Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
That wouldn't be purely profit since Tesla pays for the mobile connection to cellular provider for the whole fleet, but it will help the on the margin ever so slightly.
It's both (ish)
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019-2020 Investors' Roundtable

Internet connectivity is a running cost recorded in deferred revenue at time of vehicle sale. Removing lifetime premium directly increases vehicle margin (not sure if the margin % includes this offset) by reducing the reserve for the expected lifetime data plan usage to one year's worth (for eligible cars, Connectivity).

After that, the monthly premium acts identically to income, and premium vs base data charges act as an expense. Note: they reserve ability to cap usage.

Compared to dats before the base vs premium data plan (everyone by default), it's pure profit.

New way : 15 million - (premium data usage)
Old way: 0 - (premium data usage)
Alternative: 0 - (basic data usage)
So net 15 million (for example) compared to not charging and some lower net profit when compared to base connectivity.
And less offsetting expense in the deferred revenue line.

************

Side note, from the 2019 10-K "Of the total deferred revenue on automotive sales with and without resale value guarantees as of December 31, 2019, we expect to recognize $751 million of revenue in the next 12 months."
 
It's both (ish)
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019-2020 Investors' Roundtable

Internet connectivity is a running cost recorded in deferred revenue at time of vehicle sale. Removing lifetime premium directly increases vehicle margin (not sure if the margin % includes this offset) by reducing the reserve for the expected lifetime data plan usage to one year's worth (for eligible cars, Connectivity).

After that, the monthly premium acts identically to income, and premium vs base data charges act as an expense. Note: they reserve ability to cap usage.

Compared to dats before the base vs premium data plan (everyone by default), it's pure profit.

New way : 15 million - (premium data usage)
Old way: 0 - (premium data usage)
Alternative: 0 - (basic data usage)
So net 15 million (for example) compared to not charging and some lower net profit when compared to base connectivity.
And less offsetting expense in the deferred revenue line.

************

Side note, from the 2019 10-K "Of the total deferred revenue on automotive sales with and without resale value guarantees as of December 31, 2019, we expect to recognize $751 million of revenue in the next 12 months."
Disclaimer:
Old school here, not up to speed on technology.
Is the Starlink program intended to eventually replace this incurring expense? Seems like a perfect fit.
Something, something, vertical integration....
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtlloyd
Disclaimer:
Old school here, not up to speed on technology.
Is the Starlink program intended to eventually replace this incurring expense? Seems like a perfect fit.
Something, something, vertical integration....
Not in vehicle. Antenna size too large, and the system isn't intended for high density areas.
 
Extra 'hold over' Inventory from Q1 available for delivery in Q2:

From the Apr 2nd, 2020 Q1 P&D:

"In the first quarter, we produced almost 103,000 vehicles and delivered approximately 88,400 vehicles."​

So that means that Tesla had an additional 14,600 vehicles available to be delivered in Q2, beyond the vehicles produced in Q2.

If we assume an ASP of $50K/vehicle at @20% Gross Margin, that's an addtional $146M in Gross Profit as those cars move from the Balance Sheet to the Income Statement in Q2.

That'll help. ;)

Cheers!
 
I've estimated 81300 cars delivered for earlier quarters and I like this number so I will recycle it for this quarter. ;)

I certainly appreciate the environmentally sound idea of that. :)

But - thank Zeus it is Friday - shouldn’t we discuss the SP at close? My totally uneducated guess is $990. That is a little lower than currently pre-market (which is up).
 
  • Like
Reactions: LN1_Casey
OT Starlink
Well, it can be high density, as long as the roof has access to the sky. So an apartment complex can get like 3 or 4 of these, and give interwebs to their tenants, or a business.

It's not not ideal for individual use, much like satellite TV.
Yeah, downlink doesn't care about receiver density, the constraint I see is uplink.

From an early FCC filing:

The parameter entitled “density” in Recommendation S.1503-2 (in Appendix 4
of the ITU Radio Regulations this is referred to as A.4.b.7.b). This is defined as the “[a]verage number of associated earth stations transmitting with overlapping frequencies per km2 in a cell.” The value of this parameter is related directly to the size of the aggregate beam coverage area from each SpaceX satellite, which is a hexagonal cell with a diameter of 45 km, and the maximum number of times an uplink frequency can be spatially re-used within this area. It is conservatively assumed that any uplink frequency will be re-used every other cell. Therefore, the average density will be 1/((45)2*3*√(3)/4)=0.000380 earth stations per square kilometer.

The user uplink band in 14.0GHz to 14.5GHz
Using 18.33MHz bandwidth per 100mbps channel, that gives 27 channels.
So max density would be 0.01026 stations per square km.
Of course, lowering upload speeds increases this number, and muliple sats in view should increase it also, but it still looks difficult to support high vehicle count areas.
 
Elon changed his twitter avatar to a BURNing rocket...

bd1c1696-6754-40b0-b169-15a4e17cb35a-jpeg.556564
 

Attachments

  • BD1C1696-6754-40B0-B169-15A4E17CB35A.jpeg
    BD1C1696-6754-40B0-B169-15A4E17CB35A.jpeg
    42.8 KB · Views: 223
Last edited: