Eve
Even in the fsd department Elon has accomplished most of what he says he will do.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Breaking News: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Tesla re: FSD
- Thread starter 2101Guy
- Start date
He’s made the same promise every year for the past 6 years. If he believes it every time, that would make him a slow learner.
I think it’s far more likely he knows exactly what he is doing. This man has a company that can launch a rocket and then land the boosters side by side. Tell me that doesn’t take some wickedly talented programmers. He can do that, yet I’m to believe he’s too thickheaded to recognize year after year that FSD is more than just a few months away.
If he had our best interest at heart or if he had the least bit of remorse about his repeatedly broken promises, he’d make the paid for but undelivered FSD, transfer to our next Tesla. He doesn’t. Instead he charges for it all over again. He certainly has no issue with immediately stripping FSD from any used Tesla that passes used through Tesla’s ownership. So it’s fully paid for, but it doesn’t stay with the car and it doesn’t stay with the purchaser. That now stripped FSD sale just became all profit. Selling FSD year after year, and promising delivery is right around the corner, year after year, is a blatant money grab.
To see and not to recognize what’s repeatedly going on would make me a slow learner.
Why would it impact revenue? A TSLA shareholder would Love the new car sales and software bait to influence future buyers to remain brand (TSLA) buyers. There’s more money in cars then software especially when they can hide much of the cost in the car price increases.
It’s a simple switch setting. There’s no cost to flipping that switch to enable it on a new car. The collected revenue won’t need to be reserved because there’s no new cost.
Eventually all cars will come with full no touch autonomous autopilot. It’ll be decades from now, but if it makes travel safer it is inevitable. It will be ubiquitous so won’t be an expensive option, it’ll just be a part of a new car. The question is will a driver be able to turn it off. I would anticipate there might be a partial defeat but the computer control would be automatically restored if the driver was driving outside what was deemed acceptable parameters. A couple of decades later even that partial defeat will be unavailable.
I won’t live to see it but I’m sure that’s what’s coming. That’s unless you remaining lot don’t manage to get control of this global warming catastrophe. If not, there’ll be huge population decreases, wars over food, and then you survivors might be riding horses. Those horses will know where they’re going so that’s a form of autopilot.
Last edited:
Fromm an Accounting standpoint, there certainly is a cost to maintain software. Currently, TSLA assumes xx years for the life of FSD, and have a $$ reserve for that. If they allow it to be transferred for free (or a small fee), the accounting life becomes 2xx and the reserve gets extended.
Question to anyone regarding FSD recognized vs deferred revenue:
As Tesla is now deferring revenue recognition pending delivery of FSD features, what happens in the case of a car that is traded in to Tesla, in which case FSD is removed and then sometimes freshly added for a second round of FSD revenue?
According to these accounting principles, can Tesla recognize the deferred revenue portion if the original FSD "installation" no longer exists? Obviously they hold the pending revenue and they don't return it to the original purchaser, so how would it be accounted for when the gate opens and all FSD revenue is deemed "recognizable" on the books? Or is it deemed recognizable as soon as they take possession of the traded-in car, and strip FSD from it, both the "delivered" and the "undelivered" features?
A similar question could be asked regarding vehicles that are totaled or junked end-of-life. There is obviously no remaining value, including salvage value, for software components that no one can use.
I have no agenda in asking this question; I just don't really understand the accounting standards involved. But it does seem that the answers to these questions could bear on the monetary claims of owners who never received the deferred feature i(ndependent of whether they feel misled regarding the original purchase decision).
As Tesla is now deferring revenue recognition pending delivery of FSD features, what happens in the case of a car that is traded in to Tesla, in which case FSD is removed and then sometimes freshly added for a second round of FSD revenue?
According to these accounting principles, can Tesla recognize the deferred revenue portion if the original FSD "installation" no longer exists? Obviously they hold the pending revenue and they don't return it to the original purchaser, so how would it be accounted for when the gate opens and all FSD revenue is deemed "recognizable" on the books? Or is it deemed recognizable as soon as they take possession of the traded-in car, and strip FSD from it, both the "delivered" and the "undelivered" features?
A similar question could be asked regarding vehicles that are totaled or junked end-of-life. There is obviously no remaining value, including salvage value, for software components that no one can use.
I have no agenda in asking this question; I just don't really understand the accounting standards involved. But it does seem that the answers to these questions could bear on the monetary claims of owners who never received the deferred feature i(ndependent of whether they feel misled regarding the original purchase decision).
So the “XX years for the life of FSD”, in your mind has that started yet?
It’s true we could look at it from Tesla’s standpoint, that the software is aging.
I choose to look at from my standpoint, depreciating an asset that hasn’t been delivered yet. I’m depreciating vapor. I don’t remember that in my accounting classes. The closest thing I remember is bad debt. So Tesla owes me. They should deliver, on this car or the next one. I should not need to look at my payment for the software as Tesla’s bad debt.
Perhaps they shouldn’t sell something that doesn’t exist. We don’t let other companies do that.
Companies basically factor all of those scenarios in when they estimate useful life. Then they have to demonstrate to the auditors that their estimates are reasonable and based on actual experience (and not Elon's rosy outlook).
fwiw: they do the exact same for warranty expenses. When they sell a car, they have to reserve some $$ (from Revenue) per car to cover promised warranty work over the next four years.
Solar40
Member
So now the FSD license transfer has come to pass. (Since I'm not the type of person
to trade in a car for a new one every few years, owing to huge depreciation this way,
I'm not a candidate.) Monthly subscriptions make more sense now for most who
keep cars on such a short leash (or lease).
That said, I'm wondering about any recent developments in the class action suit
spearheaded by Joe Cotchett. I've only seen a December 2022 reference by Tesla
defense attorneys is that "failure (of aspirational long-term goals) is not fraud":
www.roadandtrack.com
to trade in a car for a new one every few years, owing to huge depreciation this way,
I'm not a candidate.) Monthly subscriptions make more sense now for most who
keep cars on such a short leash (or lease).
That said, I'm wondering about any recent developments in the class action suit
spearheaded by Joe Cotchett. I've only seen a December 2022 reference by Tesla
defense attorneys is that "failure (of aspirational long-term goals) is not fraud":
Tesla Calls Broken Autopilot Promises "Failure," Not "Fraud"
The company's lawyers say public aspirations and fraudulent promises aren't the same thing.
www.roadandtrack.com
johnnycnote
Member
Agree, subscription is the only thing that makes sense. It provides an opportunity to try FSD without spending $15k. If you don't like FSD, cancel it and wait until it makes more sense for you. The better it works, the more subscribers...So now the FSD license transfer has come to pass. (Since I'm not the type of person
to trade in a car for a new one every few years, owing to huge depreciation this way,
I'm not a candidate.) Monthly subscriptions make more sense now for most who
keep cars on such a short leash (or lease).
That said, I'm wondering about any recent developments in the class action suit
spearheaded by Joe Cotchett. I've only seen a December 2022 reference by Tesla
defense attorneys is that "failure (of aspirational long-term goals) is not fraud":
Tesla Calls Broken Autopilot Promises "Failure," Not "Fraud"
The company's lawyers say public aspirations and fraudulent promises aren't the same thing.
There are no recent developments. Tesla, in March, filed to force some of the plaintiffs to arbitration and have their case dismissed. The plaintiffs filed for a PI, Preliminary Injunction, in March, then they filed to speed that up, in April, which the court rejected in May. Nothing has happened since, and the court has not ruled on the PI yet. (Or Tesla's motion to compel arbitration.)
His funding probably ran out.
johnnycnote
Member
Similar threads
