Tesla will never stop innovating. Major revisions every 12-18 months.

[AnxietyRanger]

If you think that many Model S and Model X users complain about the constant changes just wait till Model 3 users come around and Elon starts offering different versions after a large chunk of buyers just invested in their first Tesla. I have no issue with refreshes but lets keep it consistent with model years. Heck a 2016 could have an old front and also AP1, Another 2016 could have new face and AP2. It makes it frustrating to existing buyers and also frustrating for future buyers. I am not sure the reasoning why they make so many changes mid year.

IMO it doesn't even have to be model years exactly to be more reasonable than the avalanche of erratic back and forward changes we have today. Tesla grouped AP1 and dual-motors roughly the same time, for example. That was nice. They could have easily grouped facelift, AP2 and 100 kWh battery too when all of them were ready.

Instead it seems Tesla wants a product demand lever for every quarter (since they don't advertise or do public discounting), so they change a few big things every quarter and then rush, change, remove bunch of small things as well at different times to suit whatever internal production reasons they may have at different times... There is no logic and predicting it is quite difficult.

I am not convinced this is the best way to make long-term happy customers. It is a very erratic environment at the moment. I would not be surprised if Tesla learns to pace themselves a little better in the long run.

 

[stephenstohn]

I tweeted to Elon Musk today to ask about Full Self-Driving Capability. Specifically, I wanted to know if there was any value to acquiring it now, given that regulatory approval is probably years away. I was thinking there might be value in it, because with eight cameras it should be safer than with just four. To my amazement, a few minutes later he tweeted back. Here's his reply:

 

[TexasEV]

If you think that many Model S and Model X users complain about the constant changes just wait till Model 3 users come around and Elon starts offering different versions after a large chunk of buyers just invested in their first Tesla.

Once again, as apparently some didn't hear it the first time-- a car is not an investment.

 

[Canuck]

I don't think Elon actually told us that. They told us Tesla innovates in 12-18 month cycles.

I don't think he could have been any more clear than saying "people are buying the wrong car" if they expect any innovation to wait to be introduced, including major ones that occur "every 12 to 18 months".

Musk previously claimed that Tesla is introducing “about 20 engineering changes” to the Model S every week to improve the vehicle and its production. The company doesn’t wait for annual model cycles to make changes, but Musk is referring to more major changes when talking about a 12 to 18 months timeline.

In my view, you're missing the point by focusing on the "every 12 to 18 months" part of the tweet and trying to pigeon hole that. The important part is "people are buying the wrong car" if they want the innovation to stop and wait for the innovation to be introduced. The 12 to 18 month part lets you know roughly when major changes will happen but the main point is that they won't wait to introduce when those major changes happen like traditional automakers. He understands that you and others do not prefer that and he has told you that you are "buying the wrong car" if you don't like it. I don't see how you can question what "he actually told us". He was very clear.

Innovation and constant change certainly does not have to mean erratic beheaviour.

Erratic = "not even or regular in pattern or movement; unpredictable."

We get it. You want regular and predictable changes. Many of us do not want that. Again, it's a matter of preference and Tesla has told you their preference and to look elsewhere if you don't like it.

Trust me, people on this thread understand cars are significantly depreciating assets.

I don't trust you on that. I've read far too many posts here about people complaining how much their vehicle has depreciated especially after a major update. So even if they know it, it can't hurt to stress it, and I don't see it as "hardly helpful" to use your words.

There are also many people attracted to Tesla who are not attracted to other "luxury" vehicles, and who stretch to buy one, as well as many people who are thinking of buying a Tesla and who browse these threads but never post. To say it's "hardly helpful" for me to tell people that buying a Tesla is buying a significantly depreciating asset is not something I will ever agree with. Financial prudence is important to me and many other people and it can't hurt to remind people of what they are getting into when buying a Tesla, excluding perhaps the Model 3 but that's not even for sale yet.

 

[MXWing]

Once again, as apparently some didn't hear it the first time-- a car is not an investment.

The problem is that 'perception is reality'

Even if it's not true.

I hope Tesla and TSLA has a plan to solve this puzzle.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If you think that many Model S and Model X users complain about the constant changes just wait till Model 3 users come around and Elon starts offering different versions after a large chunk of buyers just invested in their first Tesla.

Once again, as apparently some didn't hear it the first time-- a car is not an investment.

I guess you are being intentionally obtuse here for jest or effect, but in any case: While certainly a car could be a capital outlay - a form of investment - in bookkeeping, I am confident BestRadar means investment here simply as a layperson term for significant-sized purchase.

The Occam's Razor here really does not support the idea that BestRadar is thinking a car is purchased for future profits.

I wish people would just argue the actual argument: does Tesla's policy of continuos and at times erratic change result in faster than normal depreciation or not. Instead we spend thing arguing whether or not people on a car forum know that car's actually depreciate.

Oh the horror.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I don't think he could have been any more clear than saying "people are buying the wrong car" if they expect any innovation to wait to be introduced, including major ones that occur "every 12 to 18 months".

Musk previously claimed that Tesla is introducing “about 20 engineering changes” to the Model S every week to improve the vehicle and its production. The company doesn’t wait for annual model cycles to make changes, but Musk is referring to more major changes when talking about a 12 to 18 months timeline.

In my view, you're missing the point by focusing on the "every 12 to 18 months" part of the tweet and trying to pigeon hole that. The important part is "people are buying the wrong car" if they want the innovation to stop and wait for the innovation to be introduced. The 12 to 18 month part lets you know roughly when major changes will happen but the main point is that they won't wait to introduce when those major changes happen like traditional automakers. He understands that you and others do not prefer that and he has told you that you are "buying the wrong car" if you don't like it. I don't see how you can question what "he actually told us". He was very clear.

I don't disagree with this interpretation of what Elon is saying. I am just saying Elon's words would fit my proposal as well. There is no need to discontinue innovation or continuous improvement - Tesla is already pacing themselves on some level, that much is obvious, I am merely saying the might be wise to pace themselves a little more. Not change policy dramatically.

Erratic = "not even or regular in pattern or movement; unpredictable."

We get it. You want regular and predictable changes. Many of us do not want that. Again, it's a matter of preference and Tesla has told you their preference and to look elsewhere if you don't like it.

Obviously you don't get it. I am not wanting or asking for regular and predictable changes. I am pondering if some pacing might be useful for Tesla and result in happier customers. For example, grouping AP1 and P85D together seemed like a wise idea to me - even though it was unpredictable and I personally missed it! But it was still a nice way to create a clear step forward. I'm thinking maybe grouping P100D and AP2 together might have been a similar good idea that would have resulted in customer goodwill and confidence.

But most especially I think the random dropping of ventilated seats, shipping partial five-seater Model Xs and all these small niggles and constant alterations here and there, they are the result of not a policy but an immature company that could use some maturing. I can not possibly see any PR or customer satisfaction benefit in these - and any logistics benefit may backfire in the longer term. So I'm thinking a little bit more pacing here might do good.

I don't trust you on that. I've read far too many posts here about people complaining how much their vehicle has depreciated especially after a major update. So even if they know it, it can't hurt to stress it, and I don't see it as "hardly helpful" to use your words.

There are also many people attracted to Tesla who are not attracted to other "luxury" vehicles, and who stretch to buy one, as well as many people who are thinking of buying a Tesla and who browse these threads but never post. To say it's "hardly helpful" for me to tell people that buying a Tesla is buying a significantly depreciating asset is not something I will ever agree with. Financial prudence is important to me and many other people and it can't hurt to remind people of what they are getting into when buying a Tesla, excluding perhaps the Model 3 but that's not even for sale yet.

Again, you miss my point. My view is that within the context of this convesation you IMO invented (possibly unintentionally of course) a strawman. Instead of arguing whether or not Tesla's constanct changes big and small increase depreciation, which IMO was the argument, you keep talking to people about car's having depreciation in general. That is not helpful to having a conversation about the effects of Tesla's policy on depreciation, because it exaggerates and generalises the conversation in a way where the actual topic is lost.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I'm glad that Elon made that statement. In terms of Elon tweets that I remember it will probably rank up there with his tweet on our reality likely being a simulated.

What makes the tweet stand out is how direct it is. I'm sure there was a bit of frustration at the heart of it because it was the millionth time he was asked about upgrading an HW1 car to HW2.

He's telling it like it is not just with Tesla, but with any electric car or autonomous driving technology. They're both on major advancement ramps that would make it extremely difficult for a manufacture to future proof.

But, it's probably more important for Tesla buyers because the software upgradability gives people the illusion that the car is in some way future proof.

It's also because Tesla sells the car not on the merits of what it does today, but on what it will do tomorrow. Someone buying an HW2 car today is going to have a laundry list of expectations in the future. If they suddenly come out with HW3 in 6 months then it's going to cause all sorts of anxiety due to the remaining list of things on the laundry list.

With a Tesla it's extremely tricky to gauge how long one will keep a car (which is an important part of buying a car).

Where will EAB/FSD be in 2 years?
What will the regulatory requirements look like?
What will the right to repair laws be like where I live in a few years?

This is even before you get to things as basic as the interior where the innovation hasn't really occurred yet.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@S4WRXTTCS

Yes, because EV, software updates and constant innovation made it necessary to remove ventilated seats and ship Model X five-seater without... parts.

One has to admit, Tesla's immediacy on changing stuff is on a whole different level - in good and in bad. It's like being an internal customer, instead of external.

 

[Canuck]

I wish people would just argue the actual argument: does Tesla's policy of continuos and at times erratic change result in faster than normal depreciation or not.

This is where you lose me since you are looking at a vehicle as an investment and not as something to enjoy with the right attitude. Perhaps if I explain it to you this way you will understand the point I am getting at:

You pick up your new Tesla today, which was recently ordered, drive it around town, pleased as punch, only to come home and park it in your garage, go inside, bring up TMC and find out that tomorrow all new cars will have -- refresh, AP, AP2.0, you name it -- whatever the major change is, you just missed it.

Now, if you immediately went to sell your car, then "yes" it has depreciated faster than normal depreciation. But how many people buy a car to turn around and sell it? TSLA = yes. Tesla = no. Other automakers bring out vehicle changes every year -- so if you keep it and enjoyed it for a year, as the vast majority of people do then there's no more significant depreciation than any other automaker. And if we look at the statistics, a Tesla does not depreciate any more significantly than other vehicles in the same class.

But people's feeling get hurt with the way Tesla changes things because the kid next to them got two cookies. With the right attitude, however, there's no need for hurt feelings, or to tell Tesla not to bring out changes asap so I don't need to look at the two cookie kid.

And this is coming from someone who got a new vehicle in 2014 and missed out on AP -- but I was happy for others and not envious!

Got it now?

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

@S4WRXTTCS

Yes, because EV, software updates and constant innovation made it necessary to remove ventilated seats and ship Model X five-seater without... parts.

One has to admit, Tesla's immediacy on changing stuff is on a whole different level - in good and in bad. It's like being an internal customer, instead of external.

Ha, early in this thread there was talk about the 100D being innovative and I held my tongue.

It wasn't innovative or unexpected.

They removed the ventilated seats (for some reason that I don't know)
They removed the free supercharging for life (they had to at some point).
They bundled interior selections (not normal for such an expensive car).
They made the 100kw from the P100D available on the non-performance version

All those were business related decisions.

The 100D simply had bad timing because it was highly anticipated, and came out right when two things people wanted suddenly went away. Of course people were upset because all three would have been magical. Even though it had zero impact on me I still can't argue with those that wanted the trifecta of awesome. But, they didn't get it and whined. I can't argue against the whining either because whining has worked in the past.

Although my whining with Tesla has fell on death ears. But, it was just about slipping significant things in without being on the release notes. We all have our bones to pick with something Tesla does.

 

[Az_Rael]

This is where you lose me since you are looking at a vehicle as an investment and not as something to enjoy with the right attitude. Perhaps if I explain it to you this way you will understand the point I am getting at:

There is a class if buyers who do care about depreciation rates. You can disagree with their viewpoint all you want, but they exist and are potential customers. I would argue the 35k market has more of them than the 70k market, so eventually its going to be a factor for Tesla if their cars score at the bottom of that list compared to their competitors.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And this is coming from someone who got a new vehicle in 2014 and missed out on AP -- but I was happy for others and not envious!

I got my brand new Classic P85 (non-AP) after the P85D unveiling due to international delivery times. I haven't been complaining. As I said, I think the combined AP1, D event was a very nice example of pacing. They grouped improvements into one and made a nice splash of it too. P85D made for a significant step forward and gave buyers some confidence and peace to make purchase decisions at that time. I think that was pretty well and wisely executed, even though I missed it too (excluding any 691 hp controversy). In 2016 though, everything - major stuff included - has been spread thin and wide. I am not so sure that is as wise.

I mean, what if Tesla had taken a page out of their own book and released AP2, P100D and 100D as a single change... That would have been an example of the kind of pacing I'm talking about. Including Model S facelift in the same might have been even better.

This is where you lose me since you are looking at a vehicle as an investment and not as something to enjoy with the right attitude. Perhaps if I explain it to you this way you will understand the point I am getting at:

You pick up your new Tesla today, which was recently ordered, drive it around town, pleased as punch, only to come home and park it in your garage, go inside, bring up TMC and find out that tomorrow all new cars will have -- refresh, AP, AP2.0, you name it -- whatever the major change is, you just missed it.

Now, if you immediately went to sell your car, then "yes" it has depreciated faster than normal depreciation. But how many people buy a car to turn around and sell it? Other automakers bring out vehicle changes every year -- so if you keep it and enjoyed it for a year, as the vast majority of people do then there's no more significant depreciation than any other automaker. And if we look at the statistics, a Tesla does not depreciate any more significantly than other vehicles in the same class.

But people's feeling get hurt with the way Tesla changes things because the kid next to them got two cookies. With the right attitude, however, there's no need for hurt feelings, or to tell Tesla not to bring out changes asap so I don't need to look at the two cookie kid.

Got it now?

The argument in this thread was that Tesla's erratic change schedule depreciates cars faster than a regular change schedule would. As an answer to that, the above is fine by me. Just to be clear, though: That is not necessarily my argument - mine is more on the PR and customer satisfaction side, rather than personally a concern of depreciation.

But yes, I think others made the argument in this thread that the faster than normal change rhythm can increase depreciation at a faster than normal rate. So arguing and speculating on that is perfectly fine of course. I was merely trying to point out that IMO I don't think people were arguing that deprectiation wouldn't somehow happen without it - just that with this, it would be even faster than normal...

 

[Canuck]

There is a class if buyers who do care about depreciation rates. You can disagree with their viewpoint all you want, but they exist and are potential customers.

I'm the one here repeatedly warning them about the significant depreciation rates! Who do think I am directing that to? I am directing that to the class of buyers who care about depreciation rates! You don't need to tell me they exist when I'm the one ringing the warning bell louder than anyone here -- to the point I am told by some that I am not being helpful in doing so.

As to your next point, I will always disagree with the viewpoint that we must be envious of others. If you are telling me that people care if they buy a car then the next day it has depreciated because new features came out, when they planned to keep it for at least a year in any event, then I will say get over it. You didn't buy an investment! You are only upset because of what others got. As Elon Musk has said to those people, you're buying the wrong vehicle.

If Tesla doesn't care about the "one cookie kid" customers, why should I? Well, I do own TSLA but I still don't care. I hate when our society always seems to have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm the one here repeatedly warning them about the significant depreciation rates! Who do think I am directing that to? I am directing that to the class of buyers who care about depreciation rates! You don't need to tell me they exist when I'm the one ringing the warning bell louder than anyone here -- to the point I am told by some that I am not being helpful in doing so.

Apparently you still do not get it. I was not against you warning of depreciation. I was making the point that general depreciation was not the point anyone was discussing, so you muddying waters with general depreciation warnings about cars were not helpful in that context. The point was specific additional depreciation potentially caused by Tesla's unusual change schedule (which you disagree with - which btw is perfectly fine and I may even agree with you - so you aren't ringing any warning bells about that).

As to your next point, I will always disagree with the viewpoint that we must be envious of others. If you are telling me that people care if they buy a car then the next day it has depreciated because new features came out, when they planned to keep it for at least a year in any event, then I will say get over it. You didn't buy an investment! You are only upset because of what others got. As Elon Musk has said to those people, you're buying the wrong vehicle.

This concerns me a little. Because customer psychology does matter, especially when the competition gets here. Completely ignoring that and selling whatever, whenever dictated merely by internal logistics and short-term business decisions may not be the best for customer satisfaction. Some consideration for the customer is useful in longer-term. Making a constantly changing product that customers constantly find uncomfortable to buy can be an issue.

It is not always about envy, it is about wanting to make a smart, informed buy - and the negative feelings associated with feeling that one has failed at that. The chances of this increase greatly if the product one is trying to buy is in extreme constant flux. I mean, again, what if iPhone didn't come out once a year, but they added hardare in increments through the year... It would be harder to buy and there would be some impact to customer satisfaction I imagine.

Maybe it will never be too big of an issue, but it could be. Believing that Tesla somehow magically knows and follows the best and the only best way forward seems unlikely. We should keep talking to them how we perceive their actions. Some may warrant changes (e.g. Countergate).

 

[Az_Rael]

Well, I do own TSLA but I still don't care. I hate when our society always seems to have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Fair enough. You dont really care what it might or might not do to Teslas bottom line in the long run. A totally understandable position and I can respect that even I feel differently.

 

[BestRadar]

I am still annoyed at how Tesla offered FREE Supercharging to 12/31 to entice everyone to order by end of Q4, and then when 12/31 came and went they just extended it another 2 weeks and then cut it off and offered the S100D. I personally would have waited for the S100D because I care more about the range than I do about the Free Supercharging. It just seems that no time is right to buy a Tesla because it seems every quarter there is a new surprise to boost quarter sales. I also do not agree with the interior choices customers are now forced to choose from on a car that can easily be configured well over $100k they should be catering to their customers and offering choices.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

There is a class if buyers who do care about depreciation rates. You can disagree with their viewpoint all you want, but they exist and are potential customers. I would argue the 35k market has more of them than the 70k market, so eventually its going to be a factor for Tesla if their cars score at the bottom of that list compared to their competitors.

My biggest concern with the 35K market as it relates to Tesla is the right to repair aspect. A lot of that market is supported by being able to service/repair their cars inexpensively.

So having a car where only a single company can repair it, and supply parts might be a bit of a challenge with a lot of second hands buyers.

But, I'm not sure if it will really come to that.

In the near term they're protected by production capability being unable to meet demand. The 400K number is just pre-orders before people really see what it is, and what it can do.

In the really long term they could be potentially protected by full-self driving if it's achieved (even with some limitations). A full-self driving car is going to be extremely production limited because it's worth is so high. It's no longer going to valued like we value a car today, but on it's earning potential.

In the very long term hardly anyone will actually own a car.

The crux of the issue is trying to gauge when full self driving will occur because that changes the game. Anything that predates that is a relic (and that includes ICE cars). Most of the innovation that will occur will be autonomous driving technology. If what's in a car doesn't meet the requirements then it's resale will suffer.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It just seems that no time is right to buy a Tesla because it seems every quarter there is a new surprise to boost quarter sales.

Indeed. I can not see how it is helpful to Tesla if customers more and more start feeling never is a good time to pull that trigger.

That would be like a permament Osbourning of your product, were such a reputation to stick.

 

[BestRadar]

My biggest concern with the 35K market as it relates to Tesla is the right to repair aspect. A lot of that market is supported by being able to service/repair their cars inexpensively.

That is true.. Can you imagine the face from someone that buys one used for $20k and then has a door handle fail with a repair cost of $1200+?