-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD Transfer - NO - but Tesla says it's really OK
- Thread starter Hookemhorns
- Start date
bradtem
Robocar consultant
A lot of people seem to accept the statement by Tesla that the price will go up as gospel. This is far from assured. Tesla is not the only game in town, and there will be competition, and the market will set the price, not Tesla. Tesla may have a short period where they are the only player of their type and might be able to control their price more during that period.
I think they will… regardless if other players get involved. The Rivian saga shows that you can’t just keep increasing the price of the hardware…so all manufacturers will look to profit from the software. But of course if a lot of non car companies enter the fray then anything is possible
EVNow
Well-Known Member
It is equally possible other ICE makers go bankrupt before they can present actual competition to Tesla.
It makes eminent sense that FSD Beta that works better will be worth more ... or atleast worth as much as it is now. So makes zero sense to offer it for a lower price now just to sell a few more copies. Tesla is not exactly struggling for cash now (unlike in 2019 Q1/Q2 when it was and reduced FSD prices).
Last edited:
bradtem
Robocar consultant
Right now it's not a product. It's an advanced payment on a someday product. It's not really at all clear why people buy it today other than this fear that it will cost more when it work. Certainly the few features you get today aren't worth that much, and most of it is this future product. Which may never come (in which case we'll get refunds with interest presumably) or may come in quite some time. Elon says it will come this year, but he's lost any ability to make a credible prediction on the matter.
When it comes, or not too long after, there will be other offerings from other companies. If those companies sell it for $5K (as MobilEye suggests) then Tesla can't easily sell it for $20K. Maybe if it's hugely better, but it takes a lot of faith to bet that Tesla is likely to be hugely better than other tech companies. Tesla is good at sweeping the floor with old world car OEMs. It has no track record at being better than tech companies like Google, Apple, Intel/MobilEye, Amazon/Zoox, AutoX, Baidu and many others, or even better than the high-tech subsidiaries of car OEMs like Cruise and Argo and Motional which have more startup DNA. They might do well, they might not. Ask me to bet on Tesla vs. Mercedes and I will bet on Tesla. Ask me to bet on Tesla vs. Google and it's a different story.
On the other hand, if you do believe Tesla is going to rule the world, then buying TSLA stock is a lot smarter than buying FSD. If they deliver FSD your stock will go way up. If they don't deliver FSD your stock may go down, but not that far as there is still a good EV company there.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Wrong. I just wish people who write in Forbes and have youtube channels atleast get the basics right.
"FSD" has several features - one of them is for the future - navigating city street. Rest are available.
I bought it so that I can be part of the journey. You can see my comments for eg. from the month I ordered FSD that I thought it may become a reality in 10 years.
How do you "know" this ?
Lucid sells "semi-autonomous" option with no set features or date for $9k now. Various other companies sell very limited ADAS features for thousands of $$$.
The fact is - Tesla sets the price .... whether it is EV or "FSD", and others react to it, since Tesla is the market leader. So, Tesla has the pricing power (see Rivian's problems with price changes). If Tesla sets the price as $20k - others will sell for $20k (or $18k). Unless you want a Chinese car that sells only in China, like Zeekr, which might be somewhat cheaper (depending on Tesla FSD price in China).
Lets bet.
The question is city navigation in a consumer car with disengagement rates at least 2x better than humans. Who will have it first widely available (as in at least available in 500k new cars a year in US). $10k to a charity of your choosing.
ps : Are you also betting on Bezos space company vs SpaceX, since you think Amazon/Zoox is better ?
Doesn't have to be one or the other. Can invest in stock & buy FSD. Fortunately, invested in TSLA in 2011 when the price was $25 (pre-split) / $5 (post-split). When I get my CyberTruck, I'll get FSD too. But for my wife's Y - not getting FSD since she won't even use CC !
bradtem
Robocar consultant
How do I "know" this? The same way you "know" Tesla will be a player. All I am saying is that in a competitive market -- and it's a pretty bold claim that there will not be a competitive market, with so much money and so much top talent chasing it -- Tesla just can't set any price they like, if they are one of the players.
I don't care about 500K new cars a year. The biggest competitors aren't interested in selling cars at all. They want to sell rides. Tesla says it wants' to sell rides as well, and has a good entry to that with off-lease cars which the non-carmakers don't have, but that's the primary advantage they have over other players. In every other advantage they have, somebody else is better. Google is ridiculously better at machine learning. Intel/MobilEye is better at processors and has a much larger fleet, and a much faster growing fleet, though their old fleet is more limited in what it can do for them. Almost everybody else is better at sensors (Tesla is of course proud of using the cheapest sensors.) Apple is better at conquering high-tech spaces when they arrive late to the game. Tesla is better at making EVs, and better than the car companies at making a software-oriented car.
I didn't say Zoox is better. I said that Zoox is, like Tesla, a high-tech, software first company. Tesla beat the car OEMs because it is a 21st century company, software and high tech focused, and the car OEMs are dinosaurs. On a race between Tesla and Ford/GM/Daimler/Toyota/etc. Tesla is a good bet because of that. In a race to build self-driving software between Tesla and other software oriented companies, there is no reason to think Tesla has an advantage, unless your plan is to sell cars to consumers, which Tesla knows how to do and the software companies don't. And that is Tesla's plan. But not most of the others. GM and Cruise just has a rift with the CEO of Cruise being fired because of disagreement between the pure robotaxi focus of Cruise and the "we sell cars" attitude of GM.
Selling cars will be a business, but it's a boring one to me. The main thing that makes Tesla interesting is their plan to do robotaxi with off-lease cars. That's more challenging for other players to duplicate. They will need to partner with a car OEM to duplicate that plan. Tesla as both a car OEM and a software-oriented company has that advantage. How crucial it will be is hard to say.
I don't care about 500K new cars a year. The biggest competitors aren't interested in selling cars at all. They want to sell rides. Tesla says it wants' to sell rides as well, and has a good entry to that with off-lease cars which the non-carmakers don't have, but that's the primary advantage they have over other players. In every other advantage they have, somebody else is better. Google is ridiculously better at machine learning. Intel/MobilEye is better at processors and has a much larger fleet, and a much faster growing fleet, though their old fleet is more limited in what it can do for them. Almost everybody else is better at sensors (Tesla is of course proud of using the cheapest sensors.) Apple is better at conquering high-tech spaces when they arrive late to the game. Tesla is better at making EVs, and better than the car companies at making a software-oriented car.
I didn't say Zoox is better. I said that Zoox is, like Tesla, a high-tech, software first company. Tesla beat the car OEMs because it is a 21st century company, software and high tech focused, and the car OEMs are dinosaurs. On a race between Tesla and Ford/GM/Daimler/Toyota/etc. Tesla is a good bet because of that. In a race to build self-driving software between Tesla and other software oriented companies, there is no reason to think Tesla has an advantage, unless your plan is to sell cars to consumers, which Tesla knows how to do and the software companies don't. And that is Tesla's plan. But not most of the others. GM and Cruise just has a rift with the CEO of Cruise being fired because of disagreement between the pure robotaxi focus of Cruise and the "we sell cars" attitude of GM.
Selling cars will be a business, but it's a boring one to me. The main thing that makes Tesla interesting is their plan to do robotaxi with off-lease cars. That's more challenging for other players to duplicate. They will need to partner with a car OEM to duplicate that plan. Tesla as both a car OEM and a software-oriented company has that advantage. How crucial it will be is hard to say.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
Nobody said they can't compete. Rather that the competition is very real, and that fact that Tesla did EVs better than century old car companies, or SpaceX did better than a massive hidebound government bureaucracy doesn't give you much to use in predicting how they will fare against other 21st century tech companies.
Also got to think about about how much can you possibly inflate software price before it’s unreasonable…. Price that’s half of a brand new Model 3? Ehh. For regular people who are trying to get an EV and who aren’t wealthy? Ehhhh.
The more you rack up the price the less people will be able to purchase it no matter how “complete” and “revolutionary” it might one day be. You got to consider your target audience. How many more MY and M3 models sell over MS and MX….
The more you rack up the price the less people will be able to purchase it no matter how “complete” and “revolutionary” it might one day be. You got to consider your target audience. How many more MY and M3 models sell over MS and MX….
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
But you don’t have to pay for FSD to get those features, and many are considered by Tesla itself to be beta.
Part of the problem is expectations. At what point does “we’re working on it” cease to be a viable excuse? For you it appears to be 10 years. Many people only keep their cars for 5 years so for them it would be 5 years.
But you do you know? You’re calling out an assumption by making an assumption of your own. If you dispute the validity of the first argument then you can’t assert the validity of your own.
True, but people are simply pointing out that at some point Tesla risks losing that position and/or credibility.
Personally, I feel bad for the people who bought FSD 5+ years ago. I bought my MY in 2020 and there’s been clear progress since that time. I still have my doubts but at least there’s hope.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
You do. You don't get all those features without paying for FSD (like NOA, recognizing stop/traffic signs, lane change etc).
But do you actually think it is an "excuse". Because excuse would mean
- Tesla have FSD but they are deliberately not giving it to you or
- If only Tesla tried hard enough, they can easily get to FSD
We know both of the above are false.
Personally I'd be angry if they aren't putting in enough resources, enough high level attention. Like how the governments doesn't care about climate change. It is obviously not the case with Tesla - they are spending billions on FSD and no auto OEM CEO pays as much attention to the project as in Tesla. So, its just going to take whatever time its going to take - its not an easy or solved problem. Scientific progress doesn't happen according to our whims.
I'm stating my assumptions & guesses. The argument against it is not just stating assumptions as facts.
That is usually called "concern trolling"
The whole Tesla project was always considered very risky. Tesla has been weeks away from bankruptcy many times before. Its the first successful auto company in the US in 80 years - we aren't even talking about an EV company - something all established companies still consider to be not profitable. Considering all that history I'm fairly confident that risk of not achieving city driving that is close to human level one of these years is low.
Last edited:
If you have reoccurring cost to provide the SW it makes little to no sense to sell it as a one time purchase. You either have to accept the long term consequence of doing so or hide the fact that the user will need to pay for these costs in the future.
The believe there are two main goals for the high price of FSD.
The first goal is to limit the number of people buying it, and to make the subscription model more attractive. This minimizes the long term cost of offering FSD.
The second goal is to feed the FOMO element to FSD which has always been a strong element.
If you have EAP, you get everything except recognizing stop/traffic signs. Tesla stopped selling EAP, but that doesn't change that almost none of the features are FSD.
Regardless, it kinda misses the point. When you say "Full Self Driving" - people expect eventually they'll have a completely autonomous car that does not require human intervention. That's not happening anytime soon, and probably will not be possible with any of the Teslas currently on the road.
People may think that, but they’d be mistaken. I think they mean full self like holistically, as in your chakra does the driving. I find it takes a very zen state to wait for FSD myself.
Considering every Model S purchased in the AP1 era came with a ridiculous bundle of highly public claims that these very same AP1 cars would do stuff even the FSD beta can't do now - anyone who has traded in an AP1 car can let you know the answer is a very emphatic "no".
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I bought EAP and FSD - but I’m talking about today’s language.
I’m sure Tesla regrets using that term - but they are stuck with it. People also objected to autopilot saying that somehow implied driver doesn’t need to monitor - and Elon explained the term is from aviation. So, irrespective of what term you use, people always complain. A ‘catchy’ marketing term can’t be taken literally.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla has no plans to disable Autopilot
Consumer Reports last week published a somewhat bizarre missive calling for Tesla to completely disable the Autopilot software that comes equipped on the Model S …
bgr.com
I highly doubt they regret using the term. They know overpromising made more people buy in and pumped up their stock. With Elon implying robotaxis are the goal, I don't think it's just a "catchy marketing term". "Autopilot" has some wiggle room since you can argue it functions similarly to an actual plane's autopilot, even if that's not how the term is used in the colloquial sense. That's not the case with "Full Self Driving" -- it's pretty unambiguous what that term is meant to imply. If the intention is not to deliver that, it's false advertising, plain and simple.I bought EAP and FSD - but I’m talking about today’s language.
I’m sure Tesla regrets using that term - but they are stuck with it. People also objected to autopilot saying that somehow implied driver doesn’t need to monitor - and Elon explained the term is from aviation. So, irrespective of what term you use, people always complain. A ‘catchy’ marketing term can’t be taken literally.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla has no plans to disable Autopilot
Consumer Reports last week published a somewhat bizarre missive calling for Tesla to completely disable the Autopilot software that comes equipped on the Model S …
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
It completely changes it.
The product they sold under that name until ~March 2019 is a different product then what they sold under that name since then.
Tesla certainly hopes they do deliver that eventually, including on current cars.
But that's not the thing they've actually sold, per the actual description during purchase, since that march 2019 change.
What is for sale today is an explicitly L2 set of ADAS features, 6 of which exist and are immediately delivered on purchase and the 7th is in narrow testing (FSDBeta) but not yet widely released.
Once that last one goes to wide release, at L2, everyone who bought the new FSD from ~March 2019 on, have been delivered 100% of what they were promised during purchase.
I fully believe that Tesla will deliver more than that to them if it turns out to be physically possible down the road, but that's another thing.
Regarding the name.... Diaper Genies don't grant wishes.... Happy Meals do not cure depression.... and Radio Flyers neither receive radio, nor fly. Names are not always fully descriptive of function.
Similar threads
