How come Tesla's competitors are dropping dead left and right while established car companies (mostly) keep pushing unprofitable models that the customers don't want?
Some of the startups were trying to make cheap EVs. You can't make cheap competitive cars without volume, but a startup doesn't have enough capital for that (and can't raise it because enough capital to reach volume, while necessary for success, is nowhere near sufficient for success. Nobody wants to invest a LOT of money on something very risky. Unless they truly believe in it and have a lot of the money and skills to get it done themselves; few people fit that criteria).
Fisker had the right idea in starting at the high end and moving down, and produced a beautiful car with great handling that didn't have any range concerns for timid consumers, but executed poorly in a number of areas - just bad management. There are other threads that detail that.
As for the established automakers, they've been
able to make great EVs for a long time. Their problem is that (by law, as we have seen in other threads!) they have to sell their cars through dealers. Dealers generally operate on a narrow margin, and they can make more money on gas cars, while putting less work in to the sales process - consumers have a LOT of questions about cars with entirely new powertrain technologies. So few dealers are interested in putting the time and money in to sell EVs effectively. This leaves the automakers in a rough place - they can produce a great car that their customers will love, but their sales channel won't move it! So rather than try to make it work, they make small numbers of quick conversions - which ensures that the situation will never change, because they are only offering small numbers of high-priced, sub-optimal vehicles.
A few automakers (Nissan, GM, BMW) are dipping their toes in to the water and trying something different. None of them are making wild gambles though; and all of them are caught up in brand management despite their recognition of the conquest potential - useful when selling commodity gas cars, but potentially fatal when dealing with a disruptive technology. They are not trying to sell EVs; they are trying to sell their brand, and the EVs are largely there to draw customers in, not to stand on their own (or cannibalize their other sales). If the major automakers futz around long enough, and Tesla doesn't hit any hiccups, Tesla does have a great chance being production (rather than demand) limited for a very long time.
I could verbalize a very good case for why Tesla will succeed and even constitute a threat to established automakers, but right now I'm in the mood to try to prove otherwise.
You are completely correct that Tesla was a very risky business case, and while they have made great strides, they are not out of the woods yet. Investing long in TSLA has been, and continues to be, high risk. There is nobody rooting harder for (and actively trying to help!) them than I, but there are way too many things that can go wrong for me to consider large growth - or even continued operations - to be a sure thing for Tesla.
The main difference between me and the shorts is that while I know Tesla's success is not guaranteed, I at least see a lot of potential because I know how good EVs are. Many shorts still have not tried one and honestly think they are crappy and nobody will ever want one. Try reading the comments on a major news article about EVs some time; it's breathtaking how far some of their perceptions are from reality. They can't grok that it's possible for an EV to be a good car; they are convinced they are just penalty cars for hippies. Making investment bets on a product you don't understand is never a good strategy.
