General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[neroden]

It looks to me he does not quite understand what he did and what he confessed already.

This with him intending to sue Tesla without making a clear claim for what makes me believe he has a somewhat "different" reflection of reality. Also Business Insider will hopefully loose all of its reputation if they had any for decent reporting. Its time that the media acknowledge this and calls this out.

"Tripp told Jalopnik that he admitted to obtaining information from Tesla’s MOS and sending it to Business Insider, but said it required no hacking.

Tripp acknowledged that he provided information from Tesla’s MOS to Business Insider, but said that there was no “hacking” involved; he claimed that he simply queried the database to provide verification of his claims to the reporter."

So he's claiming that he isn't the one who logged in under other workers' credentials and planted spyware on their systems? Oh, oddly, he does not seem to be specifically denying this. (If that wasn't him, then there's more spies!) You'd think he'd deny it, but no... looks like he did it.

 

[neroden]

Don't think so. The production equipment is for Model 3 modules/packs.

We should still see Tesla Energy continue to ramp up, but not because of the Grohmann line. This is on a completely separate path.

I'm not 100% sure of that. There's been remarkable radio silence on the stationary battery business. Very little reporting, very few leaks, very little. So much sound and noise over Model 3 that it's driven Tesla Energy business out of the news. If Grohmann shipped an updated Powerwall equipment line along with the Model 3 line, would we even have noticed?

I am beginning to think that Tesla Energy is the most likely place for a big positive surprise, simply because of the lack of reporting. In order to get a surprise which is based entirely on public information, it has to be in an area where nobody is paying attention.

 

[jbcarioca]

This is an interesting puzzle. Maybe no Performance models will be delivered for 60 days? Maybe there's a loophole in the 60-day rule that we don't know about? Any ideas?

Yes. Tesla has obviously provided NHTSA with the VIN decoder modifications that are required. In all probability that will have been a "C". It is also possible that such change has not yet been released by NHTSA, but will be released within the next few days. Anyway, this really is a non-issue because Tesla has certainly provided the required data even though we haven't thus far seen it. Such seeming discrepancies have happened before.

This reflects our obsession, not any real omission. FWIW, I definitely share the obsession.

 

[Krugerrand]

"“They’re out to get me,” Tripp told Jalopnik in a near half-hour interview by phone."

https://jalopnik.com/tesla-leaker-is-looking-forward-to-the-lawsuit-over-all-1827032982

Yes. Yes they are. Duh.

 

[schonelucht]

I like the plan to start charging for internet connectivity. It normalizes Tesla's financials and removes a cost that could get out of hand quickly. Presumably at $100/year being the cost towards Tesla that's already $35M per year for the cars that are on the road today. I believe this package is covered under the things like service, maintenance and supercharger that Elon has promised not be profit centers. Maybe wrong, but other manufacturers for which this is a profit center, charge much higher prices while moving less data than an average Tesla. It also creates another differentiator between S/X and 3 and a subtle sales tool in the same way as 'free supercharging on referral ends by XX' is. Good move and right on time. Grandfathering in all reservation holders would add another $50M cost item which I believe is not in the interest of Tesla shareholders.

 

[ZsoZso]

The problem I see with Tesla charging owners for the Internet connectivity is the fact that Tesla uses that connectivity for many purposes. Some of them are directly related to customer-use, such as map data, music streaming, web browsing, etc. However, Tesla also uses it to send out patches / updates, collect information from the cars that are not related to direct customer-request. This later could be a significant amount for Autopilot cars that collect data such as shadow driving to further improve the system by Tesla. It would seem unfair to charge the customer for such data traffic. However, separately accounting the two kind of data traffic might be very tricky.

 

[Remus]

The problem I see with Tesla charging owners for the Internet connectivity is the fact that Tesla uses that connectivity for many purposes. Some of them are directly related to customer-use, such as map data, music streaming, web browsing, etc. However, Tesla also uses it to send out patches / updates, collect information from the cars that are not related to direct customer-request. This later could be a significant amount for Autopilot cars that collect data such as shadow driving to further improve the system by Tesla. It would seem unfair to charge the customer for such data traffic. However, separately accounting the two kind of data traffic might be very tricky.

Same as iPhone, Apple uses your data connection to upload telemetry for product improvement, download updates, etc.

 

[mongo]

The problem I see with Tesla charging owners for the Internet connectivity is the fact that Tesla uses that connectivity for many purposes. Some of them are directly related to customer-use, such as map data, music streaming, web browsing, etc. However, Tesla also uses it to send out patches / updates, collect information from the cars that are not related to direct customer-request. This later could be a significant amount for Autopilot cars that collect data such as shadow driving to further improve the system by Tesla. It would seem unfair to charge the customer for such data traffic. However, separately accounting the two kind of data traffic might be very tricky.

Tesla does not cut off data entirely or charge for Tesla's internal usage. Rather the feature set, and by extension amount of data, is limited without the premium plan.

Standard (free) data includes maps (not sat view), navigation, and safety related software updates.
Does not include real time traffic info (but that is used for nav), streaming audio, or functional updates (need wi-fi).

Tesla is introducing new paid ‘premium connectivity’ package to support in-car internet features of growing fleet

 

[Ulmo]

I'm not 100% sure of that. There's been remarkable radio silence on the stationary battery business. Very little reporting, very few leaks, very little. So much sound and noise over Model 3 that it's driven Tesla Energy business out of the news. If Grohmann shipped an updated Powerwall equipment line along with the Model 3 line, would we even have noticed?

I am beginning to think that Tesla Energy is the most likely place for a big positive surprise, simply because of the lack of reporting. In order to get a surprise which is based entirely on public information, it has to be in an area where nobody is paying attention.

Speaking of which, what's the latest serial number of the latest installs of PowerWall (omit the last 3 digits since that serial number allows access; each device has a serial # (each pack and the gateway))? That omits PowerPack, though.

 

[schonelucht]

This later could be a significant amount for Autopilot cars that collect data such as shadow driving to further improve the system by Tesla. It would seem unfair to charge the customer for such data traffic. However, separately accounting the two kind of data traffic might be very tricky.

From what I understand, Tesla will not charge for that part of the data and that will continue to be free for every car. It's only the user facing connectivity that is billed.

 

[Foghat]

I'm not 100% sure of that. There's been remarkable radio silence on the stationary battery business. Very little reporting, very few leaks, very little. So much sound and noise over Model 3 that it's driven Tesla Energy business out of the news. If Grohmann shipped an updated Powerwall equipment line along with the Model 3 line, would we even have noticed?

I am beginning to think that Tesla Energy is the most likely place for a big positive surprise, simply because of the lack of reporting. In order to get a surprise which is based entirely on public information, it has to be in an area where nobody is paying attention.

Bingo on Tesla Energy.

The key here is energy storage is such a new business industry that analysis expertise is not there and thus Tesla financials are a mystery to them here. Same with solar roofs and solar in general on a mass scale.

This is the whole point of Chanos downfall and many others that don’t really do their homework on the energy piece and it’s real value.

Elon and JB have said for many years now they see the energy side being as big or bigger then the auto side and not many seem to listen, which leads to such surprise potential as pointed out by @neroden.

 

[dc_h]

So he's claiming that he isn't the one who logged in under other workers' credentials and planted spyware on their systems? Oh, oddly, he does not seem to be specifically denying this. (If that wasn't him, then there's more spies!) You'd think he'd deny it, but no... looks like he did it.

Interesting only civil charges at this point. What would the pros and cons of filing criminal charges?

 

[kbM3]

I'm not 100% sure of that. There's been remarkable radio silence on the stationary battery business. Very little reporting, very few leaks, very little. So much sound and noise over Model 3 that it's driven Tesla Energy business out of the news. If Grohmann shipped an updated Powerwall equipment line along with the Model 3 line, would we even have noticed?

I am beginning to think that Tesla Energy is the most likely place for a big positive surprise, simply because of the lack of reporting. In order to get a surprise which is based entirely on public information, it has to be in an area where nobody is paying attention.

Bingo on Tesla Energy.

The key here is energy storage is such a new business industry that analysis expertise is not there and thus Tesla financials are a mystery to them here. Same with solar roofs and solar in general on a mass scale.

This is the whole point of Chanos downfall and many others that don’t really do their homework on the energy piece and it’s real value.

Elon and JB have said for many years now they see the energy side being as big or bigger then the auto side and not many seem to listen, which leads to such surprise potential as pointed out by @neroden.

Elon has only guided for about 1 GWh in the next 12 months.

 

[Zaxxon]

Bit of straw-grasping here, methinks. Still, interesting discussion of the state of NV credits for Tesla.

 

[Reciprocity]

This is all moot if Pedro made it up, but if he didn't, then this is what I see:

What's Pedro's point of view? Here's some:
View attachment 311813
"My source on the line emailed me last night."

That's what I thought: it's from someone working there. The worker only sees the physics and mechanics of the speed of installing a new line and the speed at which it operates. The worker does NOT see the manufacturing of the new line AND the cost to engineer, order, build, and install it. So, the worker looks at the line and calculates in their head extrapolating from a time and space of their own witness, but doesn't take into account the loans and factory equipment manufacturing necessary to bring that about. That worker sees a pathway on the basis of what is presented to them, but not based on the entire corporate system.

What that means to me is that the worker, who is probably slightly optimistic since they have an interest in working on that thing and think of it naturally, and often doesn't naturally consider the amount of time they have off or are not working on it, has viewed what is possible for the equipment systems, as it can be installed over the next few seasons. Since there is a push to actually build a higher rate of cars, we'll see some amount of that possibility, but it has to fit into the realities of getting and installing that factory equipment and calibrating it for production.

The tent thing tells me they are agile enough to do stuff like copy paste without senseless nitty excuses of why they "can't" copy-paste factory lines. That, however, does not mean they'll actually DO that. For instance, I've heard one prediction that the tented line is for experiments; I suspect that's not quite right, but readers here probably know better than I now.

So, 10,000 by February? Only if the lead time for factory installation fits in that window from the time they ordered that equipment and if it's compatible with that outcome (what if the tented line is an older version that works right and the new equipment is a newer version that doesn't work right? Unlikely, but possible), AND if they actually get to 5,000 within the next 2 months. Since that's everything they're trying to do, I suppose it is reasonable to think it is POSSIBLE, but it should be tempered from my point of view because of the factory worker's point of view being too close to it.

Wildcards could be different speeds of different factory engineering.

Per Tesla, there is a video board that anyone in production can see that shows how many cars they are making in any given hour. What they probably don't see is sustained vs burst, though I'm sure they are told when they are attempting a burst because they would enlist then to find defects during the burst session. They would need to track many days to determine sustainability if the rare or average rate.

 

[Reciprocity]

After seeing the struggle for 1 year to get to 5k/week, I'm skeptical about doubling that to 10k/week in 6 months.

Maybe, but it's a simple matter of duplication of parts of the line that cannot already hit 10k. GA4 is a good example of how easy duplication is compared to the original. GA4 appears to be both iteration and duplication, making it even more impressive. GA2/GA3 can be yograded at some point and all 3 combined should be real close to 10k. Further optimizations could be required, including putting the conveyance system back in place.

 

[elasalle]

The problem I see with Tesla charging owners for the Internet connectivity is the fact that Tesla uses that connectivity for many purposes. Some of them are directly related to customer-use, such as map data, music streaming, web browsing, etc. However, Tesla also uses it to send out patches / updates, collect information from the cars that are not related to direct customer-request. This later could be a significant amount for Autopilot cars that collect data such as shadow driving to further improve the system by Tesla. It would seem unfair to charge the customer for such data traffic. However, separately accounting the two kind of data traffic might be very tricky.

I think the internet n/w capability can be controlled via software. So I think Tesla should give an option to turn on/off premium package at the flip of a switch. They can charge slightly higher rate per MB with this plan, but the choice would then be with customer when he wants the premium version.
For long road trips etc premium package would help -
commuting to work and driving in one's neck of woods and esp for short distances, who cares about the extra features premium can offer.

 

[Reciprocity]

"“They’re out to get me,” Tripp told Jalopnik in a near half-hour interview by phone."

https://jalopnik.com/tesla-leaker-is-looking-forward-to-the-lawsuit-over-all-1827032982

This guy has issues. You don't give an interview like this. Tesla can get this text and find lies in it that they can prove and it will destroy this guy's credibility. This is why you get a lawyer before talking to anyone. Even if he is telling the truth, there will be inconsistencies and he will look like he is being deceptive. He is not getting food advice and I feel for his family.

 

[Reciprocity]

The problem I see with Tesla charging owners for the Internet connectivity is the fact that Tesla uses that connectivity for many purposes. Some of them are directly related to customer-use, such as map data, music streaming, web browsing, etc. However, Tesla also uses it to send out patches / updates, collect information from the cars that are not related to direct customer-request. This later could be a significant amount for Autopilot cars that collect data such as shadow driving to further improve the system by Tesla. It would seem unfair to charge the customer for such data traffic. However, separately accounting the two kind of data traffic might be very tricky.

Tesla can still use the data and not let you. It's not hard.

 

[Reciprocity]

Interesting only civil charges at this point. What would the pros and cons of filing criminal charges?

Tesla doesn't care about the little fish. He is just a pawn. They want the master. The civil case will allow Discovery. Cellphones, laptops and his cooperation. They don't want to ruin some misguided fool for sport.