Agreed.
However, the article is also illustrative of an emerging threat I see in that Tesla still lacks the levers to control the public narrative. I fear, as an engineer, Elon believes the the numbers will speak for themselves--the company will hit profitability and the M3 ramp will continue and Tesla will emerge from the dog. house. I think he might be in for a rude awakening.
As MB, VAG, etc start to have skin in the game with real EV offers, they are going to start firing up their massive marketing and PR machines. Watching the Eagles (Go Eagles) vs Falcons game last night, I think I saw an MB commercial at every break plus the VW EV commercial. Now, imagine if that exposure was used to push the MQC? Remember, to blunt Tesla's mainstream expansion, all the incumbents need to do is convince enough buyers that their EVs are good enough and that they are a safer more trustworthy brand than Tesla.
Here is the Consumer Reports brand ranking form last year:
View attachment 332753
While all the twitter antics, pot-smoking, etc do not bother me and I think have zero relevance to how well Tesla is being run (still long on TSLA), I do thing the brand starts to suffer from the accumulation of paper-cuts and Tesla lacks the tools to turn the conversation around.
The problem is, it wasn't "dismissing material developments because they are negative" -- it is all the spin, oversights, misleading statements, etc. Since I, and others, have covered this already I don't see any point in repeating it. The reason I am responding is your contention that MB, VAG, etc. have skin in the game with real EV offers.
I mean, in a technical way they are (or eventually will be) real -- but they aren't real in that they are too little and years behind. In fact the MB EQC is the poster child for what is wrong with thinking that it is just a matter of the established automotive companies deciding that its time to start competing.
A claim oft repeated is that they have vast experience in tooling, production, whatever. All very true, but then this is extended to "prove" that doing an EV is no different than an ICE. After all, its still a frame, suspension, wheels, seats, etc., right? The only difference is replacing the gas tank with a battery and the ICE with an electric, right?
And that thinking is what brought us the EQC. It is a completely risk averse design that uses as much as possible in common with other vehicles so it *will* be taking advantage of MB vast experience in tooling, production, etc. There's just one problem, and that is that this approach produces an inferior EV. It lacks range, it lacks acceleration, it lacks top end, it lacks storage (due to inefficiencies brought on by trying to wedge an EV into an ICE). And that is just considering the vehicle. A large part of Tesla's success comes from the supercharger network. What is MB doing for that?
Unlike GM's attempt it will probably turn a profit, but unless they seriously revamp the design (which will drive up production costs considerably) it isn't likely to sell well. I don't know what their sales target is so, by their definitions/expectations it may perform quite well. But it is laughable to think they will break into the top 10 of EVs, much less challenge Tesla.
So, no, don't mistake the EQC as MB having "skin in the game" as it is anything but. They are barely dipping their toes, not committing anything: not a new design/production line, not backing up their car with a charge network, nothing. No skin at all.