Tesla will become a case study on how to completely waste the first-mover advantage.<p>For many people, the very term EV itself is still ubiquitous to Tesla.<p>And somehow Tesla is still worth more than every other non-Chinese automaker combined. $1.5T.<p>GM? $80B. Stellantis? $40B. Toyota? $280B. Mercedes-Benz? $60B. BMW? $55B. Volkswagen Group? Also $55B.<p>I’m sure I’ve missed plenty of others, but I could miss some 18 $50B automakers, and Tesla would still be worth more than all of them combined.<p>If Tesla was valued fairly, it would probably be at the tune of $5B. But I’ll never bet against it, because the markets can remain irrational for longer than I can remain solvent. And for some unbeknownst to me reason, the markets value Tesla as a hot tech company, not a 3rd rate automaker, which is what it actually is.<p>And to add insult to injury, even GM Super Cruise is widely renowned as better and safer than Tesla’s current “FSD”.
> And to add insult to injury, even GM Super Cruise is widely renowned as better and safer than Tesla’s current “FSD”.<p>My Huyndai's Autopilot equivalent (I don't even know what they call it) is better than the enhanced Autopilot in the Model 3 that I traded in. It <i>actually changes lanes</i> when I put on the blinker, instead of only changing lanes 70% of the time, and the other time just sitting with the blinker on and a clear lane.
I did not know this and explains why I see so many teslas with their blinkers on and not maneuvering despite having ample room and time. Ultimately this behavior makes them unsafe for their occupants as well as others around them.<p>Cars only work because we can predict driver behavior, if they break that prediction that’s when bad things are likely to happen…<p>Lately I’ve started to ignore Tesla blinker.
> If Tesla was valued fairly<p>I think it's a wrong mental model to think of stock market value as "fair" or "unfair" (or maybe it's just me thinking of "unfair" when I see the word "fair").<p>My impression is that if Tesla would be valued based on quantifiable things it would be much much lower (production costs, competition, revenues, potential, etc.). Of course, you shouldn't value something only based on quantifiable things, but in Tesla the "wishful thinking" part seems to be much larger than for others.
I assume OP meant something closer to "fair market value" than "fair vs. unfair." Tesla is not priced according to its underlying assets or technical analysis (e.g. P/E ratio), but solely based on hype/sentiment.<p>Interestingly, retail investors and company insiders collectively own more of Tesla than institutional investors.
I think you're totally wrong on this. Tesla didn't waste the first mover advantage. They benefitted from it whilst it existed, but Electric vehicles turned into a commodity, which was entirely expected and there's no moat.<p>You've explained yourself why it would be untenable for Musk to pursue becoming the biggest car manufacturer in the world - if he succeeded in that goal... he would have succeded in shrinking the value of the company significantly.<p>It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.
Tesla's original "secret plan" (published on their website) was to become a commodity car manufacturer faster than electric cars became a commodity. Such that the other manufacturers would find them selling obsolete vehicles and Tesla just <i>becomes</i> the new General Motors.<p>This was the justification for their stock price for quite a few years: "It's logical that Tesla is worth more than all other automakers combined because it will soon be the only automaker."<p>Then in 2022 Elon basically admitted that they couldn't win on production and had to continue to win on technology and they'd do that with self driving. [<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-worth-basically-zero-without-self-driving-2022-6?op=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-worth-basica...</a>]<p>But now Tesla is way behind on self driving (which was oversold by the whole industry tbh). So what's their new plan? Now they're no longer a car company and will make robots!
> It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.<p>But it's make-believe. Tesla is a car manufacturer. They haven't shipped anything else other than cars. And they even suck at making cars these days. Tesla Semi? All but dead. The new roadster? Also dead. Full Self Driving? Doesn't exist. Robotaxis? Even if they got them to work, at this point the brand is too toxic for widespread adoption of those.<p>They could have persisted at being a disruptive car manufacturer and still held a several hundred billion dollar valuation. Now they are a very mediocre car manufacturer, with their only actual success being conning everyone into believing that they are a bleeding-edge tech company so their $1.5Bn valuation seems justified.
A quick search verified they also manufactured batteries, solar modules, and solar shingles.
I know it’s popular to hate on Elon and therefore Tesla, but you need to be accurate when doing so. They’re still chipping away.<p>> <i>Tesla Semi?All but dead.</i><p>They’ve been running a pilot all this time, and the factory in Nevada to mass produce them is on schedule. Production ramp is second half of this year.
The factory is ginormous.<p>> <i>The new roadster? Also dead.</i><p>Elon said yesterday the unveil is in April “hopefully”<p>> <i>Full Self Driving? Doesn't exist. Robotaxis?</i><p>Cars are driving passengers around Austin now with nobody in either front seat.<p>It takes automakers almost a decade to bring a new vehicle online, Elon just does it all publicly while everyone else doesn’t take the wraps off until the final 6 months.<p>Obviously everything is way behind elons hype timelines, but I do still think it’s all coming.
Pure logic would dictate that Tesla has a market cap of around $5B. It's actually fraudulent that it's not, and for some reason the SEC allows Musk to lie on every earnings call without repercussion.
Why is making humanoid robots a moat? Other companies have been making robots for longer, humanoid and otherwise, and doing it better.<p>Has Optimus signed up for any sports yet: <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/02/china/china-humanoid-robot-sports-intl-hnk-dst" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/02/china/china-humanoid-robo...</a><p>Is Optimus close to what Boston Dynamics is doing with Atlas: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIhzUnvi7Fw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIhzUnvi7Fw</a>
Everything tends toward commodification in a hyper-competitive, hyper-connected world. The only variable is time... and this "time" keeps shrinking.<p>As commodification accelerates, consolidation follows. In the current landscape, where private capital and state power are deeply entangled under the banner of national security, this consolidation no longer stays economic. It becomes geopolitical.<p>The end result... it translates to not just corporate monopolies, but geo-monopolies... enforced not by markets alone, but by coercion, conflict, and control over resources.
> > It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.<p>You can pursue everything with words, even you can pursue Sydney Sweeney but then you have to show the receipts.<p>The receipts of Tesla (Factories, lines of production, expertise of people hired, 25 years of history...) are one of car company.<p>But of course, it's all narrative so people will keep outbidding each other to own a piece of this company.<p>The financialization of hope, that's what it is.
Bingo.
Tesla benefited from tax payer subsidies.
Trust me, I hate Tesla and Elon as much as the next naysayer<p>But just to keep the story straight<p>Tesla received ~$3 billion in subsidies.<p>When Elon exercised his Tesla options in 2021, he paid $11 billion in taxes on it.<p>By all accounts those subsidies were an incredibly good use of taxpayer money, and similar subsidies should keep being handed out, even if the byproduct is another big troll on twitter.
That's true for a lot of (most?) car manufacturers?<p>I fully agree that TSLA is madly overpriced as a car company, and too hyped as any other type of company.
An important question is therefore: why didn't anyone else?
Because others started developing EVs when it made sense.
Tesla was basically a start up, high risk business.
Established auto makers didn't wanna burn the money on something that may not succeed. In hindsight it's easy to say it was a bad move but from risk assessment point of view it made sense. Hell, some legacy automakers are reducing EV production because of how uncertain the market is (for whatever reason)
Of course they did.
That valuation is sure interesting considering the people killed in crashes from Tesla's self-driving thing<p>Edit: I love making legitimate points and instantly accruing downvotes from 'Valley VC types. Look yourself in the mirror.
A genuine question, what are the use cases for Tesla's Optimus robots? Are they consumer products that help with household chores, industrial robots for warehouses or manufacturing, a play toy, something else?
> A genuine question, what are the use cases for Tesla's Optimus robots? Are they consumer products that help with household chores, industrial robots for warehouses or manufacturing, a play toy, something else?<p>Convincing investors to buy and hold Tesla, because of the vague promise of some great technological innovation being just around the corner. Electric cars and partially automated driving don't serve that purpose anymore.
>A genuine question, what are the use cases for Tesla's Optimus robots?<p>A longer horizon promise of multi-trillion dollar wealth generation for Tesla.<p>As the whole robotaxi thing is starting to fizzle, Elon has quite notably talked more and more about how actually Optimus is the true gem of Tesla.
They are one of several memetic devices which keep Tesla’s stock price in orbit, untethered from reality.
If they actually work (and I’m not saying for one second they will), they’re intended to be all those.<p>I have no doubt there will be many tens of millions of them, it’s just a question of when. 5 years? 10? 50?
The next shoe to drop will be shifting Model Y production from Fremont to Austin. Fremont will make Model 3s. Austin will make Model Ys and Robotaxis/2s. Cybertruck will be canceled. None of the Tesla plants will be making robots at any scale for many years.
Do you expect the demand for Tesla's robotaxis to be high? I don't see it.
If they actually worked right now, the demand would be high. Demand is certainly high for Waymos. Even if they worked worse than a Waymo I think the demand would still be very high. But it's hard to tell if (or when) it will work well enough to actually be a real product.
The question is what 'high' means in context of revenue.<p>Uber, the globally available taxi company, is valued 8 times less than tesla. If you are now able to kill all the costs for the taxi driving and reduce the cost for the car also, how much revenue is left?<p>Robotaxi has to be cheaper than a normal taxi to kill taxis. The margin of that company can't be that much more than a company like uber.<p>And uber itself will also invest in this, as every other car company. XPeng and co everyone who is building or working on this, will not just idly looking and waiting for tesla to just take 'whatever this cake' will look like.<p>For me it becomes a complet game changer if it becomes so reliable so extrem reliable, that i can order a car at night, a fresh bed / couch is then in the car and i can lie down while it drives me a few hundred kilometers away.
>Robotaxi has to be cheaper than a normal taxi to kill taxis. The margin of that company can't be that much more than a company like uber.<p>This just isn't true. If you're a woman, choosing a slightly more expensive robotaxi over a ride share where you might meet your end is a valid choice.
> has to be cheaper than a normal taxi<p>... plus 24/7 shifts of human drivers
that's why I said "Tesla's robotaxis".<p>They have not proven they are waymo level or near it, or that they will ever be there given the lack of lidar.
I don't see the demand for their robots to be high either tbh, but they're betting on them. It's not going to work.
Of course it will be high. Transit is a huge market. They would just need a small share of Uber, lyft, regular taxis, public transit.
Tesla is already valued 9x higher than uber.<p>Uber makes money on every ride.<p>Teslas Robotaxi has to be cheaper than a taxi with a human and i don't think they will be able to have a lot higher revenue per ride than uber. Not 9x<p>And if Tesla starts to deliver a robotaxi, all of this revenue has to be shared between taxis, uber, Tesla, Waimo, Zoox, Rimac, Cruise, Baidu, WeRide, ...<p>So how huge is the market for Tesla to be valuated 9x higher than Uber?<p>We can even combine a big car company, a robotics company, a solar roof company, battery storage company, ETruck and a robotaxi company and STILL don't get to the same valuation than Tesla currently has.<p>Teslas share price is math for stupid people.
>Uber, lyft, regular taxis<p>Waymo is already there, just needs to scale and they are already cooperating with Uber.<p>>public transit<p>Unless Musk develops the shrink ray it will never compete with actual high throughput public transit, for the same reason if jets flew themselves we wouldn't commute by air. The cost of drivers per fare is less than in a private car, so the benefits for a bus are lesser. Modern metros are already autonomous.
Private taxis don't compete with public transit. They operate in completely different spheres
It would be high if it worked, but it doesn't.
demand for any robotaxis will be high. Just look at the number of Uber drivers whom the robotaxis will replace. Plus leased robotaxis or personal/reserved ones - whatever shape it'd take replacing at least some percentage of personal cars.<p>There is only a "small" issue - to make those robotaxis, i.e. the self-driving system for them. Almost 20 years in, Google/Waymo is way ahead of everybody and is still not there yet (i believe we will get there anyday now - which maybe next year or in 10 years - especially giving all the avalanche of investment in AI. Though i'd have expected that 4+ years in we'd see a lot of autonomous platforms/weapons in Ukraine, yet it hasn't happen too yet)
Why would cybertruck be cancelled?
> Why would cybertruck be cancelled?<p>IIRC, the fully-electric F150 Lighting was canceled due to poor sales, <i>and its sales were better than the Cybertruck's</i>.
it's one of their models i would like for them to succeed the most. americans love trucks (especially where i live), and the impact of electric truck replacing ice ones on the gestalt of the neighborhood is significant, no noise, no fumes. people tend to drive their electric cars/trucks more gently too. my neighbor bought one, and it's night and day.<p>and oddly enough, while i kneejerk hated it at first, the design has grown on me, something genuinely different, playful. much rather see a parked cybertruck than yet another oversized bloated "regular" truck.
I have bemoaned the sameness of car design these days. To the Cybertruck I say, thank you for trying something different!<p>But not like that.<p>(Also, the problem <i>is</i> "Americans love trucks"—the Cybertruck doesn't solve that. It's still just a lethal grocery-getter in suburbia where the Cybertruck was only going to sell anyway. I'd sooner get behind the new golf-cart craze in suburbia—let them drive their golf carts to Costco.)
<i>> people tend to drive their electric cars/trucks more gently too</i><p>Really? I tend to see much more aggressive acceleration from people in electric cars (including myself when I'm driving, though I try not to). I've been putting it down to people being used to how gas cars seem to be working harder when you ask them to accelerate heavily, while electric just goes with no complaints.
In what world is the Cybertruck not "oversized" and "bloated". It has roughly the same footprint as an F150.
Lower than expected sales <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-sales-elon-musk/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-sales-elon-mus...</a>
Because it's selling terribly: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cybertruck-sales-decline-tesla-elon-musk-cox-automotive-data-2026-1" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/cybertruck-sales-decline-tes...</a>
I can't remember when was the last S/X refresh. It's nuts they just let it go stale and shut the factory down.
The refresh would need large investment. And it seems that S/X weren't selling that well to warrant such an investment. Just looking around - SV, a key market for Tesla - everybody buys 3 and Y, not S and X. In some sense it seems that 3/Y cannibalized S/X.
I don't know if it's genius or madness, but all of Tesla's cars look the same. When I see a Tesla, I can't tell if it's a 3, S, X, or Y unless I get close. The most distinct one is the X with its fancy doors.<p>So when I hear they're cancelling the S and X I can't even picture which cars we're talking about.
While that's true, S/X were considered luxury vehicles, 3/Y mainstream and they far, FAR outsold the S/X. In most cases, volume trumps individual prices.<p>Of course, that doesn't mean they <i>had</i> to discontinue those lines.
The problem is just there is no concept of a car company where they only sell their standard mass market vehicles. Somewhat more expensive higher margin vehicles are in the lineup for almost all the other companies. Its kind of strange to suggest its not worth it when it is seemingly worth it for most other companies.<p>Maybe the wisdom of having a 'full lineup' is wrong and has to do with making dealers happy.<p>On the other hand, having 99% of your sales be 2 very similar vehicles seems questionable strategy.
Tesla got the job done, which was empower Musk, not manufacture EVs at scale. The stock is the product.
Maybe I’m just naive enough, because I love cars and progress, but I think you agree that he really showed our whole small world that EV can exist and work. Everyone laughed, no one believed it will work and here he still is rich and we have Teslas everywhere. Driving, not killing more people than other brands.
> The stock is the product.<p>Musk reeks of scam. But for a stock pump and dumb scheme there sure are a lot of teslas on the road.
While you're correct on the one hand, Tesla made EVs feasible and mainstream, did the investments and caused a rolling effect of worldwide investments in e.g. batteries and EVs, and government subsidies that also made investing in EVs more attractive to competitors.<p>Besides EVs, Tesla's long term revenue could very well be in the supercharger network, too. It's not as exciting as self driving cars, but the oil companies have been the most valuable companies / stocks worldwide without being exciting like that. I mean I don't think EV charging will be anywhere near as big as oil because it doesn't involve nearly as much infrastructure or international trade, but it's still big, especially if governments refocus on replacing ICEs with EVs.<p>(the focus has been let go because the subsidies were too popular and expensive)
Has it all really been just one giant grift to steal every Americans social security number.
Musk's goal all along was to get away from boutique production. He wants to sell millions of cheaper cars, not thousands of cars for wealthy people.<p>Not sure it's going to work out. Without some big jumps in battery tech, EVs are going to be difficult to sell without subsidies.
> Without some big jumps in battery tech, EVs are going to be difficult to sell without subsidies.<p>The actual sales figures show otherwise, but sure, there's still a lot of uncertainty with regards to batteries / range, I can imagine even moreso in the US. Traveled to Austria a while ago in an EV (~1000 kilometers), we had to stop 3x on the way, but the battery was good for another 2.5 hours of driving after a coffee. I keep hearing that "solid state batteries are around the corner" and they will solve all problems with capacity and safety / fire risk, apparently. I'll just sit and wait patiently, it'll take years before their production capacity is on par with current battery tech.
Musk would love to be selling several billion dollars per year of model S/X sales, the issue is they aren’t that competitive with other cars in the luxury segment thus the falling sales numbers.<p>Tesla’s doesn’t really have a complex strategy at this point, they are getting squeezed out of the high end by legacy automakers where their lower cost batteries don’t matter as much. They are absolutely fucked on the low end as soon as Chinese cars enter the picture.<p>So self driving is really the only option to sell any long term upside to keep the stock from tanking. It’s not a very convincing argument, but you play the hand your dealt.
> getting squeezed out of the high end by legacy automakers where their lower cost batteries don’t matter as much. They are absolutely fucked on the low end as soon as Chinese cars enter the picture.<p>The deep irony here is that after ~15 years of trying ti differentiate from the legacy American automakers, they land in a very similar competitive position. Chinese EVs are in the process of running the table outside the protectionist markets of the EU + US/Canada.<p>Eventually those protective barriers will fall as they protect a relatively small number of citizens by taxing the majority. It remains to be seen whether the US and European domestic producers will survive.
You may have to play the hand you have, but Musk was the dealer and he is <i>still</i> losing.
What's their competition on the high end? Porsche, Cadillac? Do Rivian or Genesis count?
If they are eating into model X or S sales it obviously counts here.<p>Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Genesis, and Cadillac are all competitive in different ways. Stat wise someone buying the electric G-Wagon is making a poor decision, but swagger is a selling point which very much costs Tesla sales.<p>Cadillac’s approach of a huge dumb battery powering a huge heavy vehicle may not be ideal for the average use case, but customers are going to prioritize different things. One SUV just can’t be the best solution to every lifestyle.
Audi and Mercedes? (Well in Europe where the highend Teslas barely had any sales anywya, at least). Porsche is probably a tier or so above
Lucid runs circles around the S when it comes to build quality and features.
And yet Chinese EV's are flying out of their factories, well, a few are - most are self driving out to the shipping yards.<p>This despite the 2025 support by the Chinese state for the Chines EV industry now being almost nothing.<p><pre><code> By contrast, defenders of China could point out that the data show that subsidies as a percentage of total sales have declined substantially, from over 40% in the early years to only 11.5% in 2023, which reflects a pattern in line with heavier support for infant industries, then a gradual reduction as they mature.
In addition, they could note that the average support per vehicle has fallen from $13,860 in 2018 to just under $4,600 in 2023, which is less than the $7,500 credit that goes to buyers of qualifying vehicles as part of the U.S.’s Inflation Reduction Act.
</code></pre>
Old source: <a href="https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dilemma-subsidized-yet-striking" rel="nofollow">https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil...</a><p>but the arc of less subsidies is clear.
You should also factor in lax human rights enforcement in China (which acts like a subsidy essentially in effect and is not factored in these calculations):<p><a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/human-rights-ranking-electric-vehicle-industry/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/human-rights-...</a><p>BYD is at the bottom of the list (worst for human rights). Tesla is second at the top (better for human rights).
You'd expect subsidies to drop as supply chains mature and economies of scale kick in. What about subsidies to inputs like electricity, aluminum, batteries, etc?
> He wants to sell millions of cheaper cars, not thousands of cars for wealthy people.<p>Why hasn't the cheap car been designed yet then?
> Musk's goal all along was to get away from boutique production. He wants to sell millions of cheaper cars, not thousands of cars for wealthy people.<p>So the literal opposite of the Cybertruck, which was released less than a year ago.
Agreed, let alone 1M units a year!
My dad found it extremely amusing that Elon said "we just have to solve the 'AI problem' and we'll have robots doing shopping for us", or something like that. I can't remember the exact verbiage, but that was the gist.<p>The word "just" is doing a lot of work there. Going by that logic: We "just" need to figure out cold fusion to have effectively infinite energy. We "just" need to develop warp drives to travel across the galaxy. We "just" need to figure out the chemo problem to cure cancer.
It is like me at the climbing gym: "This problem is too hard for me, let's work on a harder one instead, then I at least look cool while failing."<p>"Since we failed on self-driving since 2016, robotaxis since 2020 (1 million on the road), and ASI since 2023, we might as well start on failing on robots now".
I find it amusing listening to his Q1 earnings calls; every year the same exact blabber of robots everywhere 'end of the year', self driving tesla's everywhere after the summer, mars next year etc. Every Bloody Year. The <i>real</i> clever thing of this guy, no matter how smart/not/nazi/whatever he is, is the fact that investors KEEP throwing money in even though the major ones <i>are</i> on those earning calls every year for a decade already <i>and</i> of course that these stocks are not cratering.<p>But I recommend listening to those calls, start 5 years back; because on reddit but also here, you get wide eyed awestruck people who say 'ow optimus is december this year! ow self driving everything in september!'.
And why would we even need or want robots shopping for us? I mean, most of us. For some disabled individuals it could be a benefit. For everyone else, it seems like the height of laziness and absurdity.
Its classic Elon over-promising. Problem with robots is that they are useless without AI, while cars can be driven by a human, so as long as controls work and range is good they are viable
Interview in Davos. The “right” has the same touch than the “just” here:<p>> MUSK: Yeah. But I think self-driving cars is essentially a solved problem at this point, right? And Tesla’s rolled out a sort of robo-taxi service in a few cities, and will be very, very widespread by the end of this year within the U.S. And then we hope to get supervised full self-driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.<p>Source: <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgifEgm1-e0" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgifEgm1-e0</a>
It's amazing how much hand-waving rich people are allowed to get away with. If I tried that people would (correctly) call bullshit.
Ah, see, no, and this is why you'll never be rich^. The rich people don't <i>ever</i> listen to that "if I tried that people would call bullshit" voice. They just try it. And try it again. And keep trying it. And then they become CEOs or President or whatever. They literally just keep doing it. It doesn't matter how untethered what they're saying is from reality. It doesn't matter that it's pure bullshit. They just keep going and pick up enough followers and the rest snowballs from there. Twas ever thus. How do you think every cult or religion to every form has come about? How do you think every dictator has come to power? They vehemently, psychotically ignored "if I tried that" and just tried it and kept repeating it until the cognitive dissonance wore down into oblivion and the pathological washed over them.<p><i>^Sociopathic rich, I mean. I'm sure you're doing fine.</i>
I don't dispute any of that; I really hate plugging my own stuff but I actually wrote a blog post about a similar topic last night [1]. TL;DR Billionaires are sociopaths who act sociopathic and then define anything that doesn't benefit their sociopathy as a "disorder".<p>It's not that I'm surprised that they constantly lie, I'm just surprised anyone <i>falls</i> for it. Like, we were supposed to have "full self driving by next year", every year as far back as 2018, if I remember correctly. You'd think after the third time that FSD didn't happen, people would say "maybe this guy is actually full of shit".<p>[1] <a href="https://blog.tombert.com/Posts/Personal/2026/01-January/What-is-a-Disorder" rel="nofollow">https://blog.tombert.com/Posts/Personal/2026/01-January/What...</a>
<i>MUSK: Yeah. But I think self-driving cars is essentially a solved problem at this point, right? And Tesla’s rolled out a sort of robo-taxi service in a few cities, and will be very, very widespread by the end of this year within the U.S.</i><p>He said that would happen in 2025. And probably earlier, too.
I am also certain given time this problem is achievable but the problem is what we expect after that ????? mass unemployment or we just convert all human into robot repairer ???? what the end goal there
Basically yes. The robots take care of the rich, and poor people with their need to have a cut of the resources just go away.<p>They do believe in a post capitalism utopia, they just think only about a thousand people need to enjoy it.
We "just" need to figure out the terraforming problem then we can all move to Mars and be interplanetary explorers. Imagine how cool it would be to have corporate leaders who had vision--environmentally friendly automobiles, cheap space travel, etc.--without the clammy snake oil grifter bullshit. Reality is <i>cool AF</i>. The things that are <i>actually achievable</i> are amazing. We don't need to spout nonsense to do great things. We don't need "AGI" (whatever that might be) to do neat things with machine learning. The Jetsons is a <i>cartoon</i>. Trying to make it real is dumb.
The Mars obsession absolutely blows me away. Like, he's obviously read KSR's Red Mars. He's obviously aware of the conditions out there. Mars is a fuckin' <i>bummer</i>. It is absolutely hostile to human life. Sure, we'll land people there, and maybe set up some sort of station if we really want to throw a few trillion dollars away from actual problems here on earth... but it's not going to be pleasant. Not anytime, ever. The gravity sucks. The dust and fines suck. The storms suck. And last for <i>months</i>. The temperatures suck. There's no "outside". There's no trivial way to generate power at scale. There's no magnetosphere, so you'll get cancer. The soil is poisonous.<p>Elon's stuck with this 12-year-old-boy absurdity about "becoming interplanetary to save the species" as if Mars could ever be a practical lifeboat when we inevitably drive the planet into the ground or a meteor hits. It's... absurd, puerile fantasy.
The guy owns a rocket company and still hasn't even been to LEO. <i>Katy Perry</i> has spent more time in space than Elon.<p>Mars isn't happening, at least not on his watch.
Doing such seemingly impossible things have been what humans have been doing. The tech developed for Mars would definitely influence our Earth society. Hard to say how and when, but it has been historically the case. I think instead of spending billions on election influence campaign, spending that on Mars has a better impact to society.
>he's obviously read KSR's Red Mars<p>If he had, he was clearly not paying attention to the social and economic message of the book.
That’s the point. Don’t listen, keep trying and you can achieve anything. Rich people are either bored or stupid so you will get money eventually.
I think there's value in space exploration even for its own sake, but I think it's utterly idiotic to think that we're going to realistically be able to terraform Mars in the next century if ever.<p>Even if I do think it's worth exploring space, including Mars, I think it's silly to assume that it's going to be a way to guarantee the permanence of humanity.
we need AGI and robot so people can leave chore in house to a robot
Yeah I don't buy this announcement. Converting their huge Fremont facility to just making humanoid robots? Do they have some large buyer or something? I'm skeptical.
I suspect it's going dormant for a couple years and then he'll say "Hey, this robot thing isn't working out, so we're closing the facility." He doesn't have any desire to stay in California.
A reasonable guess.<p>As far as I can tell, the number of humanoid robots doing anything productive is zero. It's all demos.<p>This is far harder than self-driving. As a guy from Waymo once said in a talk, "the output is only two numbers" (speed and steering angle).<p>Also, there are at least 18 humanoid robots good enough to have a Youtube video. Tesla is not the leader.<p>Remember the "cobot" boom of about five years ago? Easy to train and use industrial robots safe around humans? Anybody?<p>I'm not saying this is impossible, but that it's too early for volume production. This will probably take as long as it took to get to real robotaxis.
> Also, there are at least 18 humanoid robots good enough to have a Youtube video.<p>Agreed, thing is the robot hardware isn't the hard part anymore, the top ten robots are all sufficient to be transformative if they had good enough AI.<p>My bet is on Google/Gemini being the first to market from what I've seen so far.<p>Boston dynamics is a leader in getting robots to do useful niche work in well bounded environments, but that's yesterday's news.
The story needs only to hold up until car production has shut down.
S and X were a small fraction of Fremont already. The plant can do >500k units per year, but S/X were closer to 20k.<p>It sounds like this would be giving ~5% of the factory space to Optimus production, which seems reasonable.
they have a large buyer - <i>all</i> of the silly people investing money in the company
[flagged]
IF they work (and that is a massive, massive if), every factory on earth will replace every human with them.<p>It’s inevitable, the only question is how many years until it happens: 2, 5, 10, 50?<p>Place your bets!
Tesla is a meme stock in a similar manner to GME. You cannot bet against them even if they have incredibly unsure future prospectives because there are too many believers who will buy any dips.
That might be a little extreme. Tesla is making electric cars and robots. These are very much things of the future.<p>GameStop is buying and selling used games, which is becoming impossible as consoles keep pushing for digital games.<p>GameStop requires a major shift in their business model to stay relevant, while Tesla just needs to hope the public doesn’t reject the idea of electrics cars out of stubbornness or politics.<p>While there is a lot of hype baked into both stocks, it seems like hype with Tesla is founded in more reality than the GameStop hype.
Didn’t they just announce their profits dropped like 45% year over a year?<p><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/28/tesla-earnings-profit-q4-2025/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/28/tesla-earnings-profit-q4-2...</a><p>They’ve been overvalued for a very very long time. And then the head of the company decided to alienate as many people as possible. All while pouring a ton of resources into a product that very few people want instead of saner things.
Electric cars, maybe. Tesla is valued much larger than the rest of the auto industry combined though.<p>Humanoid robots? Ain’t nobody made the business case for that. It is pure vibes.
Are you seriously saying there is no business case for humanoid robots?
I think the technology is just not there to make the business case for humanoid robots. It’s like the VR. Everyone would like to use VR but the tech is just not good enough. Same with FSD. The robots may be 10-20 years away from actual being good enough. If Elon can trick people for 20 years like he did with FSD then he may have a business case for humanoid robots
I always wonder why those robots have to be humanoid.<p>I swear I don't need a humanoid robot, give me a proper autonomous robot that cleans your house and I'm more than happy. Could be 40 cm tall, and look like a box, I don't care.
1. The world is designed for humans. If you need to reach the places humans reach then you need to be the same size as a human.<p>2. Nature has tested many different form factors and the human form dominated the others.
But this is all based on the idea we need generic robots when we really need specialized ones.<p>It's like skipping making kitchen blenders and vacuum cleaners and instead building a robot that will be mixing stuff manually or using a broom.<p>Manufacturing, where 90% of the process is generally automated has countless specialized ones. It would not make sense to put generic ones there, because humans really are doing very specific work in manufacturing.
I agree there's a great market for specialized ones. I own some of those, like a vacuum bot.<p>But the generic robot is the endgame. I think Musk tries to achieve the endgame, probably too soon. FSD, interplanetary travel, etc
instead, sub 12cm disc shaped ones are rather well understood and perform well. They suck opening doors though - but the 40cm one would have a similar issue.<p>Besides that: I, personally, am totally fine with the current state of the technology.
I have no particular idea whether there's a business case for humanoid robots or not. I would love to have the argument set out well. Perhaps you'd indulge my curiosity.
I don't understand why my question was so controversial. Oftentimes on this website I feel like everyone is tapped into some polarizing news source that I am not, and so when I ask some (to my mind) benign question it's actually a secret tripwire that everyone is super polarized on and so rather than engaging in my question they all just tell me I am a moron. But I am seriously just asking a question here.<p>My layman's opinion is that I would happily pay a lot of money to have a robot help me around the house: fold my clothes, do the dishes, whatever dumb menial labor. That seems like a business case to me, unless someone is going to tell me I'm the only one in the world who could want that (but I doubt it).<p>OP said:<p>> Humanoid robots? Ain’t nobody made the business case for that. It is pure vibes.<p>I can't make sense of this. Are you really telling me you wouldn't pay any amount of money to do menial housework? If not, why not?
And another thought: if the robot can do housework, can it do factory work? Fieldwork? Lawn care? What else can it do with zero modifications?<p>That expands the market greatly.
> My layman's opinion is that I would happily pay a lot of money to have a robot help me around the house: fold my clothes, do the dishes, whatever dumb menial labor. That seems like a business case to me, unless someone is going to tell me I'm the only one in the world who could want that (but I doubt it).<p>The day that:<p>- displaced workforce issue is solved<p>- they cost less than 20k everything included, base model<p>- do all the processing locally in their HW<p>- are smaller and lighter than a human being (but can reach higher places)<p>- last 10 years at least<p>I will definitely buy one. I don't think I'm going to see this in my lifetime though (I'm in my 40's).
No, I wouldn’t.<p>For one, I don’t spend a lot of time doing housework. Just organize your life better.<p>Beyond that, the cost would not be small. Based on current designs, operating costs would be thousands of dollars per month. I would not pay that.<p>It would require a cloud controlled robot with cameras in my home. Why in the world would I want that.<p>Finally, I already have dishwashers and laundry machines.
Why thousands per month?<p>Why would cloud connectivity be required? (I'm almost certain you're right, the big makers will require cloud--but that's not a requirement of the tech, is it?)
> Are you really telling me you wouldn't pay any amount of money to do menial housework? If not, why not?<p>This is called having a live-in maid or a cleaning service. Even in the first-world, where there isn't a disfranchised rural population to provide cheap labor to the middle class (e.g. Philippines, most of LATAM 20 years ago) the service will be cheaper than the price of a vaporware bot [0]. Now, you might say the droid is cheaper if you want a live-in maid in HCOL area, but have in mind that this thing barely can fold clothes and fill a dishwasher (an actual domestic bot). Also it sometimes is actually a dude controlling it remotely.<p>We would need bots of the level of that awful I Robot movie with Will Smith.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.1x.tech/order" rel="nofollow">https://www.1x.tech/order</a>
Do you already pay a human to do this work?
You couldn't pay me any amount of money to have a robot in my home if it's controlled from Elon Musk's data center.<p>And I'm a former Tesla FSD customer, so I should be the ideal early adopter for this product.
You would pay "a lot of money"?<p>Like, more than the cost of your house? For something that can't do those things right and has to be supervised? To a company that can't deliver product on time?
> My layman's opinion is that I would happily pay a lot of money to have a robot help me around the house: fold my clothes, do the dishes, whatever dumb menial labor.<p>Then why don't you hire a helper for that?
You just said you'd pay a lot of money, so money doesn't seem to be an issue. What is then?
I can't speak for the other guy, but as a person who manages humans at work: I'd rather have a robot at home.<p>1) I live way, way out in the middle of nowhere.<p>2) Humans are fickle, late, emotional. They have requirements in their own life that conflict with the jobs I want them to do.<p>3) Taxes. I don't want to deal with this headache. 1099 my cleaner or whatever?<p>4) In my version, the costs of owning the robot are less than the costs of hiring humans. If that wasn't true, then I'd reconsider. I probably wouldn't buy one until the cost switched like that, unless maybe it was open-source or something.<p>Here's another way to think about it: Amazon is willing to pay workers to do the job, but they'd obviously rather have the robots do it. The robots work close to free, don't complain, and probably do a better job (at the jobs they're capable of). Why wouldn't they hire a human for that? A lot of the same reasons.
> Are you really telling me you wouldn't pay any amount of money to do menial housework? If not, why not?<p>Do you own a Roomba? I don't. It's a huge liability and doesn't do the cleaning I want out of it, even at a sub-$1000 price point. The humanoid robot is clunkier, more of a liability, and will still refuse to do certain tasks.
The business case for humanoid robots is simple... for lack of a better term, they're robot slaves. Companies or governments can buy them once, pay relatively minimal maintenance fees, and have an army of workers that don't need a salary, never take breaks, never complain, never unionize, and do things faster and more accurately than most humans ever will. Any company that can move to robots, will move to robots.<p>Imagine the profits companies will have when they can eliminate, or drastically reduce, their single largest expense... payroll. Not only the base pay, but 401K match, insurance, payroll taxes, etc. Poof... gone.
I agree with everything you've said. To me the next question is: If nobody has a job, who will buy all the robot-produced goods?
Some people will have jobs, even in the most robot-heavy vision.<p>I don't know if it's enough people to buy the goods, but robot-produced goods should bottom out on price, closing in on the actual cost of materials/energy.
But why are they in humanoid form? Wheels are more efficient than legs, they have no need for a face. It sure does sound like vibes
The part that often gets left unsaid or glossed over is what the transition period looks like. At most we get some Underpants Gnomes claim about unlimited abundance without actually engaging with the substance of what happens if this technology gets built and deployed. What do you imagine the political and economic impact will be if a huge portion of the population is left without jobs and the political reality hasn't caught up to the speed with which the technology gets deployed?<p>Oh no, but Elon Musk tells us that out of the kindness of his heart we're going to have unlimited abundance. The same man responsible for taking away aid from thousands of the poorest people in the world through DOGE's interruption of PEPFAR and USAID.<p>With a single sentence from him, he could start saving thousands of lives without impacting his wealth in the slightest. He could do that right now.
Maybe there is. But isn’t Tesla way, way behind Hyundai at this? It’s not even close? Yet Hyundai’s stock is still very cheap..
Not for what they currently cost and are capable of.
No, I’m saying they haven’t made the case. Or at least the case that is being presented and sold to investors is complete BS.<p>For example, I work in deep tech and pay attention to the manufacturing industry. The idea that humanoid robots will replace, streamline and revolutionize manufacturing is a joke in that community. They’ve already long since replaced the humans with CNC machines, industrial (non-humanoid) robots, and 3d printing.<p>The humanoid robotics craze is a lot like the crypto craze. Pure vibes and motivated reasoning. Like crypto, there is actual value there, but way out of proportion to the hype.
I mean, forget the manufacturing industry. I'd happily pay a lot of money just to have one help me with menial tasks around the house. I mean, I'd probably pay thousands for a bot that could <i>just</i> do the laundry. Are you saying that such a market doesn't exist?
A robot vacuum costs thousands of dollars (will about a thousand) and they don't work very. There is no way that you are going to get a machine that is orders of magnitude more complex down to that price point any time soon.<p>A business case is not just a matter of a willing buyer. It is a buyer and a vendor who can agree on a price that works for both. You may have agreed but the physics of the matter mean that there is nobody to take the other side.
The market exists, does it make financial sense to fill it? Are there enough johnfns out there willing to buy enough of them at high enough of a price to justify the mind-boggling capital required, not to mention the opportunity cost?
If you make a $10,000 robot that can do all of the dishes every damned household with kids in any semi-rich country will get one. A very good portion of our night is spent cleaning up after supper with just two kids, and that's time we can't spend with them. I'd even pay a subscription on top of that $10,000.<p>If it does laundry too? We'd easily pay $20,000, and we don't have FAANG type salaries.
And imagine if you can share it with your neighbors.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishwasher" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishwasher</a>
Yeah, great. Except we need to unload the dishwasher every day, which takes a lot longer when you have all sorts of kid's cups and bottles. We also need to bring the dishes over, rinse them, put them in, wash the pots & pans by hand along with the high chair's detachable eating area, wash the table, wash the cooking area & counters, and then wash the sink.<p>A dishwasher saves a lot of time but it certainly doesn't save all of the time.
You could hire someone to clean your house today, you don't need to wait for a robot that might never exist. And it will probably be cheaper too!
How much does it cost to have them at your house every evening after dinner to do the dishes?<p>More than I can afford, I bet.
If the $10k robot only lasted 5 years that's a budget of $2k/yr. They have an expectation of someone cleaning most nights of the week. Cleaning services around me will typically charge ~$50/hr. Having someone come for ~2 hours 5x a week means $500/week. You'll blow your budget in four weeks. There are a lot more than four weeks in a year.<p>But let's be generous and suggest you'll actually get someone willing to come out for just one hour and work for half the pay of market rate. Sixteen weeks. Still far short of 52 weeks.
Do you have a double-digit number of kids? Because I've got one, and it takes about ten minutes.
You already have machines that do the laundry. Put clothes in, they come out clean. Have you ever tried manually washing clothes? All you have to do is take them out and fold them.
Next you’ll be telling me there’s a machine to wash your dishes.
For some reason I can't understand, you appear to be contorting yourself into making a totally bizarre argument (there is no valued in saved time whatsoever). You can't honestly believe that.
And yet such a HUGE amount of time is spent by families around the world (mine included) just moving laundry around in various states:<p>Dirty -> Sort It Yourself -> Plan Washing Chunks -> Load into Washing machine -> Yay It "Washed it For You" -> wet pile of clothes -> Unload it -> dryer -> Dryer "Dries" it For You -> Fold It Yourself -> Storage.<p>Now do this for a family with 2 kids that go to school. Washing is literally an hour or two of collective human time <i>every day</i>.<p>I'd pay money to rather spend that time with my kids instead of yet another useless daily chore that can be automated.<p>Now also apply the same logic to dishes, clearing up around the house, sorting cupboards, <i>Driving</i>!!, and a host of other things. The market is absolutely huge, and people are sticking their heads in the sand because they know that once this drops, humanity will reach an inflection point and all pointless manual labor will disappear, which means saying goodbye to cheap third world labor and only capital + raw resources + energy will be the only things holding back all scaling.
Humanoid robots are a lot of sizzle-- they promise all sorts of flexibility, at the cost of hugely higher cost/complexity/unreliability.<p>If you can scope your problem to some degree, you can probably make some purpose-built automation that won't look like a human, but will do the job competently and cheaply.<p>I see the demos with the robots carrying boxes and think "okay, why not just use a conveyer belt?"
Because, again, for home use we don't want a laundry robot, a dish washing robot, a cleaning robot, etc. We kind of have those (laundry machine, dishwasher, Roomba-types) but they all have big limitations. What people want is something that can do everything a human can do, so it can put away those dishes, wash a pan, clean the table, counters, etc. We've already scoped the problem and a humanoid-ish robot is probably the best option to do those things.
Well for home use you probably also want a robot that won’t accidentally murder your pet, injure your children, break itself and/or your prized possessions by doing the wrong thing, etc etc etc.<p>These are unsolved problems for robotics. There is a reason that most industrial robots work behind guards or in very constrained areas with use cases that are 100% on rails and stringently tested.<p>The idea that if you just make a robot in a human shape all these cease to be problems is magical thinking. We are fare from knowing that a humanoid-ish robot is the best option to do any of these things because we have no idea what it would take for it to do these things safely other than to say it would take technology that we currently don’t have.
The laundry bot would probably be a box with some some 6DOF chopstick like positioners doing “cloth origami” to fold clothes. No need for an overkill 2kW humanoid.
The market for that exist but the execution to get that product is beyond hard. Compare full self driving after all these years where are we? It’s still not a real thing. It’s still just a limited experiment. The cars have only speed and steering angle to manage. What do you think about “full self driving robots”? There is a business case for them but in the near term you cannot make one good enough for the tasks you want. Safety is a big issue on top of making the robot useful. You don’t want it hurt anyone.
I responded to someone saying "Ain’t nobody made the business case for that. It is pure vibes." When I point one out, all the responses shift the goal posts, as you are doing, to say execution is incredibly hard or Tesla is far behind or whatever. But that's not what I was saying, nor what I was responding to.
If you think our current tech stack is anywhere close to making humanoid robots viable, then you might as well buy Tesla stock.
There's a huge business case! There's also a major business case for teleportation, which seems about as likely to happen under a Musk-led company.
There was a "business case" for $25,000 EVs before China did it, and Tesla conveniently pivoted. It's 2026, anyone who's watching the game knows the score.
No, they're probably saying you're that believer that will buy the dip.
Tesla is valued at more than the auto industry because they are doing more than the entire auto industry.<p>Honda is going to come out with a new Civic next year. It's going to look like the old Civic.<p>Tesla is trying to create self driving taxis to make the rest of the auto industry obsolete.<p>If you think that can happen, they should be worth more than the rest of the industry.
> Tesla is trying to create self driving taxis to make the rest of the auto industry obsolete.<p>This is a pretty baffling take. Most people in the world operate their own cars, and even if taxis were free, a large portion of them would continue to operate their own cars because it's convenient.<p>Taxis also don't replace a good chunk of the new vehicle market. People driving fleet trucks aren't going to work out of taxis. The top selling vehicles in the USA are pickup trucks, and it isn't even close.<p>Lastly, even if they succeed, competition will catch up and the market will be saturated.<p>In 20 years, people will still be buying the humble Civic. While the next 20 years at Tesla will probably be a string of market failures and wacky promises of personal space craft or some shit.
> Lastly, even if they succeed, competition will catch up and the market will be saturated.<p>Waymo is already in the lead, and OEMs will be beating down Waymo's door to license a simplified Driver stack if L3 autonomy becomes a sales-driver (ha!)<p>Edit: Waymo already has strategic partnerships with Toyota and the Hyundai group, so OEMs are already further along this path than I thought
I didn't state my opinion at all. That's just why it's valued the way it is. People believe that it will be valuable, that's what an investment is.<p>I'm just offering a reasonable explanation for why people value it. Nobody has to agree.
> Tesla is trying to create self driving taxis to make the rest of the auto industry obsolete.<p>They are one of many organisations trying to do that and they are not the most successful at it.
Honda have been making humanoid robots since the 1980s.
Well, check Hyundai as well. They do more than cars as well including robots(Boston Dynamics). Tesla is not doing anything special. It was the only EV someone could use but it’s no longer the case. Now it tries to go the robots way but it’s not the same as the EV was. There are tones of humanoid robot companies, some more advanced than whatever Tesla is cooking
It can happen. Its unlikely Tesla will catch up to Waymo any time soon though. Yet valuation for Tesla (relative to how much money they are making) is massively higher than Google’s. Which would make very little sense following this logic?
We're missing a part of the case though: why do you need to be a car-maker to be the vanguard for self-driving taxis?<p>The best case scenario for a self-driving company would be to target software and sensor solution packages that they can sell or license to other manufacturers. Such a vendor can focus on the self-driving problem and not have to bother with things like "we found a surprisingly big market niche for a 11-passenger minibus, but no platform for it" or "to sell it in the EU we need the headlights to be 5cm lower". I'd expect the margins are also a hell of a lot higher if they don't have to include two tonnes of steel with each auto-driver license they sell.<p>Maybe they build a small number of test mules, or just chop-shop a few off-the-shelf cars as a R&D fleet, but they hardly need to be a seven-figures-per-year manufacturer to be supplying those needs.<p>That's even assuming they come out green in the competition to deliver robotaxis. Right now the leading player in the US market is a company who is neither Tesla nor a legacy vehicle manufacturer. It's an adtech who started gluing the contents of a Radio Shack onto the worst cars you could possibly think of (Chrysler Pacificas and Jaguar i-Paces? Really?) and turned it into something that's an everyday thing in several major cities.<p>Tesla FSD story reminds me of the fracas that was early OS/2. IBM sold people 286 hardware on the promise of it running OS/2, so they had to waste a lot of effort building a 286-capable OS/2 that was clunky and almost immediately obsolete. No matter how talented Tesla's R&D team are, they're walled in by design choices made on existing vehicles (i. e. relying on cameras instead of lidar). I wonder if they'd be better off being ran as an arm's length startup to address the problem more generically, and then they can sell it to other firms if it turns out that the best solution won't work on existing Tesla hardware.
They are actually behind in a lot of their self driving to other car companies
> These are very much things of the future.<p>I thought it was hyperloop. I thought it was suboribital taxis. I thought it was underground taxis. I thought it was self-driving semi trucks. Or was it solar roofs? Or powerwall? Wait weren't we supposed to be on the moon again right now?<p>He's a bullshitter. Yea, he picks good targets, but he is entirely full of shit. The market just does not reflect this. He should have been golden parachuted onto a yacht years ago.
Tesla's sales are standing still in a growing market. Are they GameStop? Maybe not, but they still require a major shift or their competitors will leave them behind in the dirt.
They are making things but the case for them being worth an order or magnitude more than a normal EV company is getting weaker by the day
This was true when Tesla was primarily in the market of making electric cars. It is not true if their business is humanoid robots: that's squarely meme stock territory.
Tesla's valuation is not related to their production of cars or robots.
tesla is not making robots.
The current administration is “rejecting the idea of electric cars out of stubbornness or politics.” See: Trump moving to withhold funding for EV chargers, terminating EV mandates and government support, etc. I don’t know what Musk is thinking by supporting this administration so steadfastly as they work hard to undermine his own efforts and initiatives.
I'm not making any specific assertions about what's in Musk's heart. I can draw some conclusions from his behaviors, actions, and words, but that's neither here nor there.<p>I will say, though, that there is a longstanding tradition, certainly in the United States, of an in group hurting their own material interests to deprive an out group of that same thing. <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/story/2021/02/15/public-pools-used-to-be-everywhere-in-america-then-racism-shut-them-down" rel="nofollow">https://www.marketplace.org/story/2021/02/15/public-pools-us...</a>
Musk got what he needed at the expense of losing some tax incentives for his customer base. He was able to shut down government investigations into him/his companies. That alone should have been worth quite a salary bump.
It's pure politics: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/general-motors-core-profit-rises-higher-demand-suvs-pickup-trucks-2026-01-27/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/genera...</a><p>The people behind the Diesel won and now are moving the money flows their way. See GM stock.
They are making no robots.<p>What robots are they making?<p>Where can you buy one? What does it do?
The only thing keeping Tesla afloat currently is tariffs and restrictions on far cheaper and far better foreign alternatives. That's not a solid foundation. It's certainly not a trillion dollar company.<p>The dam is breaking. We have Canada lowering tariffs and agreeing to allow the import of Chinese EVs (limited, at least to start with) and the US administration goes off on Canada for doing it because they know what it means: crumbling American influence.<p>South America, Africa and Asia are likely forever lost to Tesla. And European sales are tumbling.<p>The supercharger network will maintain some inertia for some time but only for so long.<p>You can see this in Tesla announcements about attempts to diversify. AI robots? I'll believe it when I see it. Robotaxis? Well you're reliant on FSD for that and you have stiff competition in Waymo and who knows what China is cooking up there.<p>The GP was correct: it's a meme stock. It's no longer an investment in a business. It's an investment in Elon and, more generally, an investment in the administration. There's no fundamental way to predict how that goes and on what time scale. If you want to gamble, gamble. But gamgling is what it is. And, just like Twitter, I guarantee you the people at the top won't be left holding the bag.
BYD makes electric cars. Not sure if Trump will let you import them.
You can on the betting market bet against Tesla reaching their ever moving goal posts. Those same meme stock holders are so sure that FSD will come by March that they are taking the bets.
> You cannot bet against them<p>I am not sure. I think buyers or potential buyers shifted their assessment of Tesla in the last, say, 1-2 years a lot.
There is no such thing as "meme stock." It's literally just how stock market is since forever. But every generation thinks they are so special that they have to coin new terms for the oldest things.
Historically bubbles like this hardly ever lasted this long, though
That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a meme stock, that means there have always been meme stocks and we now have a consice name for it
I was exactly going to shot Tesla. Is Tesla more like Elon meme ?
GME is a joke that got out of hand. TSLA is a cult that went too far.
The Elon hate is really creating a blind spot for many people here.<p>You can’t just compare Tesla to a meme stock when the founder’s side gig is launching and landing orbital rockets - a feat that even the most technologically advanced nation states have failed to accomplish.<p>Come on people, use a little critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking might ask how the valuation of company A has any relationship to the activity of a completely separate company B (planning for its own IPO)<p>But I will concede the founder's <i>other</i> side gigs would appear to have significantly affected its sales
Multiple things can be true:<p>1. SpaceX was an exceptionally well-executed good idea, and continues to be a leader in innovation.<p>2. Tesla brought EVs to the mass consumer market and proved the profitability of EVs.<p>3. Elon Musk was essential to the success of SpaceX and Tesla.<p>4. Tesla now has fierce competition in the category it defined: EVs.<p>5. Tesla has undergone revenue and profit reduction.<p>6. While it experiences promise in alternate product lines, Tesla is not a market leader in robotics (Unitree, Boston Dynamics) or self-driving cars (Baidu, Waymo). Tesla reported profit growth in residential solar and residential power storage, but the revenues from these verticals are dwarfed by other segments.<p>7. The trend over the past decades is Elon Musk being successful at innovating in underserved parts of the market.<p>8. Elon Musk is not currently pursuing any underserved parts of the market.
So he milked Tesla for another $2B to subsidize xAI, has dropped the models to 2 (3 and Y), revenue is down, growth is negative, BYD is eating Tesla for lunch, followed by the other CN and KR vehicle companies.<p>He doesn't have FSD, camera only navigation without sensor fusion with LIDAR will fail, the only thing keeping Tesla where it is is the bullshit dispersal field that surrounds Musk.
> He doesn't have FSD, camera only navigation without sensor fusion with LIDAR will fail, the only thing keeping Tesla where it is is the bullshit dispersal field that surrounds Musk.<p>So if I hear what you're saying, the stock will be up another 50% this year!
[flagged]
Tesla has become a meme stock. The stock's performance is disconnected from the company's performance.<p>I agree that Tesla has clear strengths, like the vast amount of data they've collected from their cars, and their charging network, but it's also obvious that something is going very, very wrong with that company. The stock value is not reflecting that.
Fun fact - recently it was declared that both Tesla and CCP EVs are to be treated as completely untrusted and not accepted in any semi-secure facilities in Poland (so including pretty much any military location)
> like nobody trusts Huawei or Xiaomi phones.<p>Loads of people trusted Huawei, even after all the hyperbole about backdoors for the government. It needed regulators banning Huawei to knock their share of the market and protect the homegrown spyware.
The government bans on Huawei were obviously do to three reasons: network security, economic competition, and politics.<p>Huawei doesn’t only make phones — they also make the cell network infrastructure and they sell it at much lower costs than American companies do. The US put pressure on allied countries to divest from Huawei infrastructure (especially 5G cell networking) to both avoid the security risks and to leave those allies with only American companies to buy from.<p>And we can’t forget that Trump very publicly used Huawei’s executive as a hostage to a negotiation.[1]<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_case_of_Meng_Wanzhou" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_case_of_Meng_Wanzh...</a>
> network security<p>This was the only reason I remember being given.<p>And was also the one that was contradicted the most as they were sharing all the source code, and several areas of national security reviewed it, including GCHQ, giving it the clear.<p>Politics and trying to stop an economic competitor from taking business away from overpriced alternatives was the real unspoken reason.
> to leave those allies with only American companies to buy from<p>This is conspiratorial nonsense, the EU has Sweden's Ericsson and Finland's Nokia and along with South Korea's Samsung there are plenty of choices. I can't actually think of comparable American companies.
I trust Xiaomi, they make great phones.
They can make great phones and still be spying on the user and everyone near them.<p>They wouldn't be good for intel gathering (either deliberate or incidental, c.f. FitBit or whatever leaking some US military info because of all the soldiers tracking themselves) if they weren't also just straight up good products.<p>This lack of exclusivity between "quality" and "spying" is also why I found it hard to trust US products even before Trump 2.
>Tesla is leading and succeeding. People have faith in Musk as a leader. Nobody trusts CCP EVs, just like nobody trusts Huawei or Xiaomi phones.<p>That sounds literally like a religious mantra. Do rational investors have 'faith' in the Costco CEO? Do they even know his name on top of their head?
Faith and trust is something nobody uses to describe Musk. Maybe you should pop your own bubble you seem to live in? Using faith and trust while completely ignoring twitter?
Tesla investor meetings are just lots of investor bros who have faith in Musk. They trust that Musk can continue to deliver the mindshare that he previously did to get the stock price to where it is.<p>I think he has tremendous downside risk, but there are a ridiculous number of people who still have “faith and trust” in him despite all of his downside risk.
Most of the world is buying chinese EVs and likes them.<p>Also, fun fact, I do own a Xiaomi 13T and I'm absolutely happy with my phone.
The gamble with Cybertruck failed. It’s common sense, that such a vehicle will fail. The successful cars are made for masses and not for niche buyers. Common sense product could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe and this car would eat Chinese for lunch. Expensive experiment failed, it’s time for consequences. Does Tesla have resources for another car experiment? Will it stay a car company?.. Or it will be now a manufacturer of robot soldiers?..
> Common sense product could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe and this car would eat Chinese for lunch.<p>Yeah, that would be the Model 2, which Musk cancelled, then denied he cancelled, then has made no effort to review whatsoever so it exists in a limbo state of zero people working on it but it not being officially cancelled. Either way, it didn't come out in 2025 as planned.<p><a href="https://www.cbtnews.com/tesla-execs-raise-red-flags-after-musk-denied-25k-ev-cancellation-reuters-reports/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbtnews.com/tesla-execs-raise-red-flags-after-mu...</a><p>For a normal company, this would be disastrous. For a meme stock, this makes total sense since anyone claiming the Model 2 is dead can be shouted at by fans saying Musk himself disputed it was dead.
<i>> smaller than Model 3 for Europe</i><p>A few years ago, perhaps. But the brand has become tainted to the point where the exact people who would buy such a car are now avoiding Teslas. Instead, European manufacturers are filling that niche with cars like the Renault 5.
> the exact people who would buy such a car are now avoiding Teslas<p>The traditional fix for this is to license the technology and do manufacturing for another carmaker to brand.<p>It's super common for brand X of car to actually be a rebadged Y with slightly different shaped body panels.<p>However, it only works if your product is good and you have decent margins. That means you have to compete with china cars, since the obvious thing for a western brand to do is to rebadge a chinese designed car and split the margins with the chinese designer/manufacturer.
> <i>the obvious thing for a western brand to do is to rebadge a chinese designed car and split the margins with the chinese designer/manufacturer</i><p>Actually this is already happening with the Dacia Spring/Renault City: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongfeng_Motor_Corporation#eGT_New_Energy_Automotive" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongfeng_Motor_Corporation#eGT...</a>
> However, it only works if your product is good and you have decent margins.<p>Not sure if the product has to be good. Look at the lineage of my wife's car The 2019 Chevy Trax, based on the Buick Encore, based on the Opel/Vauxhall Mokka. It isn't a good car under any of the badges, but it does run, and is small, but the crazy thing is my Ford Ranger gets roughly the same milage as it. Note: the gas milage is probably an American issue, because it runs a naturally aspirated i4 gas engine instead of a more efficient turbo diesel.
Why would a small Tesla "eat Chinese for lunch" - the brand is tainted (to put it mildly) and the Teslas I've been in didn't seem to have great design or build quality?
There are people like me who still buy teslas. Buddy picked up his new Model Y couple weeks ago. The price and the whole package is fine. Zero interest financing is absolutely nice. Elon showed his real face during children rescue drama in Asia. With this defamation story it was well known who he is for years. Political involvement was the visible tip of an iceberg for everyone.<p>Now if you ask me if the German car managers are better I doubt it. Gassing apes by Volkswagen in US is on the same level as Elon. Mercedes guy was complaining about lazy workers too much. Only BMW guy was able to keep acceptable silence. Overall German equivalent of model Y is at least 20000€ more expensive than Elon‘s car.<p>Personally I don’t buy anything from China if I can. I am not brave and as the Ayways story showed clearly, that great Chinese car can quickly be without any service. Maybe it’s ok to lease such car for couple years, but I don’t want to have car after small accident for what no replacement parts are available.
Several years ago I wanted to buy an electric car. I didn’t like Musk, so my plan was “anything but Tesla.” Chevy Bolt was unavailable due to the fire problem. Cadillac Lyriq and Hyundai Ioniq 5 weren’t out yet.<p>I drove everything available to buy in my area. My real options were the Mustang Mach-e, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Hyundai Kona, Polestar 2. I decided to test drive a Model Y for completeness.<p>And CRAP.<p>The Model Y was obviously the best car. So much more refined than the other options. Way better charging network. 7 seat option. The only real downside was the zany CEO.<p>Fine, I thought. I’ll live with it.<p>I bought a Model Y and love it.<p>But.<p>I’ll never buy another Tesla. I have a bumper sticker disavowing the CEO. I paid off its loan so nobody would make money from me owning a Tesla. I honk support at the No Kings protestors outside the local Tesla facility.<p>I think the only thing that can save Tesla is a crash/buyout/relaunch. Get Musk out of the picture. Reset the stock price to something sane. Ditch the distractions. Release a Model 2. Keep expanding the SuperCharger network.<p>That’s a long hard road. Nobody involved makes money in that scenario. It’ll only happen when there are no other options.<p>As for me, I’m driving my Model Y until the wheels fall off. With the bumper sticker.
> Overall German equivalent of model Y is at least 20000€ more expensive than Elon‘s car.<p>What?!? VW id.4 has the same starting price as a Tesla Model Y if I look it up on their German websites. Don't see where the swasticar would be cheaper.
I spent a month in Spain driving a BYD daily and it was fine. I just don’t like the tackiness of the interior and not in love with the exterior either. The handling is also ok, nothing exciting. There’s something still very Chinese about these cars. Not saying that matters if you just want an affordable and reliable EV that takes you from point A to B. BYD can do that perfectly fine. I personally like the design of the Model Y (own one) very much, it also feels much more “alive” particularly the dual motor. There’s no comparison with the BYD I drove. Also never had any issues with build quality other than the charging port malfunctioning, and it was fixed outside my house, all I had to do was touch a button in the app to call service. FSD is pretty damn amazing. The tech is great and the updates do make the car better in many ways. I hope Tesla finds its way because apart from all the controversy they can make good cars.
Regardless, owner is a nazi and utter POS to be polite, basically same material as trump. Nothing in the world is going to change that, not now not in 40 years. He keeps insulting whole Europe (meaning all of fucking us living here) and our leaders almost daily, looking down on us very publicly.<p>Why the heck would I buy such car, even if it costed 1 euro? Have some self-respect and morality ffs, do you also go to restaurant where you know they will spit on you and insult you, just because they have cca same stuff as all other places, often worse while more expensive? [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tuev-report-2026-tesla-model-y-has-the-worst-reliability-among-all-20222023-cars-261596.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tuev-report-2026-tesla-mo...</a>
> Teslas I've been in didn't seem to have great design or build quality<p>Design is subjective (I like it), and build quality. Not sure, I don't have issues with mine except one where after 2 years frunk latch started failing. It was replaced in an hour when I went to service center.<p>Teslas are the cheapest EV for the features offered in Europe. I would gladly buy another car, but they are either more pricey, or lack features. (I did market research 2 years ago when I was buying Model Y, the closest one was ICE - RAV4 for similar price, but I didn't want ICE).
Today probably not but there was a time where Tesla doing a rush to electric car market dominance was not totally far fetched. This would have required them to have cars filling the important segments.
because there is still 2012-era belief hanging around many people that Tesla's EV tech is superior to anything else
yeah, they legitimately used to be but the rest of the world has definitely improved and Teslas weirdly haven't that much. They're cruising on name brand and a really decent charging network, but even that moat is being breached.
Even without Musk's public persona, the Tesla build quality is infamous. I would never.
The entire car is a surveillance machine and the company is happy after a crash to taint the driver in the public’s eye if it will improve the image of their AutoPilot. It’s bad enough having to deal with car insurance after a crash without your car’s manufacturer blaming you in public, sending the recipients to news outlets.<p>Tesla has a monopoly on their car repairs, which reduces the number of mechanics qualified to work on it, increasing the cost and the wait time.<p>Teslas are a very expensive platform to service being largely an aluminum frame. Difficult+expensive to repair and replacements are expensive compared to cheaper cars which usually have more plastic. This means insurance is also expensive.<p>And this doesn’t even begin to get into the weirdness of their reputation for hiring private eyes to stalk employees and call the police to in an attempt to get an employee killed. Having an exec who has a ketamine problem and mania issues doesn’t lend itself to long term stability.
What I've seen so far from Chinese car makers (BYD and MG, to be precise) is, to put it bluntly, the bare minimum. Build quality so-so, design is… unconventional and software is just bad. It drives, but only just.<p>Maybe the more recent models, like the Xiaomi thing, are better. But at the moment, Tesla is at least on par, if not better. The brand being tainted is very relevant though.
BYD already have the Atto 1 (sub AUD30K here) as do other EV manufacturers (eg Nissan Leaf).<p>Tesla could stop spending money on bullshit like the Cybertruck and spend it on vehicles that people actually need/want.
Don't forget Renault 5!
And the Renault 4, the Hyundai Inster, and the Dacia Spring, and the Citroën C3, Fiat 500e, Kia EV3, Leapmotor T03.<p>There are heaps of small/subcompact EVs on the European market now, all with very competitive prices. The newer ones seem to be getting cheaper and cheaper.<p>Honestly I reckon a Tesla M2 will have a hard time succeeding in this market.
Interestingly, the Renault 5 Turbo 3E is more Cyberpunk than anything Tesla is making!
Is it an good car ?
All the big European car manufacturers also have EV cars too.<p>Plus there are plenty of popular options for high-end EVs that are far more glamorous as well as practical than the Cybertruck.
> The successful cars are made for masses and not for niche buyers.<p>When Tesla got started, full EVs were extremely niche. They were known for their short range and nothing else. Tesla defeated common sense. This is what supports their anti-common-sense stock price.
Is there <i>any</i> indication that they're going to "defeat common sense" again? They're cancelling products, making marginal improvements to old models, alienating their customers, etc.<p>Tesla as a car company seems dead-set on a continuous downward spiral.<p>Maybe the switch to robots will pay off and you'll be right. Somehow, I'm skeptical.
> Is there any indication that they're going to "defeat common sense" again?<p>If you equal Elon to Tesla then there are plenty of - SpaceX dominates near-earth orbit payload launches. A private company competing against and replacing NASA would have been a laughingstock idea 30 years ago. xAI made competitive SOTA models despite a very, very late start.<p>Of course Elon isn't Tesla. I think the biggest risk of Tesla now is the investors realizing he's more into AI and politics and will siphon resources from Tesla to his other companies.
Except SpaceX "competing and replacing NASA" is ... also a meme.<p>SpaceX is essentially the same kind of commercial provider as always, except that they didn't sit on laurels of 1960s ICBM work, and among other things built their own additional infrastructure.<p>... But remember they were explicitly early financed to do that by DoD and NASA.
Everyone knew that was the future and that the big auto manufacturers were deliberately dragging.<p>No-one (serious) thought there was a market for the cybertruck.<p>The stock price is pure madness, it's like it's priced in robotaxis, but that's clearly not going to happen for Tesla. And if it did, it would be a small-ish market, their brand has become toxic in so many big markets.
> No-one (serious) thought there was a market for the cybertruck.<p>If they'd hit the price and performance of the launch announcements they might have. $40k base for what he initially talked about is a vastly better proposal than $61k base for what he actually delivered.
> Everyone knew that was the future and that the big auto manufacturers were deliberately dragging.<p>Definitely not. Car electrification was definitely not obvious, and Tesla had to do many semi-impossible things to make it even slightly feasible.
Yeah 10 years ago.<p>Good for them as a company, thats why they are still here.<p>And now? Everyone builds EVs, everyone is as far as Tesla or better.<p>Even the old school companies like BMW have now more models than Tesla and the Cybertruck was expensive to build, build badly and did not deliver what Elon the druggy and antidemocrat Musk promised.
> Yeah 10 years ago.<p>Tesla unveiled the Roadster <i>20</i> Years ago now. That's plenty of time for other companies to catch up. They made a bet that once the battery moat evaporated the millions of miles of driving footage, powering affordable fully autonomous driving, would be their next moat. They failed, not because camera-based FSD is a silly idea (we drive with our eyes after all), but because it's a really hard problem. If they had won that bet, Tesla would justify its valuation. They didn't, and so we're left with the flailing of a doomed company.
>Car electrification was definitely not obvious<p>The first electric car predates the 20th century. That seems pretty obvious.<p>The problem was always batteries and charging infrastructure. I wouldn't call these semi-impossible, but it's something Tesla definitely contributed significantly to.
> The first electric car predates the 20th century<p>Great, now do steam. Being produced in the past does not mean it will make a comeback, despite steam being quieter, with great torque, and the main ingredient for propulsion (water) being safer than gasoline for normal people to refuel
> The first electric car predates the 20th century. That seems pretty obvious.<p>If you count remote control cars as well then you have an even weightier point.<p>But if you're serious about adapting technologies, countries and drivers to electric cars then you'll know that an electric car being made in the 19th century is totally irrelevent. Toyota even bet big on hydrogen rather than electric for a long time; that's how non-obvious it was.
>an electric car being made in the 19th century is totally irrelevent.<p>But then you strangely ignored why it was irrelevant, which I already pointed out and was the meat of the statement. The concept of an electric car is painfully simple. Way more so than an internal combustion engine, in fact.
semi-impossible
What I could see happening is Alphabet getting an exclusive lock on Tesla (probably not buying because the stock is too high) and then quasi-merging it with Waymo for a fully integrated, functional robo taxi company. A bit like when they bought Motorola phone division.
> Common sense product could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe and this car would eat Chinese for lunch<p>The Chinese EVs selling in Europe are mostly bigger cars.<p>And the only reason they don't sell more is because we tariff the hell out of them.
It will be a manufacturer of vaporware if you look at how much they announced over the last years and how much of that has actually materialized...<p>But yeah, I guess Tesla lives by its CEO (and his grand promises that keep the stock price up) and dies by its CEO (who alienated Tesla buyers by, amongst other things, throwing his lot in with a regressive fossil fuel supporting administration and by personally supervising the dismantling of agencies such as USAID).
The Cybertruck was very clearly designed to be a low production model to figure out teething issues in manufacturing and design. Think Plymouth Prowler. Like seriously, nobody makes a body out of heavy gauge sheet metal with simple shapes if they're planning on volume, it doesn't pencil out vs more die complexity and thinner material. But the future growth to justify that never seems to have materialized....
To be fair, robot soldiers are the only robotics and ai problems that need to be solved to pretty much eliminate labor problems across the board.<p>I suspect China is going to beat him to the punch on this one too.
Cybertruck was /the/ sign that things with Elon had... changed, IMO!
It didn't fail imo - it was intended a low-volume product for next-gen Tesla tech - Ethernet based fieldbus, 48V systems, area controllers etc. The philosophy is the same like other high-end cars - you field test your latest experimental tech first in a car with lower sales but high margins - if your fancy stuff has a 1% failure rate, in a 100k production run, that's 1000 vehicles - high but manageable.<p>If you sell millions and its your main product, your company is over. This is the same playbook German manufacturers followed since forever.
I bet the next gen Model 3 and robotaxi will get the cybertruck tech.
It failed based on the sales projections that Tesla set. Also, several reviews have not exactly been kind, along with lots of comments from owners about annoying issues and malfunctions.<p>If Tesla needed beta testers for things they hadn't figured out yet there would have been better ways to go about that.
I think the real issue was that Cybertruck required way more structural parts (body) than Tesla originally thought. It was originally supposed to have a load bearing exoskeleton.
That is the opposite story that Musk told when hyping the Cybertruck, though.
Musk projected that the Cybertruck would sell 250k annually. It's selling around 20k. Even for Musk, that isn't normal exaggeration; that's a huge difference.
Any discussion of Tesla without mentioning Musk's actions is missing the most important piece. I heard someone on this site use the term "mind share", as in before Musk decided to alienate his main customer base, Tesla had the biggest "mind share" of any company in the world. I looked forward to buying a Tesla one day. Now, with Musk licking Trumps boots and actively doing very real damage with his work in DOGE and other things, I will literally never buy anything from that company ever again. It doesn't matter what Chinese car companies are doing. It matters that he stands for everything I don't so I will not give him my money.
... but they aren't canceling the Cybertruck?<p>Re: Robots bla bla: yeah, of course. FSD bla bla. Meh.
> could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe<p>Lol... not with those tariffs. In fact, I'd be willing to bet we see higher growth of Tata than Telsa in Europe over the next 10 years.
Cybertruck was supposed to be for the masses. The just weren't able to hit the price point required because of overly optimistic engineering assessments. I think the whole stainless steel construction concept didn't work as first designed.<p>And of course, Cybertruck design might not have been mass compatible buy being ugly. But that is subjective, if it was cheap and functional and without the political connotations it might have been different.<p>But it was certainty a risky bet.
To be "for the masses", it would need to:<p>- be smaller<p>- have an actually usuable truck bed<p>- be painted (so rust isn't an issue)<p>- have a body that's not literally duck taped together in some places and can easily snap in others<p>- use steel (which bends) for body construction<p>- be suitable for towing hauls<p>- not be ridiculously overpowered (...to the extent where engine can overpower the breaks)<p>- have good visibility with a windshield that isn't at a sharp angle to the ground and body geometry which doesn't maximize blind spots<p>- not have sharp corners that the cut you or doors that can decapitate your dog<p>- have door handles that make doors openable in case of emergencies/no power situations/electric shorts<p>- not have bulletproof glass (WTF, "for the masses"?) which makes makes it harder to rescue people when accidents happen<p>- be easily repairable, or at least amenable to repairs in local non-Tesla shops, with customers being confident it their warranty won't go poof (as the law requires)<p>- be easily customizeable for different applications (particularly when it comes to the bed)<p>- not look so different from other trucks without any reason other than "Elon Musk wants to be edgy": ugly is subjective, being a billionaire's fashion statement isn't<p>...to start. That's off the top of my head.<p>And, of course, being priced for the masses, which doesn't just <i>happen</i>. It's a <i>design requirement</i>.<p>As it stands, the Cybertruck is, and has always been, a rich boy's luxury toy — and it was designed as one.<p>It really seems like something got to Musk's head that he thought the world has so many edgy rich boys.<p>You want to see a modern truck "for the masses"? That's Toyota IMV 0, aka Hilux Champ [1]. Ticks all the above boxes.<p><i>And</i> hits the $10,000 price point [2]. A literal <i>order of magnitude</i> cheaper than the Cybertruck.<p>Speaking of which: a car "for the masses" isn't a truck. It's a minivan (gets the entire family from one place to another), it's a small sedan/hatchback (commuter vehicle), a crossover/small SUV to throw things, kids, and dogs into without having to play 3D Tetris in hard mode.<p>But not a <i>pickup truck</i>, which is a <i>specialized work vehicle</i>.<p>The masses aren't farmers and construction workers (most people live in the cities, and only a small number needs such a work vehicle).<p>The popularity of The Truck in the US is, in a large part, a byproduct of regulation which gives certain exemptions to specialized work vehicles.[3]<p>That's not even getting to the infrastructure part: trucks shine in remote, rural areas. And while one can always have a canister of gas in the truck bed, power stations can be hard to find in the middle of the field or a remote desert highway.<p>But again, it's not impossible to make a truck for the masses (at least for certain markets). That's the $10K Hilux Champ.<p>For all the luxury aspects of the Tesla sedan, it's been one of the most (if not <i>the</i> most) practical electric vehicles on account of range alone. It also looked like a <i>normal</i> car at a time when EVs screamed "look at me, I'm so greeeeeen!" from a mile away (remember 1st gen Nissan Leaf or BMW i3?). It was conformal and utilitarian, while <i>also</i> being futuristic and luxurious enough for the high price point was fair for what was offered.<p>The public image of having a Tesla was <i>good</i>: you are affluent, future-forward, and caring for the environment.<p>The Cybertruck went back on everything that made Tesla a success: it's conspicuous, impractical, overpriced, and currently having publicity rivaling that of the recent Melania documentary.<p>It was not a <i>risky</i> bet. It was an a-priori <i>losing</i> bet. The world simply never needed as many edgy toys as Musk wanted to sell.<p>And driving a car shaped as an "I'm a Musk fanboy" banner really lost its appeal after a few Roman salutes and the dear leader's DOGE stint.<p>Overly optimistic engineering assessments? Perhaps, but they are much further down on the list of reasons of Cybertruck's failure.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a45752401/toyotas-10000-future-pickup-truck-is-basic-transportation-perfection/" rel="nofollow">https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a45752401/toyotas-10000...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-truck-first-drive-review-japan-mobility-show" rel="nofollow">https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/" rel="nofollow">https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculo...</a>
>>The gamble with Cybertruck failed.<p>Has it? I really don't know but I see these every day in my major city and there was a closed mall parking lot filled with cybertrucks the local dealer used to park there which were quickly turned over.
The linked article is clear as to why the S and X don’t need to be in Tesla’s product line<p>> Tesla’s far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company’s 1.59 million deliveries last year
That's all good, don't worry, the stock is doing quite well, near its record high. A man jumping around in spandex is all they need.
It's actually bizarre how seemingly nothing impacts $TSLA: profits down 46%, revenue down 3%, cutting successful product lines that used to sell quite a bit, a massively failed product in the Cybertruck, FSD promises still unfulfilled, and on top of all that US$ 2 billion siphoned away to another unrelated company.<p>With all of that, the stock closed upwards on the after market hours. Perhaps only Musk's death could cause it to tank, would have never expected to see a cult of personality being run on the top of S&P 500 market caps, what a strange world...
I think it was the FT that observed about a year ago that even as institutional investors were pulling away from US equities, retail investors (redditors, if you will) were filling in the gap quite enthusiastically. (You know, "Buy the dip!! " and brethren.)<p>I don't know to what extent that's still the case. But someone always ends up with the hot potato no matter what.
Its not bizzare. Retail investors can no longer compete with big banks, who pretty much set the stock price. Elon solidified this with DOGE by removing oversight of such things.<p>At this point, investing is exacly like playing slots at casino.
It’s being valued on the hope that they will crack full self driving. People still believe they will crack it.
Meanwhile Waymo has actually cracked self driving, and is operating a fleet of taxis. Tesla said they were going to do this at least as far back as like 2018, and still aren’t.<p>They’re being beaten on every front.
> Tesla said they were going to do this at least as far back as like 2018, and still aren’t.<p>Tesla Robotaxis are fully operating in Austin since November and they are running a pilot in San Francisco with safety drivers?<p><a href="https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-opens-robotaxi-access-to-everyone-one-catch-ios/" rel="nofollow">https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-opens-robotaxi-access-to-eve...</a>
Have you tried FSD on a HW4 model recently?
And?<p>FSD is good in video, given. But its not full self driving as it still requires you to keep an eye on it.<p>Real FSD for me at least, means I can sit in a 'car' open a laptop and work. But honestly working with a laptop in a car makes it dangerous when driving fast.<p>For my work commute, I don't need a FSD. For my holiday also not.<p>What I want is real and save FSD something which has proofen on the road that it is really really good.<p>We are far away from this. 5 years minimum if not 10. And while Tesla is playing around with FSD and putting it now behind a subscription and fooled everyone with the promise of FSD with HW3 and below, it will not suddenly make Tesla the single leader in FSD at all.<p>Waymo is working on it, Xpeng can do it, BMW, Mercedes and Nvidia.<p>For Cybertaxies alone you need a lot of infrastructure (parking spots), cleaning crew, management software etc. you need the legal framework to be allowed to drive them (not going to happen anytime soon in europe) and then you only compete with normal taxis and uber.
> Real FSD for me at least, means I can sit in a 'car' open a laptop and work.<p>Sure. Meanwhile, I'm literally using FSD 90% of the miles driven in my Y (the last update added a counter). I can appreciate a non-existant better product as much as the next guy, but as it is my daily commute is vastly improved.<p>FSD isn't perfect (probably about 90%!), but it's everyday amazing and useful.
> open a laptop and work<p>I'm still convinced we are going to need dedicated roads - or lanes at the very least - and dedicated parking/waiting areas for this to be feasible on a truly large scale.<p>However, it may be easier than we think-- they've already done something like this for rideshare drivers in many places, and it wouldn't necessarily need to be much more complicated than that.
It's more of a bet on the optimus
Isn't that an issue as well? It's always a bet on the next promised land which never arrives, the goalposts change but the stock never takes a hit from undelivered promises, it's bonkers.
Optimus looks like a joke compared to the robots China has developed like Unitree.
Once they actually start bleeding money they will go down.
> would have never expected to see a cult of personality being run on the top of S&P 500 market caps,<p>Steve Jobs had a cult of personality as well. Of course Apple had financial reasons to support its valuation when he was leading it in the 2000s
But Apple under Steve Jobs had all the financial numbers to support it, it wasn't valued solely on Steve Jobs' personality, the products were there, and being loved by consumers. Revenue wasn't dipping while the stock was going up, revenue, market share, profits were consistently on the rise.
The most successful meme stock in history, all driven by - "coming soon"
I assume the S and X are being cancelled because 3 and Y are cannibalizing them with a very close product for a much better price point. Both have premium trim options. There’s very little difference in interior space. Aside from the doors on the X there’s just not much differentiation.
Also in Europe, an old state company called Renault is beating Tesla with the R5.
I just saw an R5 on the street in the bright green. Super cool looking car. There are a whole bunch of promising small EVs coming out in the EU. Hyundai Inster, VW ID.1, Kia EV2, etc.
And it's not even cheap (actually its success kind of baffles me but great I guess).
Wasn’t Renault an F1 competitor for many years?
3rd place for most F1 wins as a car motor builder.
It still is, albeit they use the Alpine branding.
It was but I'm not sure how that's relevant.<p>Also not sure what the point of the "old state" part of the parent comment was. Renault is just another big carmaker.
I have an opinion on EVs that basically the only models that make sense are the ones shaped like the 3 and Y.<p>I feel like EVs are a checkbox product - you either make things 'good enough' for the customer - range, driving dynamics, power, charge speed, smart features, autonomous stuff or don't.<p>To get range right you need a big battery and low drag and efficiency - the only way you can make the first 2 things in the same vehicle is to create an aerodynamic shape.<p>This is a packaging problem, you need to make the car low, and long - so you stretch it out, so the battery can be thinner and no longer pushes up the rest of the vehicle. You also have a lot of place in the front for crash structures, and aero shaping. Finally since your car is big (D segment), you can charge more money as per conventions of the market.<p>If you make a C or B segment car, you either reduce the battery size to save money, which makes it impractical for general use or pack in all that stuff into a smaller volume, and you get a car thats more expensive to make than a Model 3, while having worse drag and range, while the market expects you to charge less for it.<p>These small cars only make sense with a small battery, but you wouldn't want one for yourself as a second car - hence the robotaxi.<p>So no, your hypothetical Model 2 would not be cheaper if you didn't compromise it in some major way, which they dont wanna do.<p>Upwards differentiation is also hard for Tesla - base models are already powerful enough, have all the smart features, they wont compromise on autonomous stuff etc.<p>This is not only my opinion but the market's - S and X sold like 2 orders of magnitude less cars than the 3 and Y.
I think the S and X (and Roadster) sold less because they were expensive early models trying to create a "premium" halo-effect (if so, they succeeded).<p>For range, how much range is sufficient? This may be one area where the EU and US need fundamentally different vehicles, as per the saying "in America 100 years is a long time, in Europe 100 miles is a long way". Certainly the EU market supports B-segment with 44kWh @ 320 km / 199 miles: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_C3#Europe_(2024)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_C3#Europe_(2024)</a>
> This is not only my opinion but the market's - S and X sold like 2 orders of magnitude less cars than the 3 and Y.<p>They sold less because they're far more expensive and have to compete against much more well put together products. Meanwhile, their platforms are 10 years old and there are now other offerings in an overall niche field.<p>You're right about aero to an extent, but aero is only felt on long highway drives and it can be mitigated somewhat with a couple more cells. Some consumers will choose style for a cost premium. Others will choose something more expensive simply because they don't want to support Musk.
"How I feel about Tesla? I wouldn't buy it and I wouldn't short it". Charles Munger.
Forgot that the cybertruck was a sales flop and quality joke, and that the Tesla Semi is now the elephant in the room.
> camera only navigation without sensor fusion with LIDAR will fail<p>I'm not so sure on this one. I think we'll see it this year. It will have embarrassing bugs (ie. running over cats which are hiding under the car) and we'll see lots of issues to begin with (ie. the car stops in the middle of a freeway because a camera got splattered with mud).<p>But I think they'll achieve the goal of something that can be deployed fairly widespread without public outrage causing it to be banned without lidar.
It's been "coming this year" for almost a decade now.
The bugs you describe are not embarrassing, they are critical issues that prevent it from being called FSD.
This is the first year that I personally think that it will come this year...<p>Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that a 'cybercab' production line is firing up this year is also a strong indicator - the fact they didn't do that 5 years ago means tesla leadership didn't think it was going to work back then. 'cybercab' wouldn't sell well as a 2 seater if it couldn't self drive. (although the actual mass production will be delayed till next year is my guess, but we'll see model 3 or y being used for a taxi service in the meantime)
How are those "bugs" not immediately disqualifying? "Move fast and break things" is not an acceptable strategy for controlling 2 tonne bricks hurtling down the freeway
This LIDAR wank annoys me.<p>If you can train a policy that drives well on cameras, you can get self-driving. If you can't, you're fucked, and no amount of extra sensors will save you.<p>Self-driving isn't a sensor problem. It always was, is, and always will be an AI problem.<p>No amount of LIDAR engineering will ever get you a LIDAR that outputs ground truth steering commands. The best you'll ever get is noisy depth estimate speckles that you'll have to massage with, guess what, AI, to get them to do anything of use.<p>Sensor suite choice is an aside. Camera only 360 coverage? Good enough to move on. The rest of the problem lies with AI.
Even the best AI can't drive without good sensors. Cameras have to guess distance and they fail when there is insufficient contrast, direct sunlight and so on. LiDARs don't have to guess distance.
Cameras also fail when weather conditions cake your car in snow and/or mud while you're driving. Actually, from what I just looked up, this is an issue with LiDAR as well. So it seems to me like we don't even have the sensors we need to do this properly yet, unless we can somehow make them all self-cleaning.<p>It always goes back to my long standing belief that we need dedicated lanes with roadside RFID tags to really make this self driving thing work well enough.
You are correct, but the problem is nobody at Tesla or any other self driving company for that matter knows what they are doing when it comes to AI<p>If you are doing end to end driving policy (i.e the wrong way of doing it), having lidar is important as a correction factor to the cameras.
So far, end to end seems to be the only way to train complex AI systems that actually works.<p>Every time you pit the sheer violent force of end to end backpropagation against compartmentalization and lines drawn by humans, at a sufficient scale, backpropagation gets its win.
> If you can train a policy that drives well on cameras, you can get self-driving. If you can't, you're fucked, and no amount of extra sensors will save you.<p>Source: trust me, bro? This statement has no factual basis. Calling the most common approach of all other self-driving developers except Tesla a wank also is no argument but hate only.
[flagged]
Yes that’s why having both makes sense.
This is so dumb, I don't even know if you are serious. Nobody ever said it is lidar instead of cameras, but as additional sensor to cameras. And everybody seems to agree that that is valuable sensor-information (except Tesla).
I'm able to drive without lidar, with just my eyeball feeds.<p>I agree that lidar is very valuable right now, but I think in the endgame, yeah it can drive with just cameras.<p>The logic follows, because I drive with just "cameras."
Yeah, but your "cameras" also have a bunch of capabilities that hardware cameras don't, plus they're mounted on a flexible stalk in the cockpit that can move in any direction to update the view in real-time.<p>Also, humans kinda suck at driving. I suspect that in the endgame, even if AI <i>can</i> drive with cameras only, we won't want it to. If we could upgrade our eyeballs and brains to have real-time 3D depth mapping information as well as the visual streams, we would.
What "a bunch of capabilities"?<p>A complete inability to get true 360 coverage that the neck has to swivel wildly across windows and mirrors to somewhat compensate for? Being able to get high FoV or high resolution but never both? IPD so low that stereo depth estimation unravels beyond 5m, which, in self-driving terms, is point-blank range?<p>Human vision is a mediocre sensor kit, and the data it gets has to be salvaged in post. Human brain was just doing computation photography before it was cool.
>Self-driving isn't a sensor problem. It always was, is, and always will be an AI problem.<p>AI + cameras have relevant limitations that LIDAR augmented suites don't. You can paint a photorealistic roadway onto a brick wall and AI + cameras will try to drive right through it, dubbed the "Wile E. Coyote" problem.
On top of that, the factory is getting converted to make robots...
> the only thing keeping Tesla where it is is the bullshit dispersal field that surrounds Musk.<p>I'm not 100% what you mean by "dispersal field", but outside of America, Elon's image in recent years has done more harm to Tesla than good.
I think he meant "keeping TSLA where it is".<p>Tesla's sales have suffered, yes, and Elon's image is a significant contributor to that, besides all the reasons directly related to the cars themselves.<p>But Tesla's stock price is still stuck in irrational heights, not even remotely justifiable by the company's performance.<p>It just seems that people reconsider purchasing a physical object way quicker than they reconsider a stock investment. Maybe because the stock investment, especially in TSLA, is considered more like a gamble - "as long as others also think that this stock will skyrocket, even just because they think that others like me think it will skyrocket - as long as that's the case, I'm good with buying shares".
Tesla is a meme stock. Its being buoyed up by retail investors (Elon Musk fanbois) and, its been said, by Saudis and others who were trying to curry favor with him (possibly to try and get Trumps ear or other greasy bullshit). The stock is completely divorced from reality, which also attracts further investment--as long as its disconnected from the fundamentals of being a company that has to make a profit, you can argue its worth 100 million billion dollars or a googel, both are just as valid.
775 bn<p>wbu<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/</a>
Sounds like you get your news from Reddit.
Even though tesla has only 2 models, i would still consider it for a new car, if not for Elon Musk. I have an Y, and it does everything i want it to do. Drives nicely, lots of (cargo) space, no friction charging when driving in Europe. Just plug it in a supercharger and it loads fast. No hassle with subscriptions and cards. Very reliable.<p>With the 3 and the Y they're already catering for a large part of the market demand, but a smaller model, and a stationwagon might help get it up to 80%+ of all demand.
Up until recently teslas were regularly ranked around the world as the least reliable car brand. <a href="https://www.topspeed.com/germany-declares-tesla-model-y-is-least-reliable-vehicle-on-sale/" rel="nofollow">https://www.topspeed.com/germany-declares-tesla-model-y-is-l...</a> and <a href="https://electrek.co/2025/12/11/tesla-ranks-dead-last-used-car-reliability-study-but-theres-catch/" rel="nofollow">https://electrek.co/2025/12/11/tesla-ranks-dead-last-used-ca...</a>
TUV inspection failures are not a good indication of reliability. The lack of Tesla dealers and no need for yearly servicing means issues get caught at the inspection step for Tesla where for others they are caught at the pre-inspection step.<p>Also, you need a breakdown of the failures as wear and consumables (washer fluid low, splits in wipers, headlight alignment, mobile phone holder in wrong location) can be a failure but would not be a good indicator for lack of quality.
That is bad. One issue seems to be that brakes of electric cars can get issues over time as they are not used enough (because instead of true braking the regenerative recuperation is used).<p>Good though: If you are in an accident Teslas are the safest car one can buy<p><a href="https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/media-releases/221c38" rel="nofollow">https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/media-releases/22...</a><p>> The Tesla Model Y achieved the highest overall weighted score of any vehicle assessed by ANCAP in 2025, recording strong performance across all areas of occupant protection and active safety technology.
They still are, the Danish statistics report ~45% of tesla having issues compared to ~7% of the whole plethora of electric vehicles, that's a lot<p><a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/nearly-half-of-tesla-model-ys-fail-road-inspections-in-european-country/ar-AA1UKLTf" rel="nofollow">https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/nearly-half-of-tesla-mo...</a><p>"Most of the issues involve critical components like brakes, lights, and suspension. Many cars fail because of play in the steering or faulty axles. These are problems rarely seen at the same level in competitors like Volkswagen or Hyundai."
That’s my thought as well. The X isn’t much bigger than the Y and the price point is much higher. Same with the S and 3.<p>The markets the have been missing to this point are the big passenger / cargo carriers like a minivan or full size SUV.
SpaceX is going to go public so he doesn't need Tesla any more.
That about sums it up.
I agree that this decision is insane and the whole Optimus/xAI bullshit is tiring, especially with the shareholders actually voting against the xAI investment, but you should try today's FSD. It's genuinely good and shouldn't be discarded wholesale because the guy sucks.
The problem is not how well Tesla's FSD works, compared to other FSD from other manufacturers.<p>The problem is that Musk has been promising it for almost 10 years and it is still not sufficiently stable to be rolled out and <i>relied upon</i> by car owners.<p>FSD is only actually "ready" in terms of the whole "don't need to own a car for personal transport" when there can be passengers and <i>no</i> driver.<p>When Mom can dispatch the family car to pick up the kids from school.
> When Mom can dispatch the family car to pick up the kids from school.<p>Tech level, I agree--that's FSD.<p>But even if we had that tech today, Mom ain't sending the car without getting a police visit.<p>You can't even let your kids go to the local playground alone anymore. They're not going to be captain and first mate alone in a vehicle if the Karens have anything to say about it.
the main metric is fsd subs, the other stuff you mention is not as important
If Tesla's FSD existed in isolation, it would be a fantastic breakthrough that signposted the future.<p>If.<p>It doesn't exist in isolation. The competition isn't just from the American firms, but also European and Chinese, and it isn't really possible to overlook Musk himself given both his long history of Musk over-promising and under-delivering, deflecting blame.<p>Even the current release isn't what Musk was talking hopefully about a decade ago, e.g.:<p><pre><code> Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we'll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let's say dropping you off in Times Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year. Without the need for a single touch, including the charger.
</code></pre>
- Oct 2016, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autonomous_Tesla_vehicles_by_Elon_Musk" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...</a><p>Likewise, based on a video I saw recently from someone reproducing Tesla's 2016 "Paint It Black" drive, Tesla's AI is only now around the performance level that they faked in 2016.<p>Don't get me wrong, that level was impressive… just, the world isn't isolated developments.
I'm not sure it is a bad decision given:<p><i>"Tesla’s far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company’s 1.59 million deliveries last year."</i>
Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) is officially classified as a Level 2 advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS). Despite its advanced capabilities, it requires the human driver to remain fully attentive, monitor the environment, and be ready to take control immediately.<p>So it's literally nothing special compared to other manufacturers. I am happy to argue that's it's a better Level 2 than most others, sure. But it's still just that. No magic, no bullshitty "by 2017 the car will drive itself from New York to Los Angeles". No it hasn't and no it won't.
Yet he's still doing less damage than others chasing the AI bubble, as competition is growing in the EV market.<p>Meanwhile, RIP Windows, Google Search, and maybe the entire games industry, maybe even then end of affordable home computing and being forced to rent computing power from 'the cloud'.
Google search? They already have an AI assistant at the top of every search result.<p>Google is winning the AI race. They did with self driving and they are doing it with LLMs. They are sitting back quietly not making noise and then massively rocking the status quo regularly.<p>I suspect they are going to do similar in the field of quantum computing.
Less damage... with his CSAM-making bot. Yeah. Less damage.
> BYD is eating Tesla for lunch<p>For some reason my Youtube echo chamber is trying to convince me that BYD makes so many cars but cannot sell them. It's really bizarre. Other things it's trying to convince me of "Don't get an electric car. Period", "Ukraine won. Done deal", "Trump is devastated" about something else every day. Yes I do want the latter two to be true and it's playing on that but I don't get the BYD thing.
BYD is selling a lot of cars, but they're also making a lot more cars than they can sell at sticker price in China, as does every other Chinese car company. This oversupply leads to all kinds of distortions, like dealerships registering cars as "sold" to make their sales targets and then selling those brand-new cars as "used" at a discount. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/local-chinese-governments-promote-zero-mileage-used-car-exports-inflating-sales-2025-06-23/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/local-...</a><p>Maybe your YouTube echo chamber additionally thinks that this will cause BYD to collapse, but I doubt that. There are about a hundred Chinese EV manufacturers in worse financial shape, who're likely to go bankrupt first, which should reduce oversupply enough for BYD to survive.
How can you say camera only navigation won’t work with such finality when humans manage just fine every day!
You literally have an existence proof of it working.
It would be possible to build an ornithopter, evidenced by the existence of avians, but it turned out the easiest ways to make flying machines were otherwise.
I like the comparison, but with aviation on a fundamental level we made it simpler (removing actuation), not added more (senses we dont need)
What counts is the overall complexity, not the complexity of a single subsystem.<p>Using more senses allows simpler processing of the sensor data, especially when there is a requirement for high reliability, and at least until now this has demonstrated a simpler complete system.
I'm not sure I agree. I think just having wings that flex a bit is mechanically simpler than having an additional rotating propellor. After all, rotating axles are so hard to evolve they never almost never show up in nature at a macro scale. Sort of a perfect analogy to lidar actually. We create a new approach to solve the problem in a more efficient way, that evolution couldn't reach in billions of years
Rotating axles have not evolved in animals not because they were complex, but because any part of an animal requires permanent connections with the other parts, not only for the supply with energy but also for the continuous repairing that is required by any living body, to avoid death.<p>Artificial machines rely on spare parts manufactured elsewhere, which are used by external agents to replace the worn out parts.<p>For an animal to have wheels, it would have to grow wheels in some part of the body, periodically, then use its limbs to detach the wheels and attach them on the axles, after removing the old wheels. This is something sufficiently complex to be extremely unlikely to appear from evolution.<p>Even this huge complication would be enough only for passive wheels. For active wheels there exists no suitable motor, as the rotational motors with ionic currents are suitable only for the size of a bacteria. All bigger living beings use contractile motors, which cannot be used for a rotation of unlimited angle. So active wheels would also need a different kind of motor, which can work without a solid connection between the 2 moving parts. The artificial motors of this kind use either electromagnetic forces or fluid expansion due to temperature or pressure variation. Both would be very difficult to evolve by a living being, though electric fish and bombardier beetles show some possible paths.
Living beings are not devoid of axles and wheels; rather, they are entirely composed of them, at scales and in forms compatible with biology.<p>At every relevant level, life relies on rotating and cyclic structures coupled through continuous material exchange. The objection to wheels in animals assumes that axles and wheels must be rigid, permanently isolated parts. Biology does not work this way. Instead of discrete components joined once and preserved unchanged, living systems implement rotation through structures that are simultaneously connected, repaired, and replaced.<p>Cells are full of rotary and quasi-rotary machinery. Flagella are true rotating motors with stators, rotors, bearings, and torque generation via ion gradients. ATP synthase is literally a wheel-and-axle device, converting rotational motion into chemical energy and back again. The fact that these devices operate at molecular scale does not make them conceptually different from macroscopic axles; it shows that evolution favors rotation precisely where continuous repair and material flow are required.<p>At larger scales, joints function as constrained rotational interfaces. Hips, shoulders, knees, and vertebrae are axles embedded in living bearings, lubricated, rebuilt, and reshaped throughout life. Bone remodeling, cartilage regeneration, and synovial fluid circulation solve the very problem claimed to prohibit wheels: permanent connection combined with continuous maintenance. The difference from artificial machines is not the absence of rotation, but the absence of rigid separability.<p>Even limbs themselves behave as compound wheels. Gait cycles convert linear muscle contraction into rotational motion around joints, then back into translation. Tendons wrap around bones as belts around pulleys. Muscles do not rotate indefinitely, but unlimited rotation is not a requirement for a wheel; it is a requirement imposed by certain human machines. Biological wheels rotate as much as function demands, then reverse, exactly as many engineered systems do.<p>The claim that active wheels require exotic motors overlooks that biology already uses fields and flows. Ionic gradients are electric fields. Blood pressure, osmotic pressure, and gas expansion are fluid-based actuators. Electric fish demonstrate macroscopic bioelectric control, and insect flight shows that indirect actuation can drive cyclic motion far from the muscle itself. The distinction between electromagnetic motors and biological motors is one of implementation, not principle.<p>What evolution did not produce is a detachable, externally replaceable wheel, because life does not outsource maintenance. Instead, it internalizes repair, redundancy, and gradual replacement. From this perspective, an animal is not a wheeled vehicle lacking wheels; it is a dense hierarchy of axles and wheels whose boundaries are soft, whose materials are alive, and whose motion is inseparable from their growth and repair.<p>Life did not fail to invent wheels. It dissolved them into itself.
Most of what you have said is not different from what I have said.<p>All the rotating parts bigger than some tens of micrometers have only a limited rotation angle, where the limits are enforced by the solid connections between the 2 mobile parts, e.g. tendons, nerves and blood vessels.<p>The bacterial flagella and the rotating enzymes, which are powered by ionic currents, cannot be scaled to greater sizes. Already the flagella of nucleated cells (eukaryotes) are no longer based on rotating motors, but on contractile proteins, which must be attached at both ends on the mobile parts, limiting the relative movement.<p>Unlimited rotation is an absolutely necessary condition for a wheel that is used in locomotion, otherwise it is no longer a wheel.<p>A wheel used in locomotion that would have limited rotation would be just a leg that happens to have the shape of a wheel, because like a leg it would have to be raised from the ground for the forward motion, eliminating the exact advantage in efficiency that wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles have over legs (i.e. that backward and forward movement are simultaneous and not separated in time during a step cycle, and no energy is wasted with a vertical oscillation of the leg).<p>The distinction between electromagnetic motors and biological motors is definitely one of principle and not an implementation detail. The only resemblance is that both are motors.<p>It is true that you can claim that when analyzing both chemical reactions and the interactions between the mobile parts of an electromagnetic motor they can be eventually reduced to electromagnetic interactions. Nevertheless such an assertion is completely useless, because most things that matter to us in the surrounding world can be reduced to electromagnetic interactions. Knowing this is not helpful at all for classifying them and understanding the differences between them.<p>The contraction of a protein caused by a chemical transformation and the magnetic forces that appear either between electrical currents through conductors or between electrical currents and ferromagnetic materials are very different phenomena and knowing that both of them have as primary cause electromagnetic interactions is of absolutely no help for understanding how they work or for designing either kind of motors.<p>Electromagnetic motors that are not extremely small need ferromagnetic materials. The only ferromagnetic material that is known to be synthesized by living beings is magnetite. Magnetite crystals can be good enough for sensing the magnetic field of the Earth, but they would be a very poor material for motors.<p>An easier to evolve rotating biological motor would be a rotating hydraulic motor, e.g. powered by pumped blood or lymph. This could work if the wheel would become non-living after being grown, to no longer need nerves and blood vessels. However it would be very difficult for a living being to seal the space between an axis and the rotating wheel in such a way so that blood or lymph would not spill out through the interstice.
Jet engines do not strike me as being inherently simpler than muscles, not by a long shot.<p>They're still the best way we know of going about the business of building a flying machine, for various reasons.
I would posit that the human brain is complex, and adding senses is simpler than replicating an aspect of the mind more accurately.
> easiest<p>This is the keyword here, just because the other approach is harder does not mean it is impossible.<p>It's a decent gamble to try and do things the hard way if it is possible to be deployed on cheaper/smaller hardware (eg: no lidars, just cameras).
Is it still a decent gamble after you've been trying (and failing) for a decade, and numerous well funded competitors are going the easy way, and when there is huge upside to being first, and when the value of FSD easily covers the rapidly falling cost of LIDAR?<p>No. It's not a good idea. It's not a good gamble. It's stupid, and the engineers can see it's stupid. A lot of them have quit, reducing the very slim chances of it working even further.
But why is FSD "failing" is the key question.<p>Hint: it's not the sensor inputs that are the bottleneck!
Yeah you could be right.<p>Not my area of expertise, so I’d rather not try to predict what will work and what won’t.
Because FSD <i>driving</i> not <i>navigation</i> is going to be held (rightly) to a <i>much</i> higher standard than human driving.<p>Humans are fallible and we have other sensors, like hearing, or touch (through feedback on the steering wheel) that are also involved in driving.<p>We already have other sensors that are not vision that work with us when driving like ABS and electronic stability.<p>The other reason it's dumb is that adding LIDAR and proper sensor fusion makes things <i>better</i> and the cost of LIDAR is rapidly dropping as its installed across new fleets in CN and elsewhere.
Yeah and we should replace the wheels with legs. <i>every other</i> company disagrees with musk, putting alternate sensors on even low end cars.
Both the vision and cognition hardware in humans are vastly superior, and don't get me started on the software.<p>I never understood why they would choose to fight with "one hand behind your back". More sensors = more better
~1.2 million global deaths per year due to motor vehicle accidents say otherwise.
Actually, that's the standard we're all talking about. Nearly everyone is totally fine with human-caused traffic deaths. Nobody wants to ban human drivers at that rate of death.<p>But if FSD had the same rate, people would be losing it.
We don’t drive with just our eyes, we also drive with our brains.
The safety record of humans is not so great. They tend to fail in snow, ice, fog, rain and at night. We should be aiming a little higher.<p>I don’t think it makes sense to limit yourself while you are still figuring out what really works. You should go with a maximum of sensors and once it works, you can see what can be left out.
Yeah, but even if the safety level was 10% better, let's say--nobody would accept that rate. It wouldn't get adopted, we wouldn't be happy to save those lives. People would be outraged.<p>I think it's got something to do with an innate belief to self-determination. It's fine if I make a mistake to kill myself, and it's not fine if someone else does. It's super not fine if someone dies at the hands of a rich person's technology. Outrage, lawsuits, "justice."
Humans have cameras (eyes) + AGI. Cars have to compensate with LiDARs and other sensors that humans don't.
Eyes have higher dynamic range and eyes don't freeze below 0°C. You can also put on sunglasses for even more weather-related adjustments.
While I am in the camp that believes camera-only FSD won't succeed, your comment isn't entirely accurate.<p>CCD and CMOS sensors can easily work in sub-freezing temperatures with various kinds of heating. There are 10's of millions of surveillance cameras installed outdoors in sub-freezing climates that work fine.<p>Cameras also have moveable IR cut filters, which is analogous to your sunglasses example.<p>Human eyes do have greater dynamic range in the visible light spectrum, but solid state sensors can commonly interpret light above 1000nm, and of course you can do thermal/IR imagers to provide optical sensing of wavelengths outside of what a human can see.<p>Sensor technology relative to the human eye isn't what is holding FSD back.
Technology can't compete with how easy it is to make more human-based navigation devices ;-)
Because we can't install lidars on our heads
This is commonly said but trivially falsifiable — a blind human crosses the street better than a Tesla.<p>Eyesight isn’t the thing. Humans have a persistent mental model of the world, and of the physics that drive it. Our eyes only check in every now and then to keep our model up to date.<p>Our ears and sense of touch do a lot of work in walking and driving, too. Trying to narrow it all down to vision is silly.
Deaf people drive.<p>I knew a guy with no arms who drove with his prosthetic hooks. Of course he can feel vibrations and things through his ass, but so could the car if they wanted. Do they use accelerometer data? (I don't know the answer to that) Do they have ABS sensors that can detect wheel lockup/speed status? Because I don't.<p>I believe I can drive a car to the legal standard, remotely, with a good enough camera array.
I fall on my butt all the time.
Because I want better?
Careful now. You'll get branded as a "Tesla hater" for stating facts like that. Or you'll get unflattering ad-homs comparing you to the Electrek guy
Relevant part: "Tesla's far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company's 1.59 million deliveries last year."
I am confused about what Tesla is doing. They have effectively two automobile products now with one failed product (cybertruck). reading various articles about this doesn't make it more clear. Do they not want to be a car company?
The problem with being a car company is that they'd have to compete with China. It's possible, but they'd have to make additional capital investments to keep up. They've just wasted a ton of money on a failed Musk vanity project (Cybertruck) and squandered a ton of goodwill in their home market via the DOGE fiasco. Cash flow is not what it once was, and if they're going to make a big capital investment, they're probably right in looking at robots. But that strategy puts them back where they were 20 years ago, just getting started in EVs, and their cash flow will depend on cars for many years to come.
If the problem with being a car company is that they'd have to compete with China, then I have some bad news about being a robot company. China is already farther ahead in both technology and volume of humanoid robots.[0][1][2][3]<p>[0] <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/cnbc-china-connection-newsletter-humanoid-robots-middle-east-us-limx-tesla-optimus.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/cnbc-china-connection-newsle...</a><p>[1]<a href="https://www.unitree.com/g1" rel="nofollow">https://www.unitree.com/g1</a><p>[2] <a href="https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/limx-humanoid-robots-walk-out-of-crates" rel="nofollow">https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/limx-humanoid...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.bgr.com/2083491/china-agibot-humanoid-robot-us-competition/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bgr.com/2083491/china-agibot-humanoid-robot-us-c...</a>
If you think of Musk companies as vehicles to extract money from state and federal governments, then everything falls into focus. Carbon credits, government launches and the Quixotic quest for Mars, and soon Tesla robots sold to the DoD and DHS. I'm only half-joking.
Fair point. It's hard to support Tesla's valuation as a car company, it may be even harder to support as a robot company. You have to wonder what might have been if they'd spent that Cybertruck money on battery research.
Is there anything China isn't far ahead in? Maybe capitalism was a failure.
Market cap and it's not even close. Turns out financialisation is the classic you-get-what-you-asked-for-not-what-you-wanted of capitalism. We told the optimiser to make number go up, and number has certainly gone up. China's number? Not as up.<p>I think it could have gone differently if we gave our economic system something to optimise other than itself, but then we wouldn't have centibillionaires, so... swings and roundabouts I guess?
>Maybe capitalism was a failure.<p>China is hyper-capitalist. They're living proof that capitalism has won.
China is a mixed economy with some capitalist parts and some socialist parts just like us. Their mix is just a bit more effective than our mix than our mix and they have higher scale.
It's more effective at depressing wages and at shovelling other people's money at whoever the politicians want to win. They are also much better at hiding debt -- in manufacturing companies, in banks, and in provincial governments. A lot of their successes lose money but they are awesome at hiding it and they might well outcompete Western companies and thereby cause a lot of harm.
What do you mean “hiding it”? Are you suggesting Chinas manufacturing capacity is entirely fraudulent or cooking the books? Or that the state is providing subsidies? Because if its the latter… have you seen the brouhaha over Amazon HQ2? Or seen the number of tax credits/incentives doled out by US cities to companies that “promise” jobs but don’t even deliver them? (but keep their subsidies).
> They are also much better at hiding debt<p>Through bonds? or SVPs to fund the building of datacentres?
China is capitalist on a state level, that's where they are winning. The US lets things get mired in red tape and special interests because nobody wants to take responsibility for growth.<p>In China, I imagine that if your company does something relevant to the five year initiative then you get a lot of red tape cut for you.
> China is hyper-capitalist.<p>China is one party system, where CPC controls and owns production, policy, finance and even consumption levers.
> CPC controls and owns production, policy, finance and even consumption levers.<p>These terms are useless for distinguishing anything -- what you said can be said about literally any capitalist state.<p>> China is one party system<p>This is also relatively uninteresting. There have been many countries where a single party has nominally remained in power for about as long as the CCP has. That Deng Xiaoping's coup occurred without nominally dismantling the party makes the "one party system" distinction a superficial one.
> These terms are useless for distinguishing anything -- what you said can be said about literally any capitalist state.<p>CPC mandates and gets seats on highest boards of companies, combines IP research across civil military, is both producer and consumer of products etc. Look at China's civil military fusion policy on the latest iteration of how they are doing this. In china there is no separate 3-4 branches of govt like in most places. CPC controls all legislative, executive, judiciary, military and private company boards and financial capital.
Again, just about everything you said applies to the U.S. state and its relations to private firms. Regardless of all that, profits accrue to private owners, investment decisions are determined by profit, and labor is hired and disciplined via market relations. All of the political relations you listed only marginally modify capitalist relations; the law of value still operates.
It's not like US is not capitalist in anything: it's still state-of-the-art in software, which preoves that the problem is not with capital markets.<p>It just probably overregulated hardware manufacturing out of existence with unionizing and other too strong regulations.
Or in a more charitable light maybe capitalism just isn’t the only system that’s capable of reaching certain technological development.
Marketing, sales, finance.
Free speech.
LLMs...
You acting like china isn't capitalism
Making good cars. They can make cheap ones, maybe acceptable ones, but not good ones. They are not there yet. Of course, the general populace doesn’t really care, and the vast majority of the market is not driven by this, but still.
That's why the whole NCAP safety table is topped with Chinese vehicles then.
> Making good cars. They can make cheap ones, maybe acceptable ones, but not good ones.<p>Did you just get out of your Time Machine from a decade ago?
It doesn't help that Musk supported a guy who turned around and gutted the incentives that were helping Tesla turn a profit.
It seems counterintuitive, but this helped Tesla which is why Musk championed it. Basically when that tax credit came out, a bunch of Tesla owners had their cars underwater - loans were more than new cars were selling for and depreciation thru the roof. Plus the tax credit helped their competitors. Now that the credit is gone, Tesla owners are closer to being in the black on their cars and it also caused Ford and GM to cut EV production by I believe 100%. Win win for Tesla.
> It seems counterintuitive, but this helped Tesla which is why Musk championed it. Basically when that tax credit came out, a bunch of Tesla owners had their cars underwater - loans were more than new cars were selling for and depreciation thru the roof. Plus the tax credit helped their competitors.<p>This makes sense if your business strategy is to get existing Tesla owners to trade their current Teslas to buy new Teslas, rather than to convert non-Tesla owners to buy new Teslas. The latter market is WAY bigger and the tax credit was a huge carrot enticing them to look at a brand they'd never try otherwise in a market where ICE vehicle prices were skyrocketing.<p>As it stands, there are a ton of Tesla owners who bought their cars with the tax refund, are underwater on them, bitter about it and/or dislike Elon personally, and will never buy a Tesla again. This is churn and brand destruction without a corresponding top of funnel increase.<p>In contrast, the supercharger network was significant not just for the convenience factor for Tesla owners, but also for the fact that it was a social signal that Tesla was serious about growing the addressable market of EV owners generally by not just making a decent car but making the "EV lifestyle" seem possible to non-EV owners.<p>If Tesla actually is happy that the tax credit is going away, that seems like they're acknowledging that they're satisfied taking shrinking share of a shrinking market, which is their prerogative, but it's a bad business.
You lost me, how does making previous owners whole help tesla sell new ones?
If your existing owners have made a "profit", or at least lost less to deprecation than normal, they're probably more willing to buy a new car from you (trading or selling their existing one) even if that new car is more expensive and they're actually paying just as much to upgrade as they would be anyway.
Of course, it's 4D chess. This was such a genius move that Tesla profits fell 46% last year and they are ending production of their highest-margin vehicles.<p>GM wrote down $4B when they reduced their EV production. Despite that, last year GM sold half the number of EVs as Tesla did. If THAT was reduced production by 100%, then Tesla would have been truly fucked had Harris won the election.<p>Tesla is suffering because Elon Musk was a genius at some point in the past. Then, he got into ketamine and fried his brain.<p>The cars are expensive, have QC issues, and are facing steep competition from the rest of the world. Tesla's attempt to build an F150 competitor was a disaster, Optimus is years away from being useful for anything, and after 15 years of "We'll totally release FSD this year!" the market seems to finally be realizing that it's not going to happen for a little while.<p>It really sucks to see a perfectly good company get blown to smithereens, but shareholders did choose to bet on the man.
It seems counterintuitive, but a 46% profit loss is good for Tesla and poised them perfectly to succeed.
> Elon Musk was a genius at some point in the past<p>When he wrote the Hyperloop white paper? When he backdated himself as the founder of Tesla, then pushed the real founders out?...<p>He is a genius snake oil salesman, I give you that.
This seems bizarre. Only reason my family bought a Tesla is thanks to the ev tax credit. Without it there are far better options.
won’t killing the EV market hurt Tesla in the long run?<p>markets are healthiest when there are many healthy competitors
Right now they struggle to compete with European car manufacturers, there is no way they can compete with China.
<i>The problem with being a car company is that they'd have to compete with China.</i><p>As if China cannot produce kick ass robots ? What special sauce does Musk have here that a country with a massive pool of highly trained and educated engineers and decades of manufacturing expertise don't have?
I would bet that as soon as someone "solves" robots. China will relatively shortly, that is months or few years produce something that surpasses them. They have all the pieces and all the capabilities. Just look at drones for example. It just requires correct solution and China might even be first to provided that.
I'm sure China can. But nobody is producing consumer humanoid robots at any scale yet, so Tesla can at least make the argument that they'll make better robots when people actually start buying robots. People are buying cars at scale right now, and existing Tesla models have fallen behind their Chinese competitors.
Tesla "competed" by corruptly getting BYD banned from the US and hurting US consumers.
Looks like they took Peter Thiel’s animosity towards competition too literally by blocking BYD from the US market. Without competition, they had no incentive to innovate since they were selling into the wealthiest market in the world for their product, the US.<p>No innovation made them stagnate. Being blocked from the US made BYD innovate.
He generated a lot of goodwill with "that DOGE fiasco", too. It just depends on where you fall politically.
Elon generated goodwill with DOGE among a group of people. He then alienated them during a public spat with the president. This is also a president who has decided to make EVs synonymous with the opposition political party.
Which is interesting because it seems DOGE failed to do anything useful. Patrick Boyle’s video suggested it actually cost $100B.<p>Which would be par the course for Ketamine Elon
The people he generated goodwill with don't buy a lot of EVs, apparently.
Elon's a strange hero for MAGA. All the hardcore rural MAGAs I know hate Elon. They consider him a rich dickhead nerd (and group him with Gates) and they hate EVs with a passion, since they are quiet and produce no black smoke.
Automotive stocks are subject to the rules of gravity, aka "boring", while tech stocks are not. Automakers operate on low margins and high volume, and must compete on price, reliability or luxury brand status. Most automakers have multiple brands to sell to all market segments.<p>Tesla's value proposition was that it was going to be an iPod in a world of identikit MP3 players, and charge a premium for it. One brand to rule them all, no pesky dealerships, with futuristic EV tech and a touchscreen dash that made gas-powered, tactile button-laden cars obsolete.<p>That was twenty years ago. Tesla went from leading the pack to struggling to achieve scale, with its limelight-seeking leader increasingly holding it back. The leader wants headlines for pioneering "cool shit" and pushing hype to pump the stock price. Buyers on the other hand want affordable and timely repairs (impossible with their resistance to third party body shops and unit cost of replacement parts). As a mature company, it is completely un-equipped to compete with the incumbents whose leaders, not by coincidence, are all largely unknown to the public.
> Tesla's far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company's 1.59 million deliveries last year. The Model 3 now starts at about $37,000, and the Model Y is around $40,000. Tesla debuted more affordable versions of the vehicles late last year.<p>I’m confused as to what’s not clear from the article for you?
Agreed. I also thought it was a very dumb move until I saw that. That said, 3% but it costs 2.5x as much, maybe people option them higher idk, that could be a 10% revenue hit. But maybe that's worth it for them
Apparently Tesla dropped 4680 battery production for the CT by 99%, so the CT isn't long for this world either.<p>But that's okay! They have the Cybercab that will 100% drive itself For Real This Time, $99/mo Autopilot/FSD subscriptions and robots that will theoretically wash your dishes in an age where most people have an adversarial relationship with anything AI, so.
The two flagship as best selling cars in the world. S and X were low volume cars to get started.
How do you suppose Cybertruck is a failure? I see just as many of them as Rivians, while releasing over 5 years later.
They built production capacity for 125,000-250,000 units per year. They are selling around 20,000 units per year.<p>It was supposed to cost $39k at the low end and have 500 miles of range at the high end. This drove the hype and high reservation numbers.<p>In reality it costs $79k and offers up to 325 miles of range. Doubling the price is going to significantly limit the reach of the product.
It was estimated at >200k/year, but in reality is well under 50k/year. I'd say that is a failure compared to their guidance.
They are so proud of the Cybertruck sales that they don't eevn dare to disclose sales figures. That's the sign of a market success.
Ignoring who makes it, this kind of gimmickmobile usually sells well for about a year, and then everyone who wants one has one. It was never going to be a tentpole.
Rivian is not making money on those trucks either... I wouldn't count that as a win.
I regularly see Rivians. I've never once seen a Cybertruck in real life. (Midwest USA)
The meme stock run up made Tesla more valuable than the rest of the auto industry combined. They HAVE to find something bigger.<p>I don’t think they have. Humanoid robots are a bad joke. But that’s why they are pivoting.
Humanoid robots make sense in only one context I can think of, and I definitely wouldn't put it past Musk to enter that market. It will be a big one. He may just be waiting for material science to catch up with his product vision. Much like Steve Jobs waited by the river until capacitive multitouch came floating by, and then pounced on it.<p>Meantime, as others have pointed out, the Model S and X are not selling enough to justify keeping the factory running. I don't see them going into Optimus production immediately, since as you suggest it's a solution looking for a problem.
If you’re beating around the same bush, I think the material science is already there. It’s more the power draw and the societal blowback that are issues. It is an underrated market, but not a >1T$ market (I hope).
The X and S were always very low volume niche products unlike the much more mainstream Y and 3. I wouldn’t read much into it.
I would. Someone in the market for a presumably profitable BMW 5 or 7 series isn't going to stay with BMW and drive a 3 series.<p>Yearly sales of model X have been comparable to the 5 series, at least until last year when musk's political activities took the shine off the brand.<p>High end cars are more profitable. There are millions of 3 and Y owners with positive experiences who would stay with the brand if it had something to move up to.<p>My 23 MX is the best car I've ever owned. I wouldn't buy the current iterations of 3 and Y.<p>Most refresh X owners think it's pretty great (not perfect). There are no alternatives at the moment, mostly because other manufacturers are terrible at software development...and that's not good for software defined vehicles.<p>It's sad to see Tesla walk away from the luxury segment so they can focus on robots, go karts, and robots pretending to drive go karts.
S you can understand, because sedans are dead. But every other US auto company is making big profits with large SUVs, so I don't get dropping X.<p>Agree with other posters who say whatever you think of Musk, Tesla styling has gotten very stale.
Check out videos of Chinese car company factories. They are far more automated and futuristic than Tesla’s. Most of the new ones have almost no humans in them at all. They have great supply chains and partners for everything that is an input into these factories, and they’re often just up the street from the car factories. The costs are rock bottom and the competition between car companies in China is absolutely bananas.
They are almost exclusively focused on autonomous cars, humanoid robots, and energy (batteries now, maybe more solar manufacturing later).<p>As much as I dislike it, I can't disagree with the business case here. They already have >300k monthly subscribers at about $100/month. That business will grow rapidly from here as well as the robotaxi business itself.<p>Within 2 years, this business will look radically different just because of these two changes.
About a decade ago, Musk said he wanted to kickstart the electric car industry, make electric cars cool by showing they can be high performance and promising not to enforce Tesla's patents against competitors. Remember how electric cars used to be perceived? The Simpsons put it as "people will think you're gay". I'd say he completely succeeded in that goal and the whole "make piles of money for investors" is just because investors decided to try doing that.
Tesla and musk were living off of monstrous subsidies to the tune of 20B or more
Sure. And selling the most popular car on the planet is a failure?<p>Didn't the US government put ~$80b into rescuing GM etc, years ago?<p>Subsidies bootstrapped the EV industry. Stupid policies mean walking away from the investment, ceding the market to foreign competitors, and doubling down on legacy ICE crap the rest of the world no longer wants...and Americans will be less and less able to afford.
EVs are becoming commoditized. Tesla doesn’t have the scale ( or experience ) to play that angle.
it's very difficult to have a conversation about this, because it would appear that sincere answers to your question will get downvoted. one POV is that, if you accept the bear case from Internet commenters that these guys are incompetent or stupid - blah blah blah, Cybetruck - the existence of their autonomous taxi product is extremely bullish. they managed to pull off something similar to Waymo despite being so much worse at it, yes? I'm not sure they will even need a diverse product line of premium cars, if they can sell an autonomous 3 for the price of a small house. on the flip side, the bear case there is, if they could figure it out, so will a lot of other car companies. and yet, Cruise ceased operations, and Tesla will seemingly pay a manageable amount of blood money for Autopilot and move on.<p>nobody really can predict the future, so unsurprisingly, "reading various articles about this doesn't make it more clear." but people on the Internet keep getting worked up about it. to me, people do not comprehend the meaning of "high risk, high reward."
Their autonomous taxi program is a joke right now, especially compared to Waymo. Way fewer cities/rides, and they haven't even deployed their cybertaxi thing.
[flagged]
I love FSD and I know it well. I probably wouldn't feel super comfortable in a Tesla taxi. I've seen too much.
Tesla doesn't even trust their own full self driving system. They still have safety monitors for their self-driving taxi service.<p>The Las Vegas Loop continues to have actual drivers and that's an enclosed space entirely controlled by Tesla. If you can't even trust it in a single lane space you completely control, how can you trust it in the real world?
If you think it is, take your hands of the wheel and close your eyes. Fall asleep at the wheel. Not willing to do so? I guess your car <i>isn't</i> really driving you everywhere.<p>Your view on how stocks work is interesting as well — you realize most of the investors are regular, uninformed non-techies who invest based on vibes, right? Vibes like "my car is driving me everywhere, this is the future!" — the exact same thoughtless, surface-level analysis you're going off of.<p>Therefore, you're trying to beat the market by using the exact same reasoning 99% of its investors have used. Good luck.
When Tesla started producing cars, everyone wanted what they proposed. Now, no one wants the cybertruck. No one is really asking for humanoid robots. Their self driving is vastly inferior to waymo when it comes to taxies, I can't see them winning that market. Their batteries and solar panels, like their cars, seem to be more or less abandoned.<p>So, it's pretty easy to see why people are confused and upset. Tesla is discontinuing all the things people like about Tesla, and selling vapourware that no one really wants anyways, instead. It's also not "a difficult conversation."<p>What seems more likely is that Musk, in his extreme shift to the right, has abandoned the original goal of Tesla: producing sustainable electric vehicles. He's become more and more delusional, with failing like the Boring machine and the Cybertruck starting to pile up. He's alienated his existing customer base by both getting into politics and dropping any pretext of trying to help the environment.<p>From my point of view, Tesla is a failed company with a leader who has gone off the rails, and a board that refuses to reign him in. Revenues are falling off a cliff outside of US governmental money, and it's betting the whole ship on only two ideas: self driving, which is so far no where close to being where it needs to be, despite the progress, and on yet another fairy tale that is humanoid robots.
imo their competition for autonomous vehicles doesn’t come from car companies, but from tech companies.<p>Amazon has a lucrative incentive to automate its supply chain up to and including last mile delivery. Waymo has proven out the tech and could easily partner with Uber or Lyft for the rider experience and reach.<p>If you’re FedEx, for example, would you rather buy from Amazon or from Tesla? Who is more likely to be a sane and trustworthy partner?
I don't think that Uber or Lyft are going to invest in self-driving taxis. The capital model is completely different: Uber and Lyft are by design capital light, they own nothing more than the software (1), and someone needs to buy all of these self-driving machines and then someone needs to maintain them, whereas their current model doesn't do that- they can't offer that to any tech partner.<p>The reason that you don't see more Waymo areas has nothing to do with rider pool or experience, it is because their tech requires pre-mapping everything with LiDAR several times- the advantage is that if you know what is static (because it was in all of that LiDAR mapping) then a simple difference algo can tell you everything that is dynamic in the environment. (Also, they are just starting to hit cities with significant precipitation- SFO, LA, ATX, PHX are all pretty dry cities, they are going into ATL, MIA, DC, DEN, etc.)<p>1: With a lot of suspicion that much of their profit comes from drivers not understanding depreciation of their vehicles, something that the accountants who work for Uber and Lyft will understand very very well.
Uber, and to a lesser extent Lyft, has been an extremely prolific investor in the autonomous vehicle space. They're absolutely paying attention to it.<p>Similarly, Waymo isn't bottlenecked by mapping or rain. I've seen enough of them testing in Seattle and Tokyo, as examples.
Uber spent billions trying to make self-driving work, until they gave up. Not "by design".
> they managed to pull off something similar to Waymo despite being so much worse at it, yes?<p>similar?! what exactly is your definition of similar? tesla and waymo are so far apart that it is difficult to accept any argument that tries to make this comparison. they cannot co-exist in the same sentence unless to explain one’s success against the other’s failures
Just a reminder that Tesla has still not offered driverless robotaxi rides to the public.<p>At this point, it's entirely because Musk refuses to add LIDAR. If he did they could probably be competing with Waymo in a year.
You should probably keep reading.<p>Elon for years has said Tesla is not a car company. He’s also said the “factory is the product.” Tesla also has energy divisions and investments, as well as xAI investments now.<p>Logically given that Model S and X are something like less than 5% of deliveries (and have been for years), if they’re right about Optimus, that capacity will generate far greater revenue.
Do they have enough people to remotely operate that many Optimuses?
They can probably hire enough random dudes in India, especially if AI reduces the need for call center employees.<p>It will be slightly creepy when the Optimus walks into the bedroom and stares while its owner is ... in the middle of something, but that's a small price to pay.<p>Plus the Tesla employees in the U.S. will also be able to share the video, so it's a win-win.
This is interesting. If Optimus hardware is supposed to be $15k, and Indian workers remotely operate it, there must be jobs in the US and elsewhere that it can handle. Median Indian salary is $4000 a year. No US minimum wage, no overly expensive health care, no Union fees, no workers comp, no visa. 86% savings over a US worker at $15 an hour. Plus, if they are a maid, there's a chance they'll get a free peek.
Is this a Black Mirror episode yet?
> if they’re right about Optimus, that capacity will generate far greater revenue.<p>How many Cyber Trucks were they supposed to sell?<p>Yeah. And that was a car. A thing that is at least a category people buy.
Optimus is complete vapourware. The quoted 1M units a year would be utterly unbelievable from any company, let alone Tesla with their history of over-promising.
[flagged]
Its not that strange; normally manufactures are focused on volume and brand.
So you have the 3 and Y in numbers where they can compete in the mass market price range; and CT and FSD for brand notoriety.<p>S and Y are not special enough to do anything for the brand, they dont qualify as halo products anymore. Probably still wouldnt be that interesting even if refreshed.<p>CT is still interesting, it looks different and has some tech inside that seems worthwhile to iterate on.<p>And unlike traditional brands, tesla has FSD, Optimus, and Musk to do enough to keep the brand itself healthy.<p>My guess would be they are deciding what they can learn by iterating the CT, and might decide to drop it in a year or two when the roadster takes the halo role.<p>They will keep trying to improve on volume for 3 and Y.
Five years ago, during the 2021 Q1 earnings call, Musk was asked about Models S and X. He responded:<p><i>> I mean, they’re very expensive, made in low volume. To be totally frank, we’re continuing to make them more for sentimental reasons than anything else. They’re really of minor importance to the future.</i>
Why is it seen initially so negatively?<p>There's nothing inherently wrong with a company deciding to stop producing models that are extremely old, have newer comparable models that are more widely available globally and sell multiples more of. So why would you keep those older models?<p>If anything its a good thing. But its Tesla so nothing they do will be spoken positively of.
> <i>Why is it seen initially so negatively?</i><p>Because Tesla is being measured against the benchmarks they set for themselves. It's not a good look with cancelled models, declining sales, and a lot of self-inflicted brand damage.<p>Musk used to claim Tesla will sell 20 million vehicles per year:<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-drops-reference-its-goal-delivering-20-mln-vehicles-annually-impact-report-2024-05-23/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...</a><p>The new goal is to have sold 20 million in total by 2035. That target represents a further decline in sales. And, given that Tesla over-hypes everything, maybe they won't achieve it:<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/elon-musk-tesla-pay-trillionaire.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/elon-musk-tesla-...</a>
> Why is it seen initially so negatively?<p>They went from being able to profitably produce a luxury car, to not being able to profitably produce a luxury car, to not being able to produce a luxury car at all. All while becoming uncompetitive in the econobox market, and losing huge chunks of it even before their real competitors arrive in market…
Yeah, in Europe Tesla is not losing to BYD. They are losing to VW and BMV before the Chinese manufacturers have entered the competition for real.
But they’re making a robot! It will totally save the company!<p>On top of all the problems you have identified, as well as more, they’re clearly now just aiming for fantasy land.
I'm not surprised at the X, but the S has always been the flagship model with all the best features and the top performance. The 3 is a fine mid-sized car but it's very strange to get rid of your flagship model. Those always cater to a small audience anyways.
What if they have planned product lines we don’t know about.
Yes, flagship models aren't intended to be good sellers. They often are where new features are tested out on customers willing to overpay to be early adopters. Tesla did test out the new steering yoke and removing the control stalks in the S: both features were met with tepid reception and partially rolled back. This is also bad for the 3 and Y, since there will be low confidence in any changes before they are released.
I guess from my perspective you can't buy the S or the X in Australia, all I see everywhere are the 3 and the Y. So for me its not flagship but I do know that the S was the original popular Tesla and has all of the bells and whistles.
As a car company the expectation is that they develop new car models for consumers. They don’t seem to be doing that either.
Because it looks like Elon recognized Tesla's inability to compete against BYD and gave up making cars. This is negative.<p>Since he couldn't leave it at that, he announced a pivot to a product that doesn't exist. This is also negative.
Toyota sells a lot of Camrys and Corollas. It is nice that they also make (made?) Supras and 86s.<p>Also we can have a conversation without tossing the "everyone hates Tesla!" poison down the well immediately.
The difference there is that Supra's and 86's are performance cars, whereas Camry's and Corollas arent. You can't compare a Hatchback to an 86.<p>The Model S is comparable performance to the Model 3 performance.<p>My point is that the latest models 3 & Y are more affordable alternatives to the S & X and more widely available globally.
Okay that's my ignorance of Tesla models then, I assumed the more expensive models were also faster.<p>I guess then it's more like Toyota EOLing Lexus or GM getting rid of Cadillac.<p>I understand the point that the cheaper models are higher volume. Historically that had not precluded the creation of sports and luxury models for most manufacturers. Are the legacy brands wrong to do this? Currently I doubt their business acumen far less than Elon's.
The model 3 performance model does 0-100 in 3.1 seconds, the model S does that in 2.1, it is therefore faster by a second but 3.1 will beat most cars off the line quite comfortably. The Supra for context does that in 4.1 seconds.<p>Nothing wrong with keeping a sport and luxury model, however I would argue that the latest models are quite sporty and luxurious in their own right.<p>Companies like Ford constantly discontinue models, but they don't get the level of attention Tesla does.<p>If Tesla aren't seeing the Model S and X being sold to anywhere near the degree of the 3 and the Y, then why continue making them? They aren't as globally available and its clear people don't want them as much as the others.
I think we're sort of back at the beginning here. They are welcome to focus on their bestsellers. Traditional automotive wisdom would favor halo models and upper trim models so people can boast about a sedan that can out-drag a Supra.<p>> Companies like Ford constantly discontinue models, but they don't get the level of attention Tesla does.<p>If they axed 2/5 of their models it might. But they're also not run by an attention wh- addict with an Apple-like fanbase.<p>Oh and also they're axing 2/5 of their models to build teleoperated robots. Seems like the attention is well deserved here.
The S is faster than any other Tesla. Non-plaid S and X are much faster than non P 3 and Y.<p>Your main point is highly valid. Why does any manufacturer bother to make anything better than a Camry?<p>Because it makes money, of course.
But the 3 isn’t comparable. It’s cheap, looks cheap and feels cheap.
Someone who owns a BMW 5 series isn't going to switch down to a new model of the 3 series. The X makes the 3 and Y feel like go karts (that are slow). The S is a missile. Fun, but not for me.<p>The other way of looking at this: The X is the only Tesla model with door handles that aren't stupid.
Having a halo product can be inspiring. A lot of BMW buyers may get a boring old 3 series but they like that the low volume M cars exist, for example.
Maybe they will finally release the Roadster to serve this purpose
Just buy an i4, even the eDrive is pretty zippy 0-60 in 5.4 seconds (the M50 can do it in 3.1 seconds). I’m not sure what the M car EV will look like beyond a motor for every wheel, but I can’t really see a point to it.
Will they increase specs on the 3 and the Y after the S and X are sunset?
Ford got a lot of heat for shifting all of their NA production to Mustangs and F-series trucks too a few years ago.
Ford didn’t say it was so they could make a robot butler instead.
The reason was sillier: China forced Ford to sell Mazda to enter the Chinese market, because Mazda entered the Chinese market before Ford and China considered them the same entity subject to the same outside manufacturer limits).<p>Mazda handled the small vehicle chassis design for Ford. So without Mazda, Ford no longer had the knowledge for continued development of their sedans and crossovers based on sedan platforms.
No, but they are retooling their MachE factory to make batteries, which felt just as much of a wtf as this BS
Ford dropped sedans, they still have plenty of SUVs and other trucks you can buy.
Because it's Elon Musk.<p>10 years ago people here would be describing this as a good decision.
You are, of course, exactly right but you will nevertheless be downvoted for the same reasons you allude to.
Coming up next: Tesla to end production of all cars and sell only NFT/Crypto with pictures of Cybertruck going to the moon/mars. This is the only company which provides Speculation as a Service. With a complete monopoly on SPaaS, the market cap will skyrocket to $20 Trillion. Elon will be given Nobel peace prize for saving mankind from itself as well as physics.
Before Tesla came along there were a small number of EVs but they were all pretty bad because their only purpose was to serve as “compliance cars” in states like California so automakers could sell more gas cars. (See the documentary <i>Who Killed the Electric Car?</i> for more on this.)<p>So Tesla deserves credit for building the first electric cars that people actually wanted to buy. They also deserve credit for building the largest and most reliable charging network - a key factor in making electric car ownership more feasible.<p>But they’ve made a lot of poor decisions recently and all the money and power went to Elon’s head. I think it was beneficial to the world for Tesla to exist and do that important work early on, and now it’s beneficial to the world for the company to die.
> “If you’re interested in buying a Model S and X, now would be the time to order it.”<p>I can't tell if this is real and he realizes the traditional luxury brands have beaten him or if he's just using the classic rug store sales tactic.
Is that an international thing? There was a rug store next to where I grew up in Stockholm which had a sale because they were closing the shop from at least the early 90s until ca 2020 during covid when they closed the shop for real. There are also a couple more rug stores doing the same thing, one of them still to this day.
It's an international thing, down to the neverending "Closing now fr fr" sales. There was general bemusement in Sydney when one shop notorious for this <i>actually</i> closed down, but only because the building was demolished to make way for a highway interchange.<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/rozelle-rugs-shop-really-is-closing-down-as-westconnex-moves-in-20171220-h07mon.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/rozelle-rug...</a><p>In many countries, "carpet salesman" is equivalent to "used car salesman" as the least trustworthy occupation imaginable.
Well, at least Sweden and the US. Kind of amazing.
For what it's worth: he has been saying for years, that they were only making the S and X for nostalgic reasons.
classic "closing-store" sale, I wouldn't be surprised if the closing phase never ended.
"Buy the software-dependent product we're not going to support going forward!"
I think Tesla would make way more sense if they got out of the car part of the business. Serving the consumer market directly is very expensive.<p>Their electronics, batteries, motors, etc., are world class. Packaging this up into something a partner can use to build actual cars could have less risk. An electric motor or battery can propel many kinds of automobile. They tend to keep their value better when stored in this format too. The moment everything is integrated into a car, things get very bad very quickly unless you're selling Ferraris or Lamborghinis.
That would be lower margin and narrower moat even if they had the partners lined up and didn't have a valuation based on the assumption one day the car everyone would use would be a Tesla.
> Their electronics, batteries, motors, etc., are world class.<p>This was maybe true 5-10 years ago, but not today.
Interesting that they're cutting S/X but keeping the Cybertruck. Whatever metric they're using (revenue, profit, units, etc.) that led them to cut the S/X would surely have similar numbers for the Cybertruck, if not worse.
The metric for the Cybertruck is the impact to Elon's ego. Nothing about this project is rational.
Part of it is they wanted that factory space at Fremont for the Optimus production line. That's because the Optimus team is located there, in Silicon Valley.
Painted metallic chassis of a car is always dipped in car sized acid baths and primer baths. Dipping the whole cars held on a carriage is the only way it's done, anywhere, for any brands, using any metals, even many Ferrari, as well as with many classic car restoration projects. Your cars will be competing with brand new 1960s Fords and Mazdas if you were not doing it in terms of corrosion resistance - unless, I'm guessing, you're making DeLoreans and Cybertrucks.
One of Oxide+Friends predictions was "6 year: Tesla is out of the consumer car business".<p><a href="https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/predictions-2026" rel="nofollow">https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/predictions...</a>
They need more room to make the next stock pump scheme look legit.<p>I'm sure they already have enough inventory to last a while and demand is probably cratering because of Elon's Twitter posts and the fact that Tesla never refreshes their models.
> Tesla never refreshes their models<p>I'v seen quite a few Tesla Ys that needed repairs and... they seem to improve the car year to year or even months to months. Car interface suddenly changes to RJ45, some metal parts changed to aluminium (if I'm not mistaken), various things that become easyer to fix and so on. Low Voltage battery getting Li-Ion. Front under body changes: <a href="https://service.tesla.com/docs/BodyRepair/Body_Repair_Procedures/Model_Y_SP/HTML/en-us/GUID-0A93325B-9274-461F-B3D9-877BBC1A56BE.html" rel="nofollow">https://service.tesla.com/docs/BodyRepair/Body_Repair_Proced...</a><p>And then the airbag controller gets newer and newer.<p>Not something to market about, but you see steady incremental improvements.<p>What I want to say, the serviceability is very good for the cars. You get open documentation, you can access toolbox for a price, but it's there for the simple DIYer. Need to change pyro fuse? No problem, pop up docs, order part, change it. The parts are cheap.
They've just refreshed their Model 3 and Model Y within the last year or so. With the model Y looking considerably different so I'm not sure where you got that from
I can give you the Model Y but take a look at the rest of the lineup compared to when they were first released. Hell, you're in this very post calling the S/X old.
And yet absolutely no under the hood stats have changed in 8 years - battery capacity, charging rate, charging curve, performance
Personally I'm also rather turned off by elon musk killing several hundred thousand people per year by illegally shutting USAID. You know, mass murder and all of that. Inhuman filth.
[flagged]
So is the new roadster just not happening?
Tesla designer I know said that it’s not something that anyone is currently working on.<p>As such, my guess is “not any time soon”.
It’ll be out and immediately cancelled
On the earnings call Elon said<p>“we’re hoping to debut [next gen roadster] in April, hopefully. It’s gonna be something out of this world.”<p>(I’m just the messenger, don’t shoot me)
Elon's $1T tranches are mostly based on market cap, right? Switching from just a carmaker to a "physical AI" company could be all he needs to convince the stock market to ignore Tesla's declining profits and raise the market cap even higher.
Hard to believe, but it's almost 10 years since they announced the new Roadster
So many Tesla/Musk haters around here.
This is sad in that I was serious about finally getting one in two to three years (We have two Model 3 LRs already), but is fantastic in that no other car interests me and I now don't have this hyper materialistic goal distracting me.<p>If Tesla completely exits automotive and decides to license their FSD tech (or someone else catches up), then I'll probably just get whatever the equivalent of a Bolt is then with that and premium sound.<p>And they just might, too. Recall that the EV tax credit went away this year along with regulatory credits to other auto OEMs, which was a huge part of their business. This combined with the Cybertruck (unsurprisingly!) missing sales targets is problematic.
Wait, an S? Why? I've got a 3 LR too and.... I just can't say anything about the extraordinarily long-in-the-tooth S excites me. Usually something is desirable when it's new, then the desirability fades as the product ages and other new, hot things come onto the market.<p>Don't get me wrong, I don't generally lust after EVs, but I <i>am</i> looking forward to the R3X....
Bigger battery, larger center console and the cabin is slightly more premium. Not $76k premium but moreso than the 3. I also really like the yoke.<p>However, the 3 is lighter, has better headlight clusters, the light accent inside of the cabin (that I thought the S was getting, but I guess not), and a marginally better sound system.
This is slightly off topic but what kind of living situation requires three cars? Polyamorous family?
I have multiple friends who have 6+ cars. To be fair, they're pretty well-off (mid six figure income), but one for example:<p>- Husband Tesla daily driver
- Wife Bronco daily driver
- Truck to pull their boat
- Campervan for outdoor adventures
- Older car for teenager to drive
- 90s convertible for summer fun
> This is sad in that I was serious about finally getting one in two to three years<p>Couldn't have said it better
[flagged]
> Tesla is developing Optimus with the aim of someday selling it as a bipedal, intelligent robot capable of everything from factory work to babysitting.<p>“Full Automated Parenting”. You win a Darwin award on behalf of your kids if you fall for this shtick.
These robots give of a kind of dark vibe to me, especially with everything going on in his AI company. How long until one of them kills someone? I'd prefer a home robot that can't kill me (like something that is passively safe).
Elon Musk is already doing that kind of parenting, so I can see how he likes it.
> Tesla is developing Optimus with the aim of someday selling it as a bipedal, intelligent robot capable of everything from factory work to babysitting.<p>I did not look forward to the news articles about robots accidentally dropping or squashing babies.
Pretty sad seeing people take pleasure in the company failing. See past your opinion about it's leader. At the end of the day, it's the company that brought vehicle electrification to the masses and has acted cash cow for SpaceX, Starlink and Neuralink.
Is Tesla really failing? They have $40 billion cash at hand. More than some legacy automobile market cap.
They're clearly not failing, but if you read comments here or on reddit, lots of people want them to, and have wanted them to for a decade.
He's not just the leader, he's the primary beneficiary, and he's a blatant white supremacist. He's arguably responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people world wide from his short tenure shutting down USAID[0]. So yeah, I'd say its more than fine to take pleasure in his failings.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts" rel="nofollow">https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts</a>
Not nearly as sad as people getting emotionally invested in corporations.<p>Add why should anyone look past their opinions about the leader?<p>We have the saying “the fish rots from the head” for a good reason. Tesla has been rotten ever since Elon got involved.
> Add why should anyone look past their opinions about the leader?<p>Because it's the most advanced car manufacturing in the US... Virtually the only successful EV maker outside of China, and it provides over 100,000 jobs worldwide.
I can get them ending products. That is natural cycle. But what should be worrying is that they have not already introduced at least one model that replace either one. It looks like real stagnation which in long term will kill the company.
It is sad, but big sedans do not sell well and the X really needed to be replaced with something completely different. There are now several other 3 row EV SUVs competing with it, and even low volume ones (eg, R1S) outsell it easily.<p>Don't be surprised if something else takes its place as they do need something larger than Y and less expensive than X was.
No more S3XY lineup of models? I'm surprised Musk was okay with breaking that up.
3YC is the new S3XY.
C3CSY
Tesla must be in serious trouble given recent erratic moves
I can imagine Musk selling these very models with AI slapped onto them and call it revolutionary
The elephant Tesla mocked has run, and stomped over them. Now there comes the pivot.<p>While "The old auto establishment" is not a benevolent structure, they proved that experience is something earned with time and doing things. Corporate knowledge and memory is real, and you can't beat it with brute force.<p>They started the change, but they failed to keep up with the pace. Also hubris, greed and monies.
Any other car company would create an S / X MkII.
> converting Fremont factory lines to make Optimus robots<p>I’m very bullish on humanoid robots, but this seems absolutely batshit insane to me. These things are no where near ready for full scale production.
If the can walk and randomly fire teargas and bullets into crowds of protesters they could replace half of ICE right now.
but first they have to demo it to the higher ups
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsulVXpgYg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsulVXpgYg</a>
This would only replace a small fraction of ICE, and only in states that don't cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.
Elon Musk says something absolutely insane on the weekly. Almost none of it actually happens.
So essentially down to making one car huh.
FSD will launch next year, of course. Just like every year.
I think ever Elon made some strange moves (the chainsaw image, mass-firing people at DOGE and elsewhere or the right-arm gesture) people question more why they should give money to where he is associated with. Tesla suffered from this, in addition to the design becoming awkward compared to older models.
I'm almost surprised they didn't end model 3 production too. Benefit would be much smaller since 3 and y are already so similar.
It seems fairly easy to find figures on how many cars Tesla has produced each quarter but, surprisingly (at least to me), it's harder to find compiled information on (for each quarter):<p>- Average Selling Price;<p>- Cars produced vs cars sold;<p>- How many unsold cars are in inventory. I did find this [1];<p>- A model breakdown of the above 2.<p>The reason I'm interested in this because my theory is that:<p>1. Sales have been shifting from the Model S/X to the Model 3/Y, which reduces average selling price and overall profit. Stopping production is really about the inventory glut;<p>2. Unsold inventory is going up, particularly for the Cybertruck; and<p>3. Tesla marketshare is collapsing in many markets due to a combination of brand collapse among the most likely EV buyers and competition from lower-priced alternatives, particularly Chinese EVs in developing markets.<p>So what exactly is propping up this company at an above $1T market cap?<p>[1]: <a href="https://electrek.co/2025/06/17/tesla-tsla-inventory-overflow-parking-lots-all-over-us/" rel="nofollow">https://electrek.co/2025/06/17/tesla-tsla-inventory-overflow...</a>
While this isn’t sale price data, it should be pretty close, and the trends should be clear:<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1F5IQOynIawoXiJPVarLDgPQDJAdzY8b5Vamw-Vf3eSY/htmlview#gid=231426599" rel="nofollow">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1F5IQOynIawoXiJPV...</a>
Feels a lot like giving up. I guess this is why there is such a strong change in the Tesla messaging, to Robotaxis and robots. But maybe this is inevitable. The cars being made in China are pretty amazing and I don’t think it is possible for American or European companies to compete.
We outsourced it and it would take us 10 years to retool and rebuild that kind of capability. No one wants to take that kind of investment on.
The narrative from Musk cultists has been "Tesla isn't a car company, it's a bet on $excuse_du_jour" for at least a year and a half.
I am surprised that nobody here is talking about grid energy storage, they basically invented that business vertical. It's about 13% of their revenue.
Certainly longer than that. I actually thought Tesla as an energy company made sense — sadly just an excuse to buy and shelve solarcity.
Nobody here seems to remember that this was always the plan: release expensive cars to bootstrap the company which allows them to release progressively cheaper cars until everyone can afford one.<p>Not a fanboy, but this seems like it went exactly according to plan.
Nowhere in that plan was "only produce cheap cars." Unless you're aim is to be the budget brand, it's bizarre behaviour not to have a top end flagship model.
Which phase of the plan talks about repurposing the cheap car factory to make humanoid robots?
Where exactly are those cheaper cars? Still waiting for a 30k model 3 like promised.
You already have it. Musk's earliest promise of a $30k price point appears to be an interview in September 2009: <a href="https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2009/09/25/teslas-elon-musk-on-a-sub-30000-electric-car" rel="nofollow">https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2009/09/25/teslas-elon-musk-on-...</a><p>Adjusted for inflation, $30k then is around $45k now. Tesla sells a Model 3 for just over $35k.<p>It doesn't make any sense to hold someone to a promise like that and <i>not</i> adjust it for inflation. I think you can legitimately complain that he didn't meet the timeline he was aiming for.
I think your point is fair, but look at the 2026 Nissan Leaf.<p>The base is around $28k. This feels like one of the first "affordable" EVs in the USA. It also comes with decent tech without a subscription, and has comparable ranges to Teslas.<p><a href="https://www.caranddriver.com/nissan/leaf" rel="nofollow">https://www.caranddriver.com/nissan/leaf</a>
Meanwhile folks are waiting (no, not really) for their $35K Cybertruck...
Elon got distracted and decided we want humanoid robots.
Buy it used?
Yes. It's interesting to see a consequence of this strategy, which is at least some part of your model 3/Y customers bought it because "it is a Tesla", and being Tesla is premium. If you get rid of the premium, you lose that aura. But maybe the impact is small.
someone is stuffing their channels, huh? first the fsd fiasco, now this
Tesla's secret weapon will be the dyson sphere. Probably complete within 2.. 3 years maximum.
If they want to sell a buttload more cars just make FSD free on all Tesla’s, done.<p>The possibility of FSD is probably the only reason I paid $10K more for a M3 over a BYD Seal. But free FSD? Who can compete with that. Nobody.<p>Also, turning FSD into a subscription is total enshittification and I hate it. It would also go a long way to coax back peeved off buyers and convince them not to make their 2nd EV a different brand.<p>My current sentiment towards Tesla for making FSD subscription-only AFTER I bought my car? Screw you. Go to hell. It’s MY $80k asset. I feel betrayed.
X sure, but the S? it was the best in the lineup<p>why not kill the cybertruck instead?
The S is simply too expensive. People in the market for $100K+ sedans/coupes are gonna perceive more curb appeal from a Mercedes, Audi, BMW or Porsche.<p>Tesla crashed the allure of its brand by lowering the price point of the Y and 3. The X and S aren’t different enough to attract $100K+ purchasers.<p>(It’s one reason why Toyota and other brands use different marks like Lexus for their high end offerings).
Roadster will replace S
I’m a little sad (nostalgic?) about this decision. Model S is a truly historic vehicle.
"HN is dying" is a cliche, I know, but I seriously want to bookmark this thread to revisit it in 10 years - I'm sure it will age even better than (in)famous Dropbox thread. So from that perspective, HN is alive and well :).<p>The level of cynicism of the discussion is overwhelming, frankly. I get it that some people don't like Musk because of his politics, but why should that prevent people interested in technology to at least try to present a steelman case?<p>Let me try it, at a risk to be down-voted to oblivion...<p>1. As people correctly point out, S&X are outdated, low volume models. Investing more engineering time in them doesn't make any business sense; these engineering resources and capital should be clearly redeployed elsewhere.<p>2. People think that Waymo is supposedly better(?) than FSD, but at least some very well informed people (and NVIDIA as a company) believe that it's not. Personal anecdote: an older (HW3) version of Tesla drove me perfectly well in Yosemite last weekend, in on winding mountain roads with 0 cell phone coverage. It will take Waymo forever to map everything there properly with LIDAR, and true autonomy only in selected metro areas has limited value.<p>3. It's obvious that <i>when</i> we have autonomous, general purpose humanoid robots, they will completely transform our societies. Any such robots would require an enormous AI/vision investment. Say what you want about Elon, but xAI basically caught up with the top LLM shops in ~18 months, and now have comparable AI training capacity. You can bet against Optimus, but who else would have the skills to bring both the technology and the AI to market first? China? Good robotics, but no enough data to train their vision models comparing to Tesla, at least not yet.<p>4. So the bear case is that (a) driving autonomy is not possible without LIDAR, (b) Tesla can't bring another very complex product to market, and (c) autonomous robots are not possible in our lifetime. If you look at the AI progress even in the last 12 months, that's a tough sell to me.<p>What are the serious, tech-based counterarguments to the points above?
Okay, I'll bite. For the record, I own Tesla stock and I am generally bullish about AI.<p>I'll try to provide some counter-points specifically regarding the rate of progress.<p>3. It's much easier to catch up in capability (ex. LLMs) than it is to achieve a new capability (ex. replace humans laborers with humanoid robots). You can hire someone from a competitor, secrets eventually leak out, the search space is narrowed etc.<p>4(c). To me, what's most important is whether or not truly autonomous humanoid robots happens in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc. rather than in our lifetime.<p>These timelines will be tied to AI development timelines which largely outside the control of any one player like Tesla. I believe the world is bottlenecked on compute and that the current compute is not sufficient for physical AI.<p>It's extremely easy to be too early (ex. many of the self driving car companies of the past decade), and so for Tesla, there is a risk of over-investing in manufacturing robots before the core technology is ready.
Thanks, these are fair arguments!<p>Re: both 3 and 4(c) - agree that compute (or maybe even power for that compute) is likely to be a bottleneck in the next 3-5 years. However, I think Tesla/xAI are better positioned than many competitors as Tesla is a <i>manufacturing</i> company first and foremost; and this expertise (which is shared freely between Musk's companies) can help it to build it's own data centers, power generation (e.g., solar), or - in the most bullish case - even fab capacity.
Thanks for saying this. For new, impressionable minds here who read most of the comments here and think this it's all devs - it isn't. A lot of us value Musk and incredibly awesome tech like FSD and aren't consumed by political partisanship. That tells you more about the commenter than Musk.<p>Some of these same commenters were trying to make you believe not long ago that FSD wasn't going to be competitive with Waymo because it dropped LIDAR. If you bring that up now they'll just change goalposts. There's no point even arguing with someone unable to approach an argument in good faith.
Tesla isn’t a market leader in any of these things. It’s a decent shop, but not a leader in any of these things you’ve mentioned.
What's with the "outdated" adjective? There's nothing in the US market even remotely close to the X. Every other EV is a slapdash pile of hoobajoobs and knobs that can't even drive itself.<p>Source: 45000 miles in a bit over two years, loved every minute of it. Makes our other high priced German car a disappointing machine to be avoided if possible.
1. Your argument is that cutting off a rotting limb is good. Obviously it is, but I'd rather not have a rotting limb in the first place. I want a healthy, revenue-generating limb.<p>2. Waymo has been offering a driverless taxi service for some time now, and Tesla is not. That's a hard fact. Meanwhile your arguments are beliefs and personal anecdotes.<p>When, or rather if, Tesla starts offering their service, they will be behind Waymo by approximately however long ago Waymo started theirs, so at least a few years.<p>Unless you have some "serious, tech-based counterarguments"?<p>3. It's also obvious that <i>when</i> we have AGI, fusion, etc., they will completely transform our societies. I <i>promise</i> I will deliver you those by the end of this year. Send money now. If my timeline slips by a little—maybe a few decades—well, it was just a best-effort estimate and I did deliver in the end!<p>4. No, the bear case is that there's no real reason to believe Tesla would be the company that captures the market vs any other company. Their solar, tunnelling, and now car business models have failed/are failing, so they must win on self-driving/robots.<p>Self-driving is looking really bad, they're badly losing to Waymo.<p>They have shown nothing in terms of robots. If anything, dressing people up as robots and showing that is a <i>rather</i> negative signal. Oh, and robots are at least a 10x harder problem than self-driving.
Dropbox really was shit, the fact that we lampoon the HN anti-Dropbox guy is evidence that this place died long ago. You really could have just done it with rsync and I'm so glad Claude Code exists to kill every other shit SaaS business that doesn't deserve to exist. Dropbox first please.
you are underestimating the vast diversity of mankind.<p>for us lot who were 'born in it, molded by it' (tech), it can be very hard to internalize that there are a <i>lot</i> of people out there who legimiately cannot for the life of them wrap their head around a computer, or the internet, other than "wifi logo = i can video call my grandkids".<p>you could say services like dropbox are outreach/charity organisations that onboard the masses onto 10x productivity curves (whether they like it or not!)<p>im not sure claude code will change all that much for the non-technical segment. from their point of view, you changed one terminal window for another. so what? its still a black box (literally).
Hard to tell whether you are serious or sarcastic, but assuming it's the former: my contrarian position on CC vs SaaS is that in the quest to kill shitty businesses people will discover that creating a <i>high-value</i> SaaS is very non-trivial. CC would kill a whole category of low effort SaaS while at the same time substantially raising the quality bar for SaaS that people are willing to pay money for.
Really sad. I loved my Model S. Amazing car.
Makes sense and it sounds like Optimus is getting ready for prime time.<p>Are they betting Robotaxi will replace all cars in the future?
I'm likely out of the loop, but what evidence is there that Optimus is anywhere close to ready for prime time, or any commercialization at all? I haven't seen anything compelling yet outside of highly edited videos in controlled settings.
How does it "make sense" to you, really? Can you provide more rationale ?
I wish people that jeer Musk would decide if he’s running his companies or not. They think he’s an ignorant figure head and a conniving strategist. I don’t care either way just stick to one.
[flagged]
It is and so is the sum of nonsensical replies to the entire thread.<p>It makes sense though, with the experience of the average app/website these days. Those devs come here and you can pick them out with ease.<p>I called this event years ago, it has been obvious in foresight.
Lol yeah Tesla is doing so great they just got rid of two flagship models.<p>Government rebates have ended. Sentiment towards EV has shifted negatively in consumer eyes. Manufacturers are sticking to gasoline. Even Jeep just got rid of all their electric stuff.<p>Maybe they'll be good for self driving robot taxis over in California with "FSD."<p>Past performance does not indicate future success.
There is no evidence of unsupervised robotaxis actually rolling out. These are just the same promises Elon has wrongfully done since literally 10 years and some publicity stunts.
Most of the people are bashing Tesla because they 1) Overpromised and underdelivered 2) They claimed/acted like they're so ahead that nobody can touch them.<p>Now, other automakers are closing the gap fast, and their overpromise of camera-only FSD is reaching Duke Nukem Forever levels, while other automakers use a diversified sensor set with more conservative autonomy levels because they value human lives more than playing fast and loose (plus, they are scrutinized way more heavily for various right and wrong reasons).<p>For me, it's not hatred, but I saw that they were hyped a bit too much and need some correction, and this correction is coming hard for them.<p>Valuations means nothing except investor trust. We have seen some spectacular collapses under unbelievable valuations. Theranos had a valuation of $9 <i>billion</i>. Tesla is not a scam or balloon per se, but they were a bit too overconfident of their moat.
FSD has been maturing for ~an entire decade now. Their latest stunt with moving the supervisor to chaser cars has made a lot of people understandably angry anew: Musk has to hit his robotaxi milestones to get more billions, so he's forcing the programme ahead with smoke and mirrors to get his stock option grants.<p>Their profit is decreasing, revenue growth is negative. Their autonomy programme is always "just one more update" away. Humanoid robotics is already full of competition from hundreds of other startups and larger companies (even Amazon, an AI sceptic, has a significant robotics programme).<p>I wouldn't call them a failure, but they certainly seem to have lost their way, and you have to really drink the kool aid to be able to justify the valuation in any sense.
This is the same argument people made with Bernie Madoff before the ponzi collapsed.
Of course it's not about Tesla at all. Yeah, there's been overpromising and underdelivering on self-driving (is anyone doing better yet, though?), but in reality the hate is entirely about Elon and his politics.
How would I even know what Elon’s politics are? He’s too busy running the worlds biggest companies to get involved with politics.
Why can’t it be both? And, besides, it’s not like criticism of the latter is utterly invalid.
Elon Musk doing Nazi salutes and calling people "retarded" on Twitter all the time has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on Tesla or how I feel about them.<p>I just don't like Tesla's vehicles, how they look, or the interiors of them. Nothing to do with the individual.
Probably one of the dumbest decisions taken by a CEO?
Shutting down low-volume, complex project, that needs to be substantially redesigned to be competitive, while these resources can be redeployed elsewhere, in high growth areas? I disagree: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46805773">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46805773</a>
Dropping the S and X is going to kill the market for them. Who is going to buy a car that they know is getting discontinued?
Including Cybertruck, it's just 2.75% of sales<p>Q4 sales:
Model 3 & Model Y: 406,585 deliveries
All Other Models (S/X/Cybertruck): 11,642 deliveries
Carmakers discontinue models all the time. The support network is still around, and parts will still be produced for a while.
It's not like they aren't going to support any new purchases.
S launched in 2012.<p>X launched in 2016.<p>Both launched with slow rollouts.<p>Meanwhile, the average car in use today is 13 years old and getting older. (I currently drive a 22 year old car)<p>It definitely turns me off buying a used model S to know it's being discontinued. And if I extrapolate that to the 3/Y, a new purchase.<p>Given my desire for a midsize family sedan, it makes it feel like BMW i4 or Porsche Taycan just won me over in the future.
I think of the i4 as being more of a Model 3 / BMW 3 series size car, isn't it?<p>The S is more in line with with 5er.<p>I love the way the Taycan CrossTurismo thing looks, but holy hell getting in and out of it is like getting in and out of a sports car. I expect it to be slightly compromised compared to the competition, not.. extremely compromised.
Sitting over here in Asia, I am doing a wild guess:<p>Most people in the western world have no clue HOW bad the crisis in our electronics industry caused by AI BS, tariff wars etc is.<p>When you wanted to get anything done in China as a western company, last year you might have issues to have China allow EXPORT. For example due to the pissing contest about Nexperia, a lot of really basic chips like USB controllers suddenly were forbidden for export.<p>And since January 1st 2026, things got far worse: Now some standard connectors (that are, amongst others, used in cars) that are made in the USA can no longer be IMPORTED into China. Which means that you now can typically will have parts missing on PCBAs that you then have to re-solder with the missing US components somewhere else. And many don't have the competence for this anymore.<p>This is all just wild speculation.<p>And I am pretty sure that right now it will be next to impossible to source parts for such a complex product like a robot. I need grey market brokers locally in Shenzhen to get even the most basic stuff at insane prices. And a lot of stuff simply is no longer available at all, due to things like "Intel has replaced anyone with a brain with an AI, and now no longer is able to produce and chip embedded N150 CPUs from the US to China, because... how?".<p>Tesla is now putting in 4680 battery cells back into the Model Y. Years after they had discontinued the 4680 program. What does that mean? They are using up whatever parts they still have, like everybody else in the electronics industry is now doing.<p>Good luck buying a computer, phone, fridge, car or toaster in the second half of 2026.
I guess self-driving will be done by the humanoid robots now
Tesla has no moat - but one thing I will give to Elon is his incredible strategy in building Tesla<p>1. Build sports car<p>2. Use that money to build an affordable car<p>3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car<p>4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation
options<p>he got distracted by side-missions, his personal shitty side<p>however if you separate the ideas from the person you can see how such a simple strategy was executed successfully
The thing is it’s hard to stop at 4.<p>5. Peace out from Tesla for a while to pivot hard into far-right politics, using outsized power and influence to wage culture wars, alienate core customers, and inject volatility into a brand that was built on trust, optimism, and engineering credibility.<p>6. Unveil Optimus as the next grand pillar of the vision, not as a shipping product but as a perpetual demo, a future-shaped distraction that soaks up attention while core execution, margins, and credibility quietly erode.
it’s not a difficult strategy to come up with, tbh. tech companies do this sort of thing all the time.
Is there another car out there in the US that has a way to type in an address, tap a button, and it drives you there? All other car manufacturers software is terrible.
Electric cars hype topic is has rotted away. Time to bring new, yet novel for the the public. Now people will belive in the musk stories of the future shaped by the humanoid robots, not shaped by the electric cars. Who cares if in 3 years they will switch to another subject if stock keeps being pupmed (and compoensation keeps flowing in the hands of this guy).<p>His idea is to keep involving more investors, more people, government is possible in tesla's orbit with nice stories. When other are so invested the failures aren't his problem anymore, he got hist compensation which is tied to the company price.
Elon should be sending robots to the Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt. That would make much more sense.<p>Setup automated low gravity refueling depots. Then automated mining of the solar system will scale up as it more than pays for itself. And as with Starlink, SpaceX synergy would give him a serious advantage.<p>Much faster to achieve (despite the challenges), less expensive, and more profitable than a human Mars colony which would burn money without return for decades.<p>(Regardless of wishful thinking, civilizations coming backup is a second substrate adapted to the rest of the solar system, not a colony suffering truly miserable conditions. Although I am all for human exploration, which would also be easier and cheaper on the back of expanding automated infrastructure.)