-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Lasttoy
Active Member
Analogy warning!
The analogy to people who thought that "the incumbents" would crush Tesla would be people who thought that DEC, Unisys, etc. could make the transition to PCs.
IBM made the transition, but none of the other mainframe/minicomputer companies made it. They all declined.
Of the microcomputer companies which were operating before the IBM PC came out, Apple survived. The others didn't really -- they were taken out by the PC clone makers -- but they still did better than the mainframe/minicomputer companies.
At the time, any observer could have identified Apple, Commodore, and Tandy as the only ones which were plausibly likely to survive (and I did identify them as such); Tandy and Commodore actually made the transition to PC clones. Both were doing OK against the first wave of clones (Compaq etc.) but ended up being unable to compete on cost with PC's Limited (later Dell) and the other ultra-cheap clone makers; it took quite a while for the decline.
I don't see anything comparable to IBM entering the PC business; it would have to be a high-end company with massive brand reputation which could also produce in high volume and has an excellent quality reputation. Perhaps Audi or Porsche is the closest possibility, but neither has a good quality reputation. Also, IBM opened up their specs immediately (the IBM PC shipped with *extraordinarily complete* manuals) which gave them a huge advantage in third-party software and hardware developer sales over Apple/Commodore/Tandy -- I'm not seeing an equivalent in electric cars. (Though I will pay attention if it happens.)
There's no compatibility issue such as the one which tripped up Tandy and Commodore and Apple. Tandy also had a low-end reputation. I suppose it's possible that Tesla could go the way of Commodore, but Apple looks like a more likely analogy.
Commodore had a strong following and the Amiga had more advanced graphics than anybody else for a while, but they died off because there wasn't enough software for it. The Macintosh struggled without enough software too, though Microsoft came out with Office for the Mac in the late 1990s and there were other business related programs available in the 90s.
The "OS" cars need to interface with are the highway regulations for various countries. Even though the underlying technology is different, electric cars need to "plug into" this existing infrastructure. This is where analogies with cars and the computing world breakdown. In the former, governments set the rules for everyone, in the latter different companies come up with different standards and the market is Balkanized from the start.
The only issues with compatibility with EVs are the charging standards. Tesla has gone their own way with supercharging, but they have created a superior network to anyone else with it. They also have over 99% of the over 200 mile EVs that people want to take on road trips on the road now. The rest of the non-Tesla EVs out there today aren't cars most people would consider for a road trip because their range is too short.
So even though Tesla has their own standard for fast charging, they are like MacOS. It is their own thing, but they have built up such a strong brand presence (better market share than Apple has ever had in fact, comparing the long range EV market to the personal computer market) that they will probably get away with it. There is some possibility that Tesla's standard could end up becoming the industry standard and everyone will have to adapt.
I could see a few years when other long range EVs are on the market and non-Tesla EV owners are complaining about how charging away from home is much worse than pumping gas, but Tesla owners find supercharging much easier. Other car makers could find potential customers walking away after telling them they won't buy an EV without supercharging because the ease of use is so dramatically better. Especially if ICE sales are declining fast because consumers have found EVs are better combined with regulations in some countries that make ICE ownership more difficult. At that point it becomes an issue of adopt Tesla's standard or go out of business because their potential customers will wait 6 months for a Tesla rather than drive their EV off the lot today.
Supercharging is not Tesla's deepest moat. The CCS standard could catch on if they get their act together and make it both as convenient and as easy to use as supercharging, but it is one of the moats Tesla enjoys. The deepest moat Tesla has is battery production. It doesn't matter how good the competition is, Tesla can build 10X the EVs as their next closest competition. That's significant because it takes time and a vast investment in funds to catch up. Much more involved in building more DC charger locations.
The "OS" cars need to interface with are the highway regulations for various countries. Even though the underlying technology is different, electric cars need to "plug into" this existing infrastructure. This is where analogies with cars and the computing world breakdown. In the former, governments set the rules for everyone, in the latter different companies come up with different standards and the market is Balkanized from the start.
The only issues with compatibility with EVs are the charging standards. Tesla has gone their own way with supercharging, but they have created a superior network to anyone else with it. They also have over 99% of the over 200 mile EVs that people want to take on road trips on the road now. The rest of the non-Tesla EVs out there today aren't cars most people would consider for a road trip because their range is too short.
So even though Tesla has their own standard for fast charging, they are like MacOS. It is their own thing, but they have built up such a strong brand presence (better market share than Apple has ever had in fact, comparing the long range EV market to the personal computer market) that they will probably get away with it. There is some possibility that Tesla's standard could end up becoming the industry standard and everyone will have to adapt.
I could see a few years when other long range EVs are on the market and non-Tesla EV owners are complaining about how charging away from home is much worse than pumping gas, but Tesla owners find supercharging much easier. Other car makers could find potential customers walking away after telling them they won't buy an EV without supercharging because the ease of use is so dramatically better. Especially if ICE sales are declining fast because consumers have found EVs are better combined with regulations in some countries that make ICE ownership more difficult. At that point it becomes an issue of adopt Tesla's standard or go out of business because their potential customers will wait 6 months for a Tesla rather than drive their EV off the lot today.
Supercharging is not Tesla's deepest moat. The CCS standard could catch on if they get their act together and make it both as convenient and as easy to use as supercharging, but it is one of the moats Tesla enjoys. The deepest moat Tesla has is battery production. It doesn't matter how good the competition is, Tesla can build 10X the EVs as their next closest competition. That's significant because it takes time and a vast investment in funds to catch up. Much more involved in building more DC charger locations.
Actually, Tesla's in a very interesting position with respect to charging standards. As I said to several people at National Drive Electric Week, "Tesla can use everyone else's charging stations, but nobody else can use Tesla's charging stations."
I hope Tesla continues to provide adapters for CCS and ChaDEmo and so forth, and I think they will.
This puts Tesla in the IBM PC position. For a while, IBM PCs could run software written for nearly every other system because of their open attitude allowing for third-party emulators and add-on boards. (Mac was the exception due to how extensively complex and unique its design was.) I remember Apple II emulators and TRS-80 emulators -- they wouldn't run everything, but they would run most things. Nobody else could run PC software for quite a while because the other companies weren't as open (though this changed later).
I hope Tesla continues to provide adapters for CCS and ChaDEmo and so forth, and I think they will.
This puts Tesla in the IBM PC position. For a while, IBM PCs could run software written for nearly every other system because of their open attitude allowing for third-party emulators and add-on boards. (Mac was the exception due to how extensively complex and unique its design was.) I remember Apple II emulators and TRS-80 emulators -- they wouldn't run everything, but they would run most things. Nobody else could run PC software for quite a while because the other companies weren't as open (though this changed later).
As mentioned in one of this thread’s posts, it’s impossible for Moderators to police everything.
This particular thread, however, has no redeeming merits - S/N is about as low as can be. So move along, all - this thread is now closed.
This particular thread, however, has no redeeming merits - S/N is about as low as can be. So move along, all - this thread is now closed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
