Virtual Reality environment not care about underlying vehicles

[Ulmo]

Apple is outdated, billionaire Chinese tech rival says

At the LeSee's launch, he told Reuters that while Tesla was a "great company," he was not "just building a car."

"We consider the car a smart mobile device on four wheels, essentially no different to a cellphone or tablet," he said. "We hope to surpass Tesla and lead the industry leapfrogging to a new age."

What makes this more painful for Tesla is that this comment was being used to demonstrate that Apple was behind by copying Tesla and incrementally improving on Tesla's design rather than looking at it from a virtual* virtual reality experience point of view (what I infer reading between the lines of what he's saying). Essentially, Tesla is used as the example of what Apple is better than, and not "better enough" -- which puts Tesla in third place in that ranking.

Here's a post I made about his Apple comments: I rarely agree with Chinese, but this time, I do, re: Apple, innovation, apps vs open ecosystem • /r/apple

This Chinese guy is really smart, and I agree with a lot of stuff he says. I never knew he existed until now.

* I said "virtual virtual" to get across the point that VR should seamlessly float across devices, not tied to a particular device, even though I don't think there's ever a reason for anybody to use the phrase "virtual virtual" again, since I think this should be well understood in the future.

====

Followup:

Someone pointed out in a short term competitive environment: "No pain here. Talk is cheap. Let's see the products. We have heard dozens of similar boasts without seeing a significant challenge to Tesla." So, I take it a little longer term, in response:

Fair point. I just thought of that myself: the Chinese have been like SG-1's Goa'uld, stealing everything they know. The question remains whether or not they can now seamlessly take this understanding and continue on their own. They are so efficient at stealing, that it may be indistinguishable from original innovation, at which point there lies the danger: that they might be able to start doing original innovation without competition noticing, and by then, competition falls behind, and at this level, rapidly.

But for now, Tesla is shipping EV's. Where the virtual pods of the future go, we don't know, but SpaceX+Tesla is sure to see being a part, if they succeed or not, and right now, they have everything going for them.

 

[30seconds]

talk is cheap. what has this guy created & not copied?

 

[YBT]

His idea for how to monetise the act of selling someone a car is quite innovative (and something I saw coming a mile off *self high five*).

Traditional: Sell car for production cost + margin to dealer, sell replacement parts for cost + margin, ensure that critical components are engineered to fail during the life of the vehicle... profit.

Tesla: Sell car for production cost + margin direct to consumer with free fuel and free feature/software updates included (revolutionary idea), strive to rate critical components beyond useful life of vehicle (also revolutionary).... change the world/profit.

LeEco: Sell car for monthly payments that are subsidised by an ecosystem of advertising that can be shovelled directly into the driver/occupant's brain cavity (even more revolutionary - not dissimilar in spirit to what Solar City is doing with no money down installations).

As a disclaimer I personally despise ads; don't own a television, don't listen to commercial radio, don't read the newspaper. This more or less makes me the last person in the world this type of concept is geared toward, yet I can see plenty of people jumping at the proposition. After all, there are shows on Television that are just strings of ads interspersed with other ads (informercials, worlds funnest ad shows, the news ) so there are clearly people out there who, dare I say it, enjoy being advertised to

Hypothetical: LeEco / Faraday Future are able to make something that offers performance and style akin to a Model S and offer it for $300 - $400 p.m on a 36 month contract with $1000 down. The more you drive, the more ads you watch, the more brainwashed you become but the lower your monthly payments!

 

[ajax]

His idea for how to monetise the act of selling someone a car is quite innovative (and something I saw coming a mile off *self high five*).

Traditional: Sell car for production cost + margin to dealer, sell replacement parts for cost + margin, ensure that critical components are engineered to fail during the life of the vehicle... profit.

Tesla: Sell car for production cost + margin direct to consumer with free fuel and free feature/software updates included (revolutionary idea), strive to rate critical components beyond useful life of vehicle (also revolutionary).... change the world/profit.

LeEco: Sell car for monthly payments that are subsidised by an ecosystem of advertising that can be shovelled directly into the driver/occupant's brain cavity (even more revolutionary - not dissimilar in spirit to what Solar City is doing with no money down installations).

As a disclaimer I personally despise ads; don't own a television, don't listen to commercial radio, don't read the newspaper. This more or less makes me the last person in the world this type of concept is geared toward, yet I can see plenty of people jumping at the proposition. After all, there are shows on Television that are just strings of ads interspersed with other ads (informercials, worlds funnest ad shows, the news ) so there are clearly people out there who, dare I say it, enjoy being advertised to

Hypothetical: LeEco / Faraday Future are able to make something that offers performance and style akin to a Model S and offer it for $300 - $400 p.m on a 36 month contract with $1000 down. The more you drive, the more ads you watch, the more brainwashed you become but the lower your monthly payments!

No one has implemented this "innovative" feature because it doesn't make financial sense. Take a look at Google. They make $45 per user per year in revenue (not profit). Note that is far more than their competitors due to the highly targeted nature of their ads. That's about 2 orders of magnitude off from closing the business case you propose. Even assuming a taxi business model with ads being served 24/7 it would only take a dent out of the price. Note that these will not be highly targeted ads and won't receive a Google-like premium. This concept just baffles me.

 

[Ludus]

No reason to be baffled. It's just a really stupid idea. I suspect the environment this guy is operating in is pretty uncritical. Periods with a lot of revolutionary change like Mobility Apps and self driving cars can invite some pretty goofy thinking by analogy.