That´s ridiculous, and all while publicly giving credit to Tesla. Guess it shows just how seriously they feel threatened by Tesla.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
That´s ridiculous, and all while publicly giving credit to Tesla. Guess it shows just how seriously they feel threatened by Tesla.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
A German industry trade group advocated restricting the benefit to EVs with a total length less than 4.65m. The Model 3 is 4.69m. Suspicious? Cooler heads prevailed and this disgraceful exclusion was never accepted as policy.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I disagree because the pickup truck is a quintessential American icon and is exactly what many Americans need to see Tesla making before they want to invest. There has to be tens of thousands of smart, well-heeled American's with brokerage accounts (oil men, builders, farmers, business men, etc.) who have been eyeing TSLA stock but it just didn't seem "real enough" to them without a vehicle they could relate to. The truck will push them over the edge and greatly broaden the investor base.
They will finally feel like they are on the leading edge again.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
You can't expect the German government to not protect its own automakers from being curb-stomped by an upstart American company on their home turf, can you?
I disagree because the pickup truck is a quintessential American icon and is exactly what many Americans need to see Tesla making before they want to invest. There has to be tens of thousands of smart, well-heeled American's with brokerage accounts (oil men, builders, farmers, business men, etc.) who have been eyeing TSLA stock but it just didn't seem "real enough" to them without a vehicle they could relate to. The truck will push them over the edge and greatly broaden the investor base.
They will finally feel like they are on the leading edge again.
Haha I was hoping you'd reply after I saw the "disagree". I'm just trying to manage expectations...……(really for myself)
Yeah that's pretty obvious. It's not like it's a price limit, or weight limit, but length? May as well say it doesn't apply to companies that start with T.
I hope germany sends their troops to the USA to defend us against enemies.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
What CATL battery agreement? Do you mean the Bloomberg story from yesterday? That's reporting on an old story from the Summer, there is no 'agreement' just and 'understanding', and why did Bloomberg chose to report this yesterday as if it was news? Its more disinformation from a reliable source of FUD.
These kinds of moves are never smart and can escalate quickly. Odds are the next US government will be friendlier to EVs and Tesla, so they could retaliate by limiting US EV incentives, targeting German cars by assessing some other ridiculous criteria.
And regret it in the coming years like the guy who spent several bitcoin on a handful of muffins. Then again the plaid S is going to be a lot more fun for a lot longer than a handful of muffins
Antares Nebula
Active Member
Hmm... Nah, can't be. Can it?
Please people, let's not talk about any refresh or redesign. Taboo!
lol, because they're planning on making higher energy density cells in the future?
Exactly. We've seen all the acquisition pieces for Tesla to potentially make higher density, lower cost cells. My guess would be that those would go first into the new products that "need" the density or have the margins to help with the massive production ramp needed.
The pickup, semi, roadster all have massive needs and will get the new batteries. Remember no one could believe the Semi and Roadster specs? Battery day will show us how. High end model S/X as well it appears, maybe all S/X...
Model 3/Y don't need it. GF1 operation for those batteries is steady and no reason to change it now. Just like the S/X cells haven't changed to the 21700, 3/Y will not change for a long time.
Certainly, Chinese versions will be the last to get any fancy battery tech for IP protection. So there is no worry or surprise that Tesla is having other companies produce those cells.
I am still an AAPL shareholder, having made an imprudently large commitment in 2008, since which I really cannot afford to sell although I can live nicely on the dividend yield. OTOH, absolutely nothing at all suggests that Apple will become an auto manufacturer. After all, they are not much of a manufacturer now, they are a designer, logistics manager, marketer, retailer and have a highly organized system allowing them to wholesale all sorts of services. They are not and will not be manufacturers to any material level.
They play a bit with CarPlay, which is just an IOS controller, nothing else. All teh investment has really been about information aggregation and presentation, which could certainly include the same type of integration they already offer to corporate and institutional clients.
Will they offer an updatable OS facilitation process to OEMs? Yes. Will they offer to manage OTA updates? Yes. Will they offer quality management and security management to OEM's? Yes.
Will they build any physical auto related pieces? No!
All that R&D could easily end out with them being a systems integrator for OEM's from JLR to Toyota, all are plausible possibilities. Will all of that happen soon? again, no. They'll probably begin with managing and validating OTA updates for one or more systems-challenged OEMs.
As it is the only people who really understand how OS management might work in cars are people who are involved in Formula 1 and/or Formula E. Those are deep techies, but they know nothing of scale, at which Apple excels. That would make me learn towards JLR or one of the Germans, or even FCA/PSA.
Tesla certainly understands all this, which is one reason why so much energy is going into Plaid. Porsche and all of VAG understand this too. Thus I suspect Apple will go towards one of those others.
All this will be very interesting and the better Apple does the easier it will become for Tesla to expand.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
This was posed as a partnership. So you are suggesting that Apple would just take over Apple's logistics and service as part of that? I don't see that happening. If you are suggesting it out of scope (that if Apple were in charge these would improve) likely so, but for all the bashing of Tesla service it measures up admirably against dealerships and mechanic shops. Not that all are bad, but the entire field is viewed with a jaundiced eye to the point where it is a cultural staple.
With respect to a robotaxi app... sure, Apple has lots of experience with coding and designing GUIs. But Tesla has done a pretty good job. There just doesn't seem to be much differential and nothing to invoke a partnership. I mean, Tesla could outsource writing an app if that were really an issue. I don't think that it is.
Partnering with Apple to offer subscription services, that doesn't seem to me to be an Apple specific capability. If Tesla were to outsource it, why would they pick Apple over someone else?
Of course, outsourcing anything that is central to the company (like a robotaxi app) is wrong. Either you give someone else entirely too much power over your company or you have to bring it in at some point. Might as well do that to start with. Just as a real world example of how such dependencies can work see Apple and Adobe -- and that was without any formal business relationship, yet Adobe got to dictate to Apple what could be done with the OS and on what time frame.
No, bad idea.
Partnering with Apple to handle the phones and other customer facing? Okay, I can sorta see the benefit to Tesla in terms of drawing on experience, but I seriously cannot see Apple selling that as a service. And, in the long run, Tesla is better off investing in their own people and processes.
If, instead of a sold service, it was a partnership where Apple took over the user part of the car and customer interactions so that they could collect fees for Apple music, etc.... Okay, that would be a partnership. But would it be mutually beneficial? I think not, Tesla would be creating an external dependency (like the Adobe/Apple relationship, where Apple could constrain Tesla based on Apple's agenda) such that any benefit would only be near term. In the long run, Apple would benefit by gaining a revenue stream from Tesla and the ability to exert influence.
But that would be one-sided and not mutually beneficial.
This has been discussed before and more money isn't always the answer. For the sake of argument lets say that 200B just landed in Tesla's lap without any strings attached. Would the smart play be to build GF the world over? I think not. For perspective consider what happened to the mongols -- expand too fast and it stresses the organizational/governing structure resulting in collapse. Sure, the mongols retained control over a vast territory, but they didn't hold onto the even greater territory they conquered.
If Tesla had oodles of money and started to build in India would it be money well spent? Or would India soak Tesla for as much as possible? Honestly, I think the smarter use of the money would be to buyout competitors (not that I think that would be a good idea either).
I think Tesla is expanding as quickly and rapidly as its structure/organization supports. If they wanted to they could always do a money raise.
In summary: I can see how Apple would benefit, but I struggle to see any arrangement that would be mutually beneficial as stipulated in the original question. While there is room for some short term gain it would be at the cost of future losses.
In terms of the Pickup's use in military, it may have some use but defintely not a plugin replacment for what they use in war zones. Keep in mind the humvee was basically discarded when the U.S. went into Iraq / Afghanistan because it had no protection from IEDs exploding underneath. The military quickly worked to develop the MRAP which is much more mine resitant. I worked on modeling / simulation of how to design the interior to optimize occupant safety during blast events.
Obviously the pickup is not optimized to be blast resistant. Although at least the battery pack should provide some better resistance than an ICE vehicle without a v-hull!
Obviously the pickup is not optimized to be blast resistant. Although at least the battery pack should provide some better resistance than an ICE vehicle without a v-hull!
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
