RobStark
Well-Known Member
How does Tesla deploying its own fleet of autonomous taxis break Anti-Trust laws?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
How does Tesla deploying its own fleet of autonomous taxis break Anti-Trust laws?
Ulmo
Active Member
USA has steadily out-farmed truck driving to foreigners over the last 15 years. There won't be new citizen revolts about their jobs going away; these revolts have already been going on steadily over that time period. I doubt unions will hold sway. However, it might make some foreigners move home. The foreigners who love USA so much that they want to stay will see this as part of why USA is so great, and will have to look for new work. Maybe they'll buy a Tesla truck, and rent it out in Tesla Network. I hope Musk has the foresight to allow this, so we won't have random weird foreigner revolts here like in France, and so that I could invest in that too
Flown? In SpaceX's ICT Local? (More likely, they'll just build more factories on connected continents, and Tesla Truck them to position, usually a position where the TN (taxi-Tesla) can incrementally take fares that get it to its destination, which would have a tendency of making rides going toward Tesla's factory more expensive* (and away from it cheaper).)
I like your other points.
* Edit: during my shower, I came to think of how Taxis charge, and this might not be true in designed fare algorithms. I also realized that during the initial days of implementing Tesla Network, we could have a problem that Tesla doesn't manage the availability properly, and customers get irate. For instance, I am always worried that getting a cab to work will be impossible. Yet, in some cities, it is very possible. Perhaps Tesla, trying to solve this, will designate cars to be in certain staging areas, and mis-guess where people really want to be to make this happen, for instance, the Tesla car owners will be in Silicon Valley, commuters will go home to Modesto, partyers will go to San Francisco, and then the cars will be "home" for their owners to use that morning maybe, then when the Modesto commuters wake up and want a ride to work, bam! They hate Tesla (Network), because they're fired (because there's no Tesla Network cars available within 50 miles). So, this has to be at least well introduced and thought out. Too bad we can't retrofit low-value Model S's with full self-driving, since that would be a good way to quickly introduce self-driving fleet to critical mass levels that these issues won't be as severe.
Yes; they always do, for everything anybody and any company ever tries, including, for instance, Tesla Energy, Tesla Solar, and Tesla Auto. Oh no!
Last edited:
Living in Bizarro land....Brian Johnson of Barclays somehow takes TESLA's announcement of nascent Level 5 autonomy as being "bad" for Tesla because of all the testing they will do but somehow "expanding MBLY's first mover mote." WHAT??? A competitor comes out with a product 2-3 years before you have promised to even think of developing a solution....MBLY has no data, no platform and THEY are the net winners in yesterday's announcement?
Down is up.
Tesla's 'Overly Hyped' Product Update Presents A Mobileye Pair Trade Opportunity
Down is up.
Tesla's 'Overly Hyped' Product Update Presents A Mobileye Pair Trade Opportunity
Many political and legal problems would arise if Tesla tried to do what you are suggesting.
Here's some interesting numbers. I tried to redo my numbers in my model for this quarter assuming the new AP hardware had been included. My assumptions are that this would increase ASP/automotive revenue by $4000/car (AP is now 2k higher for base and 5k higher for full, I'm assuming take rate from normal AP buyers would be pretty high for the enhanced) and margins by 3.5% (4k more revenue on a 100k car, less incremental hardware costs). Here's how it changed my numbers:
GAAP EPS: $0.51 --> $1.20
non-GAAP EPS: $0.89 --> $1.59
That's...substantial. Focus on the delta between the earnings numbers here and not the absolute numbers, as the absolute numbers are dependent on a number of my assumptions for Q3 in my (flawed) model that will probably not be there in Q4 (e.g., lots of ZEV credit revenue, fingers crossed!). Improving margins by 3.5% could result in $0.69 more GAAP profit. Consider that every single car ever produced by Tesla will now have this extra revenue/margin built in, whether it's enabled (i) at purchase, (ii) after purchase at an even higher price or (iii) by Tesla when it takes the car as a CPO and resells it with full capabilities.
I suppose Apple will stop selling iPhones because Dominos is adding a new Apple pie to their menu?
@drinkerofkoolaid
Follow-up question for you. What do you think the secondary market for Model 3's looks like if $35,000 + annual income is guaranteed from mere ownership. Wouldn't you expect to see Model 3's on the secondary market in excess of $100,000? For comparison, a cap rate of 10% is considered good in the real estate market. And that comes with much higher risk and overhead than what you're suggesting.
Follow-up question for you. What do you think the secondary market for Model 3's looks like if $35,000 + annual income is guaranteed from mere ownership. Wouldn't you expect to see Model 3's on the secondary market in excess of $100,000? For comparison, a cap rate of 10% is considered good in the real estate market. And that comes with much higher risk and overhead than what you're suggesting.
Yeah, I meant to say boated, not flown. For now, I'd assume cars will be shipped to wherever country has demand for more Tesla ride-sharing (like, everywhere) and they exit the boat and start making money. The beauty is that Tesla knows where its fleet is at all times so they can optimize deliveries and make sure areas aren't underserved or saturated.USA has steadily outfarmed truck driving to foreigners over the last 15 years. There won't be new citizen revolts about their jobs going away; these revolts have already been going on steadily over that time period. I doubt unions will hold sway. However, it might make some foreigners move home. The foreigners who love USA so much that they want to stay will see this as part of why USA is so great, and will have to look for new work. Maybe they'll buy a Tesla truck, and rent it out in Tesla Network. I hope Musk has the foresight to allow this, so we won't have random weird foreigner revolts here like in France, and so that I could invest in that too
I like your other points.
I agree, though - in the future Tesla plans to build on each continent with an attached GGF so there will be no need to ship overseas anymore.
Yes. I think Model 3, being resold, will sell for 30-100% above MSRP until at least 2018/2019 for a number of reasons.
Tesla Model S Worth More Used Than New
Curious how you arrived at that number. Why not 1000%? Even at $350,000, wouldn't a rational investor buy a Model 3 and guarantee 10% annual returns vs. putting their money in the stock market? (Ignoring depreciation for now to make the numbers simple).
And if that's indeed the case, does it sit right with you for scalpers and resellers rather than Tesla to capture that spread?
This is false on many levels..
Model 3 starts at $35,000 base trim. This base trim level wouldn't have autonomous capabilities, not even supercharging.
Base Trim: $35,000
Autonomous: $8,000
Supercharging: $2,000
Additional Fees: $2,000
True Cost for Model 3 capable of Autonomy: $47,000
When you assign your Model 3 for ride-sharing/cab-hauling, the depreciation will also be a lot faster, and you need to spend more $ on charging.
Also, Level 5 autonomy would not be available probably until early 2018, and Regulatory Approval may have to wait even longer. Until then, maybe autonomous without human operator is not allowed. Thus, secondary market would not be $100,000..
I agree that the announcement yesterday brings the game to another level, but the hype and mania in this forum since last night almost made me sick and puke.. Please guys, temper your excitement a bit, and be more realistic.
Meant to say 'at least 30%-100%.'
1) Most Model S sold for 30-100% above MSRP until late 2014.
2) $7500 tax credit.
3) Functionality that will be made available mid-late 2017.
4) It's very possible re-sold Model 3 will sell for more than 100% above MSRP. However, I suspect a number of barriers will prevent this from happening.
Ulmo
Active Member
He said this: "and even then we're not sure it will be able to handle the corner cases that end-to-end black-box approaches may have difficulty with." That's grasping at straws: I think I know what he's talking about; homogeneous projects get self-infected and no one with a diverse viewpoint is there to shake out the bugs. That only happens in a place with the stupidity of a large corporation AND the lack of diversity of a small corporation, and at this point, Tesla is just different enough from both of those problems that I think they'll figure it out just fine. (I could foresee a lot of black box problems in the military corporate world where teams are supposed to not interact, but this is not military secret level.)
The article is basically a hit piece.
Last edited:
You seem not to have understood the point I was making. My comment was Socratic in nature in order to demonstrate that the sorts of returns @drinkerofkoolaid suggests for Model 3 ownership are untenable. Sorry if that misunderstanding caused you to almost "get sick and puke"
Last edited:
And look at that... you've just stumbled onto the point I made at about 5 AM this morning.
Last edited:
GBleck
Member
I don't think anyone would argue that mbly system will sell less because of tesla's new announcement but this article is trying to claim it is somehow better for mbly and bad for tesla? Honestly I couldn't get that far in before bailing for data hygiene purposes.I suppose Apple will stop selling iPhones because Dominos is adding a new Apple pie to their menu?
stealthology
Member
Darn, I knew I should have saved the press call before it was taken down from YouTube. If anyone saved the call, could they PM me? Thanks.
Although I think the incremental cost maybe low in your calculation, it could just be about whether its 3.5% or 3.0% increase on GM, so not important. But one word of caution on the eps estimate, I think a big chunk of revenue of AP2.0 cannot be recognized next Q because the software is not ready yet. Tesla defers revenue like this that are not fully recognized at the time of sale. Quoting latest 10-Q
"
We recognize revenue for products and services when: (i) a persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (ii) delivery has occurred and there are no uncertainties regarding customer acceptance; (iii) pricing or fees are fixed or determinable; and (iv) collection is reasonably assured.
Vehicle sales include standard features, customer selected options and accessories, and specific other elements that meet the definition of a deliverable under multiple-element accounting guidance including free internet connectivity, free access to our Supercharger network, and free future over the air software updates. These deliverables are valued on a stand-alone basis and we recognize their revenue over our performance period, which is generally the eight-year life of the vehicle, except for internet connectivity which is over the free four year period. If we sell a deliverable separately, we use that pricing to determine its fair value; otherwise, we use our best estimated selling price by considering costs used to develop and deliver the service, third party pricing of similar options, and other information which may be available.
As of June 30, 2016, we had deferred $55.9 million, $66.1 million, $42.0 million, and $3.7 million related to the purchase of vehicle maintenance and service plans, access to our Supercharger network, internet connectivity, and future software updates, respectively. As of December 31, 2015, we had deferred $53.6 million, $49.5 million, $32.4 million, and $2.7 million related to these same performance obligations, respectively.
"
The deferred revenue from future software updates here is small because there's not a lot of value not delivered back then. Now with the significant increase in price and absence of the software to make it work, I think the deferred revenue would be quite high.
However, this won't affect cash flow, which I think is more important than eps at this stage.
edit: maybe we can even take advantage of this to calculate the hardware and installation COGS of AP2.0. It could be taking deferred revenue for future software updates divided by the deliveries that bought AP (say, 85% of the total delivery or something), and then subtract this number from the selling price of AP.
Last edited:
GBleck
Member
At what point does it make more sense to just build and ride share the cars rather then sell them and share the ride share profits? You could go right to that but it would require more capital. If they where already apple and had piles of cash to burn then maybe but doesn't it make more sense to start off having customers front the initial capital?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
