks Tesla has been hiring?
edit to be clear I'm not just talking about electric cars, but cars in general. There's a few Model S's in my area, and they're beautiful.
> Why all the mediocre product that's the tail end of pumping billions of dollars into R&D staffed by largely the same folks Tesla has been hiring?
In an established firm, existing product lines pay the bills. No company is an island onto itself. Companies have partners, large clients, relationships, etc.
Bottom line? To keep existing product lines healthy, you must pay respect to your loyalties. You start seeing the behavior of purposefully undermining the new product to keep the old alive and kicking. You start using sub-standard parts, just to keep purchasing from the same suppliers. You keep on old hands that actively despise the new way of doing things. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Frequently, starting with a clean slate is a huge competitive advantage. No baggage.
It's pretty classic "innovator's dilemma" material but a more interesting comparison here is Fisker (probably going out of business) vs Tesla (currently making a small bit of money).
Fisker did exactly what you suggest, they took a bunch of 'off the shelf' components and bolted them together into a nicely shaped car body. They 'designed' an electric car where "car" was the most significant bit and "electric" was the least significant bit. Since existing off the shelf electric gear couldn't get the range they wanted they added a gas powered generator.
Tesla (and I put all of this on Elon) appear to have ripped up history and started from how do we build something you can drive around based on electricity. They seem to have started with what properties do the batteries have to have, what capacity, what weight does that impose etc. They took that very expensive engineering and thinking about power trains and then slapped a Lotus brand body on it to appeal to the elite geek crowd. And they instrumented the hell out of it.
Then they took all of that knowledge and said, ok, given what we know about how this stuff worked, what did and didn't work? Now lets incorporate that into what comes next.
I found that engineering focused direction very appealing, work from zero, develop an expertise, test that understanding, iterate and improve. Now at rev 2.0 they have a much better product than rev 1.0. Their X series should be really something to behold.
Elon also bet big on being able to create an electric drive train with range. Had he started a couple of years earlier he might have missed out by building with Nickel based batteries rather than Lithium based ones. So there is a timing component as well. The larger companies have all put their toes into the water (the EV-1 for example) but hadn't yet committed to jumping. They don't have to commit since they have a working business, building the equivalent to the Roadster or the Model S would have been merely incremental to their business rather than whether they lived or died. So I expect they were waiting for a bit more clarity on this stuff. They always have the option of buying Tesla later and they take no risk in the meantime. Clearly that was on Toyota's mind when they invested.
You can see the same forces at work in SpaceX so it suggests to me it's a management style that Elon expresses.
It is the investment in existing factories and supply chain. They invest billions into these calculating the returns over long periods of time (think 15 to 30 years). This is also the reason why we are able to afford cars. If we want new, innovative cars every 3 years the manufacturers will have to ensure their ROI over 3 years which means the price tag will go up x10.
Our world view is a little skewed because of our ability to launch software products over a weekend or release a new build every afternoon.
> There's a few Model S's in my area, and they're beautiful.
They're also luxury (the base Model S is twice an Audi S4) and on limited runs (the yearly production of Tesla is the same as AMG. Not Mercedes, the subsidiary which takes standard Mercedes cars and refits them with custom hand-built engines)
I mean I could make the same complaint wondering why the rest of the industry can't be Ferrari (7000 cars/year[0]) or Bugatti, but basic thinking will help me note that the market for that kind of money is sort-of exclusive.
[0] note: Tesla has ~250 more employees than Ferrari, expects to produce ~3 times as many cars in 2013 and has roughly 20% the revenue. The comparison turns out to makes way more sense than between Tesla and Audi or BMW, let alone Tesla and Ford or VW group.
My theory: it all comes down to the maturation of the underlying technology. Tesla has been around for ten years. Why is their mainstream car only coming to market now, after all that time? Part of it is that creating a new car company takes a lot of time, but most of it is that the battery and other technologies have only recently matured enough to make EVs practical. Tesla has been waiting and waiting until this occurred and has a small jump on the other manufacturers. If this is true, I expect other manufacturers to ramp up pretty quickly. Both GM and Nissan both have electric cars that outsell the Model S (at least for now).
Another aspect of the Model S worth mentioning is that EVs are heavily subsidized with a $7.5K federal tax credit a huge pile of cash from California--so Tesla has extra money to apply to the fit and finish of the car vis a vis non-electric luxury cars. In fact, as of last quarter all of Tesla's profits came from selling ZEV credits to other auto manufacturers, not from the actual car itself. Take out the $70M from selling ZEV credits and Tesla's gross margin is only 6%--much less than other luxury manufacturers. In fact they'd be running at a $50M quarterly loss without them. So it's easier to make a great car if you don't have to make as much money at it. If Tesla manages to get their gross margin to 25% without these incentives, however, it will be a different story, and a remarkable feat.
Overall, I think Musk is just a really fucking smart guy. He happened to get a lot of money, and that doesn't usually happen to the smart people; it usually happens to the people who know how to grab at money, which as it turns out is not a remarkable skill and doesn't correlate too highly with future success. Whether you like the guy or not, Elon Musk is a dreamer, and has big ideas, and the capital to realize them. That's a damn rare thing, and we're lucky for it.
If you're one of those people, for pete's sake go do something big. Everyone else is pretty stupid, and nearly everything can be done better.
"Why all the mediocre product that's the tail end of pumping billions of dollars into R&D staffed by largely the same folks Tesla has been hiring?"
Because they have hundreds of billions already invested in factories. That's why.
You want to drive an electric car?
Great, this means that the kilometer assembly line making gears, piston and other stuff is now completely useless. The investment goes down the drain.
In R&D department you have 50 something years old specialized in fluids, internal combustion engines and moving parts wear.
How they are going to feel when you remove ALL the internal fluids but refrigeration, remove the combustion engine and minimize moving parts and wear?.
Now you need experts on electric motors, and power electronics. What are you going to do with the old staff?
The classic "Innovator's Dilemma" attempts to address this - the idea here would be that electric cars are disruptive technology, one which otherwise good management practices more or less prevent market encumbents successfully exploiting.
Read the book, I highly recommend it if you're interested by these kinds of questions!
There's something to be said about a driven leader pursuing a vision. The other good example would be Apple + Steve Jobs.
For example, I know that with Ford Motor Company, as an example, the Ford family has a heavy hand in the top-level management (i.e. previous CEOs have been kicked out 'unofficially' because they didn't follow what the Ford family wanted or didn't live up to their expectations). That kind of stuff puts a drag on innovation.
You ought to watch "Revenge of the Electric Car" (it was available on Netflix streaming last I checked). Even for a documentary that's as ra-ra about EVs as it is, it shows how much blood, sweat and tears Musk has gone through just to get this far. It's been no cakewalk.
A small part of it is right place at the right time. (California, 21st century, oligopoly in auto industry, government loans)
Part of it is being a well-known billionaire and engineer who partners with the right people to get the job done.
Part of it was determination and long-nights in the office.
Part of it was being able to avoid the red-tape (and stakeholder interests) that the market leaders have in their companies.
Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity would make good case studies about how to take a finite (but large) amount of capital and develop it into companies that can change the world.
They are, but at a snail's pace. The Mercedes SLS Electric Drive came out a few months ago, I believe, and it's a work of engineering and art.
But Ford isn't Mercedes, and they can't afford to switch up their assembly processes because then it would drive up the prices of the cars they sell, which defeats the point of Ford -- affordable, reliable transportation. Remove the affordable, because the cost of manufacture goes up immensely, and the reliability goes down. Electric automobiles are still experimental technology, albeit very mature experimental technology. Imagine them as Debian testing installs that are very stable, but still aren't as stable as Debian stable installs (the gasoline-powered vehicles).
It will take time, but it will also take game-changers like Tesla for electric cars to go mainstream.
First of all, Tesla was not created by Musk alone. He owns a large portion of the company, but he had co-founders with more experience in the automobile industry.
Second of all, there's a reason that Tesla started with a high-end sports car and that's because bringing a sports car to market is easier than bringing an economy or mid-priced sedan. Most mass-market cars have small (or even negative) profit margins. In order to make financial sense, the development costs need to be spread over a large production run, preferably world-wide. The size of the big auto companies is so that they can take advantage of economies of scale to make a cost-competitive car. Building decent cars at a competitive price is a different market than the one Tesla is engaged in.
> Why can't the existing industry do this? Why all the mediocre product that's the tail end of pumping billions of dollars into R&D staffed by largely the same folks Tesla has been hiring?
Innovator's dilemma: at which point it's OK for a new product to cannibalize market of your established products? Think iPhone vs. iPod.
In a large enterprise, it also is matter of inter-departamental power struggles.
There are a lot of reasons, as other commenters have pointed out, including all the existing capital that would have to be retooled or scraped.
However, I don't think you can overlook the damage the bailouts did. The Chrystler bailout in 1980 and the more recent GM bailout preserved the existing Detroit power structure. All of that talented labor pool and capital that would have been set free via liquidation instead was allowed to stay together. These companies didn't innovate because they didn't have to.
It's like any other business that's been extremely successful for so long. It's very difficult to change course unless you are built that way.
We may be talking about electric cars but one of the best things that Tesla has done compared to everyone else is making the interior joyful.
I don't think we've even seen everything of what Tesla can do yet. If they are really interested in giving away refueling for free then that can that speed up the transition away from oil.
Why do all disruptive companies end up making much better products than the incumbents, changing the game, and revolutionizing the market?
Because big incumbents have little interest in changing anything. They're happy selling the same thing, slightly improved year after year, decade after decade, and only myopically competing against their "direct competitors" (i.e. all the other companies cloning each other's products).
You need new thinking, new ways of doing things and new business models to change the game and the market - something the incumbents have very little interest in pursuing.
Also, who said it was easy? You should watch some Elon Musk documentaries, to see how many times he was close to bankruptcy, not just of the business, but personal, too - all while running a rocket company, too. He might make it look easy, but it certainly wasn't, and I'm sure most still believe he'll never beat established car companies like GM and Ford (I'm quite certain he will, and make Tesla the "Apple" of the car industry).
It's pretty dumb that upstarts have such large advantages against incumbents merely because incumbents choose not to disrupt their legacies.
You see the same thing in airlines. You'd think there'd be little harder than starting an airline and yet southwest, JetBlue and virgin come in and have great success.
History is littered with failed auto companies, so no, it's not that easy. Tesla very nearly didn't make it too (IIRC Musk had to sink a lot of personal money into it to keep it afloat).
For the very same reasons why a start up can do things so quickly, and a big company can't.
Most of the big companies you see out there car makers or otherwise are only at their best good maintaining status quo and doing the incremental revenue push. Reasons, everyone knows already: Layers and Layers of hopelessly useless middle management, Politics, Bureaucracy- Your usual large company BS.
There is total lack of urgency, there is no sense of higher purpose. No clear vision, goal or even a path many big companies want to take. Its all about fixing the most immediate short term things which prevent them dieing, and maintain the stock prices to a acceptable value. The management at all levels is simply designing most ingenious ways to take back big checks while sleeping on their jobs. And then blame the actual workers for all their company problems.
No wonder small unknown start ups with a few folks severely underfunded and under clocked for resources screw these companies left, right and center. And not just that, also in ways these large companies can't even defend themselves.
But examples like Tesla and Microsoft and Google and Facebook and so on are all testaments to the power of startups. It's quite possible to disrupt large businesses (and become one) with a small foundation, I just wouldn't call it easy. I think Musk himself has said on occasion that Tesla has been very close to failure at least a few times.
Don't forget he had his own money to put into it and the confidence / belief he could do it. Try finding someone to give you enough capital to start a big holistic undertaking as this ... I don't think it'll happen.
I can attest to this. Initially, I was extremely skeptical that the Tesla was anything great (electric cars haven't been the highlight of the automotive industry despite repeated attempts by established manufacturers). A few weeks ago, however, I had the chance to drive a family friend's Tesla and I was stunned.
The Model S seems like a car from the future. Forget the fact that it's completely electric and charges via an alien-like, glowing plug. The interior with the large, beautiful touch screen, a voice-activated system (that, contrary to Siri, actually works) coupled with access to the internet, and the gorgeous trim and accents really make the Tesla a standout.
Moreover, it's every geek's dream. You can remotely control the car with a smartphone app, monitor the car's efficiency and performance via beautiful graphs, and even have presets for charging cycles.
Best of all, the pickup is like none other (as one would imagine). Flooring it in a Tesla has a completely different meaning. Pure acceleration and no roaring engine noise.
I think it goes without saying that I'm very excited about this company.
I just drove a Tesla Model S last weekend. Here are my perceptions, as I was SUPER curious about the car before I drove it:
Pros:
1) The drive is AMAZING. The car is quiet, it accelerates amazingly, and the regenerative braking is really cool.
2) It feels like the future. The huge computer screen is cool (but distracting, you can go on the internet at anytime).
3) The ability to get software updates all the time is cool when thinking about cars.
Cons:
1) It is impractical for an urban dweller in a condo building: you have to pay for an electrician to come install a special outlet, then pay for the electricity (which is fine if you own a house, getting this through a condo association is a nightmare).
2) The whole time you are thinking about the battery charge. What if you forget to plug in your car at night?
3) For the cost, it lacks feature a luxury car should have: park assist is one feature. The model i drove was around 90k and the more "luxury" features felt like a standard sedan (the leather, the wood, etc). You are definitely paying for the tech.
4) What if someone hits you? How much compared to other cars does it cost to get repaired? The salesperson couldn't answer this.
5) The car is connected to 3G for maps (unless you upgrade) and at some point, you will be paying for this service.
6) You have to plan out where you power up for a trip longer than 200 miles...so annoying.
If you have the capacity or need for a fun, toy car at this price point...check out the Model S. I don't find it practical as a main car in the city.
I have learned cynicism and skepticism about a lot of media, but Consumer Reports remains one of the few sources -- the only one I can think of offhand -- that I trust without a second thought.
I like their business plan and focus on doing what they do well.
Their reviews mean something (even to someone like me who lives in Manhattan and doesn't drive).
As a Model S owner I can attest to the awesomeness of the car. Will hit 20,000km in the next few weeks.
Moreover I'm hoping that Tesla will challenge others in the industry to rethink their business model from the ground up. In 2013 why are we still replacing mufflers, why are using timing belts and not timing chains, and why is it that every time I walk into the dealership for a regular service I end up walking out with an even bigger bill than I expected? I get there is always wear and tear on a mechanical component but how many components are there in a typical car that are designed to fail to support an after market industry? I want a car built right and will pay more for that to avoid getting hooked into an industry that has become addicted to model year turnover revenue.
I think the Tesla is amazing, but Consumer Reports is bizarre. I've never been able to grok Consumer Reports car reviews... I remember one year (2003-2004 i think) where they punished Hyundai for some minor cosmetic issue, but white-washed an issue where plastic body panels were falling off a Honda, and gave that car their highest rating.
You could literally buy a similar BMW or Audi and all of the gas that you would ever consume for a price much less than that of the Tesla. And without the limitations of an electric car. Is the driving experience that much better than the other high end luxury cars?
I don't know where to ask this, but does anyone know why they bothered with the front trunk? Was it just to keep the Model S looking like a typical car, so people would be less averse to considering it? Crumple zone for accidents? Seems like it would be unnecessary weight on a car where that would effect range.
No offense, at these price points the car better damn well be perfect. When they deliver a car at an every man's price point and score very high then I will be impressed. A year to two down the road and maintain that level of performance I will be impressed. Until then, cars are these price points have large enough margins that extra time and detail can be baked into the process.
It's definitely a nice car, but it will interesting how much they will adjust the score (if at all) when they revisit it for their long-term use review.
Most big SUVs are not around that price point. 100k is the price point for high end luxury cars. BMW 7, Mercedes S, Porsche 911, Jaguar XJ are all around that price.
Consumer Reports is part of Ralph Nader's Consumer Union, an extremely left-wing operation. It is inconceivable that a $89k car with a top range of just 200 miles gets their top rating without a bias.
[+] [-] bane|13 years ago|reply
Why can't the existing industry do this? Why all the mediocre product that's the tail end of pumping billions of dollars into R&D staffed by largely the same folks Tesla has been hiring?
edit to be clear I'm not just talking about electric cars, but cars in general. There's a few Model S's in my area, and they're beautiful.
[+] [-] maratd|13 years ago|reply
In an established firm, existing product lines pay the bills. No company is an island onto itself. Companies have partners, large clients, relationships, etc.
Bottom line? To keep existing product lines healthy, you must pay respect to your loyalties. You start seeing the behavior of purposefully undermining the new product to keep the old alive and kicking. You start using sub-standard parts, just to keep purchasing from the same suppliers. You keep on old hands that actively despise the new way of doing things. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Frequently, starting with a clean slate is a huge competitive advantage. No baggage.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
It's pretty classic "innovator's dilemma" material but a more interesting comparison here is Fisker (probably going out of business) vs Tesla (currently making a small bit of money).
Fisker did exactly what you suggest, they took a bunch of 'off the shelf' components and bolted them together into a nicely shaped car body. They 'designed' an electric car where "car" was the most significant bit and "electric" was the least significant bit. Since existing off the shelf electric gear couldn't get the range they wanted they added a gas powered generator.
Tesla (and I put all of this on Elon) appear to have ripped up history and started from how do we build something you can drive around based on electricity. They seem to have started with what properties do the batteries have to have, what capacity, what weight does that impose etc. They took that very expensive engineering and thinking about power trains and then slapped a Lotus brand body on it to appeal to the elite geek crowd. And they instrumented the hell out of it.
Then they took all of that knowledge and said, ok, given what we know about how this stuff worked, what did and didn't work? Now lets incorporate that into what comes next.
I found that engineering focused direction very appealing, work from zero, develop an expertise, test that understanding, iterate and improve. Now at rev 2.0 they have a much better product than rev 1.0. Their X series should be really something to behold.
Elon also bet big on being able to create an electric drive train with range. Had he started a couple of years earlier he might have missed out by building with Nickel based batteries rather than Lithium based ones. So there is a timing component as well. The larger companies have all put their toes into the water (the EV-1 for example) but hadn't yet committed to jumping. They don't have to commit since they have a working business, building the equivalent to the Roadster or the Model S would have been merely incremental to their business rather than whether they lived or died. So I expect they were waiting for a bit more clarity on this stuff. They always have the option of buying Tesla later and they take no risk in the meantime. Clearly that was on Toyota's mind when they invested.
You can see the same forces at work in SpaceX so it suggests to me it's a management style that Elon expresses.
[+] [-] therandomguy|13 years ago|reply
Our world view is a little skewed because of our ability to launch software products over a weekend or release a new build every afternoon.
[+] [-] masklinn|13 years ago|reply
They're also luxury (the base Model S is twice an Audi S4) and on limited runs (the yearly production of Tesla is the same as AMG. Not Mercedes, the subsidiary which takes standard Mercedes cars and refits them with custom hand-built engines)
I mean I could make the same complaint wondering why the rest of the industry can't be Ferrari (7000 cars/year[0]) or Bugatti, but basic thinking will help me note that the market for that kind of money is sort-of exclusive.
[0] note: Tesla has ~250 more employees than Ferrari, expects to produce ~3 times as many cars in 2013 and has roughly 20% the revenue. The comparison turns out to makes way more sense than between Tesla and Audi or BMW, let alone Tesla and Ford or VW group.
[+] [-] codex|13 years ago|reply
Another aspect of the Model S worth mentioning is that EVs are heavily subsidized with a $7.5K federal tax credit a huge pile of cash from California--so Tesla has extra money to apply to the fit and finish of the car vis a vis non-electric luxury cars. In fact, as of last quarter all of Tesla's profits came from selling ZEV credits to other auto manufacturers, not from the actual car itself. Take out the $70M from selling ZEV credits and Tesla's gross margin is only 6%--much less than other luxury manufacturers. In fact they'd be running at a $50M quarterly loss without them. So it's easier to make a great car if you don't have to make as much money at it. If Tesla manages to get their gross margin to 25% without these incentives, however, it will be a different story, and a remarkable feat.
[+] [-] calinet6|13 years ago|reply
2. Stupidity
3. Money
4. Because the US is too fiercely independent and hardheaded to adopt the principles of this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
Overall, I think Musk is just a really fucking smart guy. He happened to get a lot of money, and that doesn't usually happen to the smart people; it usually happens to the people who know how to grab at money, which as it turns out is not a remarkable skill and doesn't correlate too highly with future success. Whether you like the guy or not, Elon Musk is a dreamer, and has big ideas, and the capital to realize them. That's a damn rare thing, and we're lucky for it.
If you're one of those people, for pete's sake go do something big. Everyone else is pretty stupid, and nearly everything can be done better.
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|13 years ago|reply
Because they have hundreds of billions already invested in factories. That's why.
You want to drive an electric car? Great, this means that the kilometer assembly line making gears, piston and other stuff is now completely useless. The investment goes down the drain.
In R&D department you have 50 something years old specialized in fluids, internal combustion engines and moving parts wear.
How they are going to feel when you remove ALL the internal fluids but refrigeration, remove the combustion engine and minimize moving parts and wear?.
Now you need experts on electric motors, and power electronics. What are you going to do with the old staff?
That is the reason.
[+] [-] moconnor|13 years ago|reply
Read the book, I highly recommend it if you're interested by these kinds of questions!
[+] [-] pyre|13 years ago|reply
For example, I know that with Ford Motor Company, as an example, the Ford family has a heavy hand in the top-level management (i.e. previous CEOs have been kicked out 'unofficially' because they didn't follow what the Ford family wanted or didn't live up to their expectations). That kind of stuff puts a drag on innovation.
[+] [-] npsimons|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm2|13 years ago|reply
Part of it is being a well-known billionaire and engineer who partners with the right people to get the job done.
Part of it was determination and long-nights in the office.
Part of it was being able to avoid the red-tape (and stakeholder interests) that the market leaders have in their companies.
Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity would make good case studies about how to take a finite (but large) amount of capital and develop it into companies that can change the world.
[+] [-] kunai|13 years ago|reply
They are, but at a snail's pace. The Mercedes SLS Electric Drive came out a few months ago, I believe, and it's a work of engineering and art.
But Ford isn't Mercedes, and they can't afford to switch up their assembly processes because then it would drive up the prices of the cars they sell, which defeats the point of Ford -- affordable, reliable transportation. Remove the affordable, because the cost of manufacture goes up immensely, and the reliability goes down. Electric automobiles are still experimental technology, albeit very mature experimental technology. Imagine them as Debian testing installs that are very stable, but still aren't as stable as Debian stable installs (the gasoline-powered vehicles).
It will take time, but it will also take game-changers like Tesla for electric cars to go mainstream.
[+] [-] akjj|13 years ago|reply
Second of all, there's a reason that Tesla started with a high-end sports car and that's because bringing a sports car to market is easier than bringing an economy or mid-priced sedan. Most mass-market cars have small (or even negative) profit margins. In order to make financial sense, the development costs need to be spread over a large production run, preferably world-wide. The size of the big auto companies is so that they can take advantage of economies of scale to make a cost-competitive car. Building decent cars at a competitive price is a different market than the one Tesla is engaged in.
[+] [-] dexen|13 years ago|reply
Innovator's dilemma: at which point it's OK for a new product to cannibalize market of your established products? Think iPhone vs. iPod.
In a large enterprise, it also is matter of inter-departamental power struggles.
[+] [-] heironimus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samolang|13 years ago|reply
Second, Tesla suffered quarterly losses for their first 10 years of its existence. It wasn't "that easy". It was a long struggle.
[+] [-] run4yourlives|13 years ago|reply
Two bicycle mechanics in a small town game us the airplane, but there were a lot of smart people that tried to do just that before them and failed.
It's easy because we only talk about the ones that had everything go right for them.
[+] [-] bhb916|13 years ago|reply
However, I don't think you can overlook the damage the bailouts did. The Chrystler bailout in 1980 and the more recent GM bailout preserved the existing Detroit power structure. All of that talented labor pool and capital that would have been set free via liquidation instead was allowed to stay together. These companies didn't innovate because they didn't have to.
[+] [-] technoslut|13 years ago|reply
It's like any other business that's been extremely successful for so long. It's very difficult to change course unless you are built that way.
We may be talking about electric cars but one of the best things that Tesla has done compared to everyone else is making the interior joyful.
I don't think we've even seen everything of what Tesla can do yet. If they are really interested in giving away refueling for free then that can that speed up the transition away from oil.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
Because big incumbents have little interest in changing anything. They're happy selling the same thing, slightly improved year after year, decade after decade, and only myopically competing against their "direct competitors" (i.e. all the other companies cloning each other's products).
You need new thinking, new ways of doing things and new business models to change the game and the market - something the incumbents have very little interest in pursuing.
Also, who said it was easy? You should watch some Elon Musk documentaries, to see how many times he was close to bankruptcy, not just of the business, but personal, too - all while running a rocket company, too. He might make it look easy, but it certainly wasn't, and I'm sure most still believe he'll never beat established car companies like GM and Ford (I'm quite certain he will, and make Tesla the "Apple" of the car industry).
[+] [-] samstave|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|13 years ago|reply
You see the same thing in airlines. You'd think there'd be little harder than starting an airline and yet southwest, JetBlue and virgin come in and have great success.
[+] [-] TWAndrews|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidenn0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamaal|13 years ago|reply
Most of the big companies you see out there car makers or otherwise are only at their best good maintaining status quo and doing the incremental revenue push. Reasons, everyone knows already: Layers and Layers of hopelessly useless middle management, Politics, Bureaucracy- Your usual large company BS.
There is total lack of urgency, there is no sense of higher purpose. No clear vision, goal or even a path many big companies want to take. Its all about fixing the most immediate short term things which prevent them dieing, and maintain the stock prices to a acceptable value. The management at all levels is simply designing most ingenious ways to take back big checks while sleeping on their jobs. And then blame the actual workers for all their company problems.
No wonder small unknown start ups with a few folks severely underfunded and under clocked for resources screw these companies left, right and center. And not just that, also in ways these large companies can't even defend themselves.
[+] [-] soofaloofa|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jach|13 years ago|reply
A more modern example of failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors
But examples like Tesla and Microsoft and Google and Facebook and so on are all testaments to the power of startups. It's quite possible to disrupt large businesses (and become one) with a small foundation, I just wouldn't call it easy. I think Musk himself has said on occasion that Tesla has been very close to failure at least a few times.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] loceng|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjg007|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PakG1|13 years ago|reply
Is it that easy to start a space company?
[+] [-] aviswanathan|13 years ago|reply
The Model S seems like a car from the future. Forget the fact that it's completely electric and charges via an alien-like, glowing plug. The interior with the large, beautiful touch screen, a voice-activated system (that, contrary to Siri, actually works) coupled with access to the internet, and the gorgeous trim and accents really make the Tesla a standout.
Moreover, it's every geek's dream. You can remotely control the car with a smartphone app, monitor the car's efficiency and performance via beautiful graphs, and even have presets for charging cycles.
Best of all, the pickup is like none other (as one would imagine). Flooring it in a Tesla has a completely different meaning. Pure acceleration and no roaring engine noise.
I think it goes without saying that I'm very excited about this company.
[+] [-] startupstella|13 years ago|reply
Pros: 1) The drive is AMAZING. The car is quiet, it accelerates amazingly, and the regenerative braking is really cool. 2) It feels like the future. The huge computer screen is cool (but distracting, you can go on the internet at anytime). 3) The ability to get software updates all the time is cool when thinking about cars.
Cons: 1) It is impractical for an urban dweller in a condo building: you have to pay for an electrician to come install a special outlet, then pay for the electricity (which is fine if you own a house, getting this through a condo association is a nightmare). 2) The whole time you are thinking about the battery charge. What if you forget to plug in your car at night? 3) For the cost, it lacks feature a luxury car should have: park assist is one feature. The model i drove was around 90k and the more "luxury" features felt like a standard sedan (the leather, the wood, etc). You are definitely paying for the tech. 4) What if someone hits you? How much compared to other cars does it cost to get repaired? The salesperson couldn't answer this. 5) The car is connected to 3G for maps (unless you upgrade) and at some point, you will be paying for this service. 6) You have to plan out where you power up for a trip longer than 200 miles...so annoying.
If you have the capacity or need for a fun, toy car at this price point...check out the Model S. I don't find it practical as a main car in the city.
[+] [-] spodek|13 years ago|reply
I like their business plan and focus on doing what they do well.
Their reviews mean something (even to someone like me who lives in Manhattan and doesn't drive).
[+] [-] i2oc|13 years ago|reply
Moreover I'm hoping that Tesla will challenge others in the industry to rethink their business model from the ground up. In 2013 why are we still replacing mufflers, why are using timing belts and not timing chains, and why is it that every time I walk into the dealership for a regular service I end up walking out with an even bigger bill than I expected? I get there is always wear and tear on a mechanical component but how many components are there in a typical car that are designed to fail to support an after market industry? I want a car built right and will pay more for that to avoid getting hooked into an industry that has become addicted to model year turnover revenue.
[+] [-] Spooky23|13 years ago|reply
You could literally buy a similar BMW or Audi and all of the gas that you would ever consume for a price much less than that of the Tesla. And without the limitations of an electric car. Is the driving experience that much better than the other high end luxury cars?
[+] [-] kgmpers|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|13 years ago|reply
Kudos for beating the other luxury guys.
[+] [-] codeulike|13 years ago|reply
edit: Up 27% on Nasdaq at 12:47 ET
[+] [-] pigou|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
Going to be hard to argue with consumer reports though they have gone astray a few times.
Now just make a model for half the price. In this decade.
[+] [-] slantyyz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdonelli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtucea|13 years ago|reply
1. High price
2. Low range
3. Inability to instantly recharge
(3) would be fixable by mechanically unloading the battery and loading a new charged one; not sure about the rest.
[+] [-] maeon3|13 years ago|reply
Answer here: http://home.bresnan.net/~cabreras/theboy.htm
[+] [-] CyberDroiD|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dopamean|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorvzakone|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] newbie12|13 years ago|reply