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.
Then you again appear to be arguing with something nobody said.

Corporate risk liability- which would be massive for a commercial robotaxi service that failed 1% of the time- is something no legacy OEM would consider putting into service. (neither, of course, would Tesla).





Apparently you can't though, as you again seem to be trying to make up an argument nobody was having just to disagree with me, specifically.
Elon Musk made It clear it would release FSD when he is certain it will be 10x safer than a human driver.
What would be the difference between Tesla and Legacy OEMs is that Tesla would be more inclined to release a FSD technology sooner than Legacy OEMs as soon as they consider it to be safe in contrast to Legacy OEMs to wait for congressional, population and widespread approval. Tesla will release it before widespread popular acceptance as soon as they consider there will be a 90% reduced probabilities of accident and injuries in contrast of other Legacy OEMs who will make everything to avoid being the first being associated with the bad press of the first FSD accident because they do not have the Tesla innovating and more media risk taking culture.

Tesla will be willing to take more risk to release FSD compared to other OEMs in that sense.
 
Elon Musk made It clear it would release FSD when he is certain it will be 10x safer than a human driver.
What would be the difference between Tesla and Legacy OEMs is that Tesla would be more inclined to release a FSD technology sooner than Legacy OEMs as soon as they consider it to be safe in contrast to Legacy OEMs to wait for congressional, population and widespread approval. Tesla will release it before widespread popular acceptance as soon as they consider there will be a 90% reduced probabilities of accident and injuries in contrast of other Legacy OEMs who will make everything to avoid being the first being associated with the bad press of the first FSD accident because they do not have the Tesla innovating and more media risk taking culture.

Tesla will be willing to take more risk to release FSD compared to other OEMs in that sense.
I agree with everything you wrote.

The risk of allowing various FSD solutions can be compared to the risk of vaccinating the population. You will save lots of lives. But there will be a few deaths. And some of those deaths will be people who might have lived if we did not use FSD or vaccines.

We already accept this trade off with the flu vaccine. Or with planes replacing ships for long distance travels. And in many other situations.
 
Sure, the cars will have to be equipped with the needed sensors/hardware suit.
And restrict to EVs with a certain range only, and robotaxi-functionality can only be utilized on Teslas ride-hailing network.

Lets say they sell a complete package, hardware/software - at say $20k a pop - 2000% markup?

I as a shareholder would be pissed if they didnt.

Tesla will be battery/production restrained for decades to come.
If they can ramp sensor-suite production, without restricting their own car production, this is virtually free money.
Could work. The 'Intel inside' scenario is not a bad idea - or a bad business model.
But is it as good as going it alone?

Two 'Tesla inside' options:
  1. Tesla sells a software, hardware, sensor kit, the oems are free to use it as they see fit.
  2. Tesla does integration with sensors and QA and maintainance.
re 1. Easy for Tesla - just cash the check. BUT - huge brand risk: One - or several OEMs might muck it up, at the result would be car with bad or erroneous Self Driving. This would perhaps not be a legal liability for Tesla but bad for PR and would tarnish the brand.

re 2: Hard for Tesla: They have to work with sluggish OEMs and force them into compliance on a number of issues in order to guarantee sufficient quality of Self Driving towards the end user. Maintains brand halo effect, but hard work wrangling the OEMs.

I don't see either 1 or 2 being as attractive to Tesla as just going alone.

The 'Tesla inside' model has some clear advantages though - it would alleviate political risk: Some corps have deep ties with lawmakers which could be trouble for Tesla. Also: If everone gets a piece of the delicious Robotaxi pie, there will be less commercial sabotage and skullduggery in getting Self Driving/robotaxis rolled out broadly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UncaNed
My numbers are arbitrary of course but assuming that the end result is the same. Either they release it and Tesla is the far safer product (initially), or they wait even longer to release. Of course that assumes that we think Tesla can do it, and that another company can't do it better. If we are on this forum then we probably believe that.

How long did it take Barnes and Nobles to realize that Amazon's model was superior? Or for Nokia/Blackberry to realize that about Apple? Or for legacy cable providers, content creators (Hulu and Disney+), and video rental companies to see that about Netflix? Legacy companies tend to discount the threat at first, then dither about and try to keep a foot in each space, and then try to move aggressively after it's way too late. We still haven't seen the other players in autonomy ditch their models and try to copy Tesla. When that happens it's a minimum of several years before they can hope to catch up.


Licensing is possible but it's more complicated than something like bluetooth. FSD will depend on the specific hardware stack that Tesla uses so those items will need to be incorporated, chips, cameras, etc. I guess Tesla could offer a company like VW training services to train the core NN using VW's hardware suite. Tesla would need to be very production limited to spend that effort though.
Good point: When (if) Waymo ditches LIDAR+map+vision and goes vision only, that will be a bellwether event.
 
One of the difficult decisions for Tesla wrt FSD is do you release it at 10x better than human if it’s still doing stupid things? It would be tempting, but the FUD machine could do some real brand damage if FSD kills someone doing something fairly stupid that your average FUD consumer would consider abhorrent , even if that death statistically still allows Tesla FSD to remain 10x better at the end of the day. We’ve seen the beta do some stupid stuff, so this question is real IMO....some of the edge cases that won’t be avoidable from the NN until it’s, say, 20x better than humans, might appear egregious to folks who don’t get it...
 
Part 3 of James Douma valuation.

I really don’t get it. Tesla would basically be handing over most of the profits to fleet operators. I cannot see Tesla doing that. Much more likely would be a high upfront cost (e.g. every Tesla sold has a mandatory > $30k FSD package) PLUS Tesla gets 30% of the revenue, or Tesla operates their own fleet and keeps ALL the profit. Tesla has never ceded that kind of profit to any supplier or partner.

in James’ model a new Tesla buyer could purchase a $40k Tesla and earn $77k revenue which is mostly profit, the 1st year alone. Those money making opportunities just DO NOT exist in the real world.

Would love other people’s take. One other small nit is that he showed Global production, but then the rest of the calculations were on U.S. alone.

I like Douma - see my prev. post on him.

This was the weakest video so far. Very disappointing.
Douma is good at tech, he explains difficult stuff well. I think he is good at modelling too. But - this session was weird and felt overly cautious. Like he was put in a box, and had to stay in that.

I was waiting for the model to get daring: Why not play with 70% growth, instead of 50% Why not have Tesla keep the cars and the revenue themselves?
Why not extend the timeline to 2030 or 2035? Nope.

And yes, the glaring weakness was the idea of Tesla being willing to sell a 50K cars that made more money than that the first year. Huh! Dave does finance and valuations and Douma has a strong science and tech background - but that was just allowed to stand. Sic !

In a previous episode Douma actually managed to talk Dave out of his stubborn, almost whining insistence that Tesla should really still sell him a car, because he sort of just needed it, by politely pointed out that it wouldn't make sense for Tesla to sell cars worth ½-1 million for 50K.

Weird episode - it was sandbagging to the extent of building a castle.
 
One of the difficult decisions for Tesla wrt FSD is do you release it at 10x better than human if it’s still doing stupid things? It would be tempting, but the FUD machine could do some real brand damage if FSD kills someone doing something fairly stupid that your average FUD consumer would consider abhorrent , even if that death statistically still allows Tesla FSD to remain 10x better at the end of the day. We’ve seen the beta do some stupid stuff, so this question is real IMO....some of the edge cases that won’t be avoidable from the NN until it’s, say, 20x better than humans, might appear egregious to folks who don’t get it...
10x better than a human will eliminate all "stupid stuff". Basically the car will end up in an accident after drunk drivers and texters runs into a Tesla.

So we will see what happens in the court of public opinion after waymos first accident.
 
When Tesla started to build the factory in Shanghai I was aware of the risks of doing business in China but I expected any issues to arise a few years if not over a decade from initial production.
But now I am concerned it may be quicker due to the possibility of China trying to take Taiwan by force.
So for those of us with large holdings who may need to sell in the short term I would pay attention to this.
 
And yes, the glaring weakness was the idea of Tesla being willing to sell a 50K cars that made more money than that the first year. Huh! Dave does finance and valuations and Douma has a strong science and tech background - but that was just allowed to stand. Sic !

In a previous episode Douma actually managed to talk Dave out of his stubborn, almost whining insistence that Tesla should really still sell him a car, because he sort of just needed it, by politely pointed out that it wouldn't make sense for Tesla to sell cars worth ½-1 million for 50K.

I also once thought that Tesla would stop selling cars to consumers once fsd got good enough for robotaxis. On second thought, I don't think Tesla would want to do that initially. Two reasons come to mind, Tesla can have consumers take a cut of the revenue and have the consumers take responsibility for certain aspects of the robotaxi network, like cleaning or maintaining the car. It would take Tesla a long time to set up robotaxi management locations throughout the USA.

The second reason is that Tesla will likely improve the sensors over time, and the consumers are needed to validate software updates, so they'll need to purchase the cars to drive them normally.
 
When Tesla started to build the factory in Shanghai I was aware of the risks of doing business in China but I expected any issues to arise a few years if not over a decade from initial production.
But now I am concerned it may be quicker due to the possibility of China trying to take Taiwan by force.
So for those of us with large holdings who may need to sell in the short term I would pay attention to this.
This headline is around as long as US fears NK will take SK by force. I think I was in grade school and heard of this fear.

Doing this is not a "risk", it's precursor to a third world war. The Chinese people are very anti war, pretty much always after their unification. Their entire strategy has been been a defensive one to prevent invasion from the west, who are more of the imperialist historically speaking.
 
This headline is around as long as US fears NK will take SK by force. I think I was in grade school and heard of this fear.

Doing this is not a "risk", it's precursor to a third world war. The Chinese people are very anti war, pretty much always after their unification. Their entire strategy has been been a defensive one to prevent invasion from the west, who are more of the imperialist historically speaking.
What's your take on the increased military action which seems to be intended to intimidate Taiwan?
 
When Tesla started to build the factory in Shanghai I was aware of the risks of doing business in China but I expected any issues to arise a few years if not over a decade from initial production.
But now I am concerned it may be quicker due to the possibility of China trying to take Taiwan by force.
So for those of us with large holdings who may need to sell in the short term I would pay attention to this.
This is still the weekend, isn't it? The time for wild TSLA speculation and topic drift.

I didn't think the FUD was scheduled to start until just before the market opens on Monday.

Perhaps this one of those International Date Line scheduling hiccups, or, the media is making up for Good Friday by getting an early start?
 
I also once thought that Tesla would stop selling cars to consumers once fsd got good enough for robotaxis. On second thought, I don't think Tesla would want to do that initially. Two reasons come to mind, Tesla can have consumers take a cut of the revenue and have the consumers take responsibility for certain aspects of the robotaxi network, like cleaning or maintaining the car. It would take Tesla a long time to set up robotaxi management locations throughout the USA.

The second reason is that Tesla will likely improve the sensors over time, and the consumers are needed to validate software updates, so they'll need to purchase the cars to drive them normally.
Hm... well.
Cleaning is routine and does not cost a lot. It is still very important, but salaries are low. For 70K extra a year per car, Tesla could hire a cleaning crew of 1-4 persons, depending on location/states/areas. For each car !

True, good drivers help make Tesla better over time. But good driver are not plentiful. Why do we assume that random customers are good drivers? A few are, definitely not all. But granted, that is a valid argument.

Sure, Elon and Tesla might choose to continue selling Tesla's. It does de-risk the rollout of FSD a lot - especially in the phase when FSD is good, becoming better but would still do weird sugar from time to time. Tesla single car or fleet owners would naturally come to Tesla defenses here.

But once FSD is good enough, it will will quickly become better. And then extremely good. We would start seeing a new thing: Handheld OMG video testimonials of Tesla FSD doing crazy sugar in order to get out of really dangerous situations - and doing it succesfully, because it just became that good that quickly.
So I don't see this window of Tesla needing a lot of owners for support being very long. A few months or a year perhaps.

Then the risk of disaster and public pushback gets very low. There is no longer a need to sweeten the deal in order for getting public acceptance. And
then we get into the 'selling a 1 mio dollar car for 50 K'-situation. And that just doesn't make sense. Remember hos much banks and wall street loves to bankroll recurring income. When FSD is shown to work and generate cashflow, financing a huge fleet won't be a problem. At all.
 
The 'Tesla inside' model has some clear advantages though - it would alleviate political risk: Some corps have deep ties with lawmakers which could be trouble for Tesla. Also: If everone gets a piece of the delicious Robotaxi pie, there will be less commercial sabotage and skullduggery in getting Self Driving/robotaxis rolled out broadly.

In a previous episode Douma actually managed to talk Dave out of his stubborn, almost whining insistence that Tesla should really still sell him a car, because he sort of just needed it, by politely pointed out that it wouldn't make sense for Tesla to sell cars worth ½-1 million for 50K.

Something I haven't seen talked about nearly enough, and that I think is being badly missed in the autonomous car product / revenue discussion is that at the end of the day its still transportation. And transportation is a commodity business with razor thin margins. I absolutely see a short term (3-10 years?) "golden era" for owners of transportation services where the competition will be with the current world order - personally owned vehicles; UBER/Lyft as currently constituted.

But as the number of robotaxis increases the day rapidly arrives where the current world order is no longer the competition - it becomes the new robotaxi product and service.


A thought experiment - if we grant that a robotaxi generates $500k of revenue after fuel, off of a $50k vehicle that needs another $50k in maintenance (simplifying somewhat to make the point easier), and Tesla takes 30% of that, then we've got a $350k return on $100k investment. I'll take 20 please.

BUT when we shift to the new world order where robotaxis will be competing with each other, who here is willing to lower that $350k return on $100k to say $300k? And if it were $300k, who is willing to lower it down to $250k?

This is from the trucking industry and 2018:

But it is at least directionally accurate and has the industry profit margins UP at 6% after previous years in the 2-4% range.

Two conclusions I draw:
1) These are the sorts of profit margins I see robotaxis evolving to. If I'm right this will be a lot of revenue and very little profit for Tesla. At most I hope Tesla would form a new division and then spin it out as a new business at these profit levels.
2) I see little to no way for Tesla to continue to take 30% off the top and leave owner / operators with 2-6% profit margins. If nothing else, some other company that gets a robotaxi into service could decide to take 25% off the top. Then Tesla lowers to 20%. And the race to the bottom is on until, my prediction, Tesla (or other company) is getting 2-6% profit margin and the owner / operator is earning 2-6%. I.e. - roughly an even split of the profits. Clearly with some businesses doing better and some worse.


This might take 20 years or 2 years in individual geographies as its deployed, but I see the outcome as inevitable. Its in the nature of transportation - technological advances and cost improvements flow through to the customers and very little sticks to people buying and deploying the technology because the business is just too big and the competition is too intense for anything else to happen.
 
This headline is around as long as US fears NK will take SK by force. I think I was in grade school and heard of this fear.

Doing this is not a "risk", it's precursor to a third world war. The Chinese people are very anti war, pretty much always after their unification. Their entire strategy has been been a defensive one to prevent invasion from the west, who are more of the imperialist historically speaking.
1. The Chinese people have no say in this. Xi will decide, given the policies he has undertaken so far I fear he may go for it.
2. China was militarily weak, they were humiliated in 1996 when they sabre rattled and the US sent a carrier between China and Tawain and they realised they couldn’t do anything. So they started a modernisation drive (which now ironically they could fund as a result of opening up the economy in the 1980s) Now that modernisation is paying off.

I don’t want to get to much into the possible reasoning behind a potential war other than to inform the shareholders on this board to factor this into account and to watch this closely because if a war does start it will probably be a surprise attack and straight away the stock will tank. Irrespective of what the US does in response.