As we think of Tesla's nest moves we all seem to think of cars, pickups and Semi.
As Tesla expands around the world it is useful, perhaps, to see how the BYD process works, closely analogous to how many Chinese firms work.
Just one example, here is their timeline in Brazil, very much the same elsewhere:
www.byd.com.br
Capsule:
First, they invariably build busses or trucks, so they can support infrastructure in charging and service on a route-specific basis and demonstrate BEV advantages;
Second, or 1A, they supply taxi and other commercial vehicles, still with support attached;
Third, they build battery factories and assembly plants;
Fourth, they begin to sell cars and negotiate to build auto plants.
That model is far different than is Tesla, obviously. It is also very patient and long term.
BYD, Chery, JAC, CATL, State Grid and more all move in similar manner, with State Grid particularly important is establishing infrastructure.
Tesla has fairly minimal US support in any strategic way, except in China, perhaps. Tesla also chose top down, not bottom up, primarily because they did not have strategic support. When we, as Tesla investors view these others we tend to see them as inferior mirrors of Tesla. That is a myopic view, but understandable.
Tesla has all the advantages and strengths we document so well. Tesla also has no real experience with utility vehicles, which has not been an impediment.
Tesla has had success with public utility services from Grid Services to Stationary Storage, but has thus far sacrificed that market to better needs for cars. Perhaps the single most effective product for Tesla has been Supercharger, but most fo us see that as a service to encourage Tesla sales and support.
If going back to the BYD case fro a moment, and the other Chinese examples, we can see the one thing they've not done is blanket their nascent market with chargers; not needed since they begin with commercial route-based markets...
And we then see the Tesla advantage in structural rather than only production excellence and technology. It si Tesla that built Superchargers to allow people to drive their cars to the Mount Everest base camp. Some of us probably remember those videos. That accomplishment galvanized substantial favorable image. Still, most of us really miss the huge marketing benefit of Superchargers.
We think of market potential around the world and remark a given place has no opportunity because of the paucity of charging. True. Then think of California in 2014. Even more than the cars themselves, wonderful though they are, the Supercharger network sells Tesla where it seems to be too expensive and impractical.
Rather than write off any given markets it might be better to assess how much Supercharger capacity would be needed to service the market, how much stationary storage and solar capacity could defray the operating cost, and only then conclude viability. At that point government incentives and impediments become relevant, remembering that the Chinese tactics of beginning with labor intense and high visible benefits end out being productive.
FWIW, BYD has had a letter of intent to buy the Ford 300,000 unit capacity plant in Bahia fro nearly a year. The new Brazilian President is pushing hard for that one. We still do not have any official word on Tesla raw materials sourcing, but that is also high on Lula's list of desires.
When we link support infrastructure, industrial investment (in anything) and good employment prospects many otherwise less interesting markets suddenly become attractive.
These subjects are very familiar to Tom Zhu, Elon Musk and several others. They'll not always tell su everything. Just look at the two covered vehicles on Investor Day, then think how many of us decided they were one thing or another without any information. What if everyone might be correct? What if it is a highly versatile 'platform', Tesla-style rather than, say, VW-style?
Is Tesla learning from the China examples? Morocco Superchargers but no sales; is that one only a tourist play?