Elon reveals Cybertruck details / production expectations on Q3 2023 call

[cvalue13]

Well, considering the listings just redirect the customer to the Tesla website, cars.com is technically not "selling" the vehicle as "CarDealershipGuy" alludes. Tesla is still selling the car. If anything, cars.com is getting some type of referral credit.

yeah, I thought all that was obvious, but thanks for clarifying if someone has zero clue how cars.com works

(I’m not aware that cars.com sells anything directly, instead that dealers list there)

Sponsored

 

[rudedawg78]

yeah, I thought all that was obvious, but thanks for clarifying if someone has zero clue how cars.com works

(I’m not aware that cars.com sells anything directly, instead that dealers list there)

No problem. Just clarifying the language that CarDealershipGuy used. No dealership outside Tesla "sells" Tesla vehicles.

 

[Crissa]

Most importantly it is collecting the data it needs and the data each car collects is the new oil.

Tesla specifically does not sell, and says they never intend to sell, this information. It would be exceedingly unethical to do so.

-Crissa

 

[Coolbreeze704]

Tesla specifically does not sell, and says they never intend to sell, this information. It would be exceedingly unethical to do so.

-Crissa

The data is used to train nueral networks. All the information his the cameras are collecting that is training the vehicles now and Optimus in the future.

 

[Crissa]

The data is used to train nueral networks. All the information his the cameras are collecting that is training the vehicles now and Optimus in the future.

Yes. That's the only thing it's ethical to use that information for.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

I agree that these are all GREAT questions

and I point out that the result in roughly the following conclusion: what could be incredible about Tesla has little to do with their having “better margins on auto manufacturing“

Hell, if you listen to Tesla, they tell you that what they’rE GOING to do is essentially make selling personal vehicles obsolete

At worst, that’s what’s so confusing about the high level summary of Tesla’s thesis: we’re going to both (A) sell 20M cars/year, and (B), increase both their longevity and utility in such a way that those 20M cars are equivalent to a number that is greater than the total number of new cars sold globally each year.

huh?

But at best, what it means is that I find really odd these sorts of assertions that “what what evidences Tesla is so good are it’s auto sales margins, and nobody gets what Tesla’s about”

it’s margins aren’t that remarkable, and enough people get what Tesla is about that it has a 25X market cap compared to Toyota on a car volume basis

It is sometimes like they are trying to program their own demise, but I believe this is the direct result, at times, of two competing interests, being sustainability and resource allocation through currency.

The priority is of course sustainability as per the mission statement, but to get there you need to make enough profit to develop those sustainable systems, simply because current currency resource allocation has no inherent ability to prefer sustainable systems over non-sustainable systems. Hence the perceived "need" by some for mandates to get there, to force currency to comply in the correct allocation.

Alternatively, you must take control of resource allocation and the resulting economic productivity thereof, in this case through vertical integration and R&D into alternative first principles based solutions (not a catch phrase as much as a way of thinking btw), and by doing so remove the barrier of using currency that limits trade of the things you need to achieve sustainability. Using currency simply dilutes your capacity to force change, because you lose control of externalities outside of your organization.

This is not a new phenomenon in the Renewable Energy industry and is a topic that has raged for decades, but since many have abandoned, seeing we have reached grid price parity with renewables. But the effect is not only constrained to the energy industry, in that every economic activity in a currency market creates imbalances due to the prerequisite of the profitability of coin itself, that is not always in the best interests of the people in that economy.

Classic example is biofuels from food products that leave the population of countries starving while they export grain for profit to make biodiesel. This doesn't make biodiesel bad in itself, but it does clearly demonstrate the principle that money has no intrinsic moral properties in of itself to direct the flow of resources to the benefit of the people of said economy.

I suppose in the end, you can also take any modern western civilization as a example of this, including the USA with their QA policies, that reverberate the will of the few over every aspect of world economics, in a desire to meet the demands of a populist democracy, that is thwarted by it's own desire to stay relevant. We all know this, it's old news.

But it is directly relevant to the catch 22 conundrum of developing sustainable systems, inside of a economic system, that must force economic activity to do what is physically, the best thing to do for it's populace.

The question is how fine a line to walk to keep this balance, of making progress towards sustainability, and at the same time leveraging the existing systems to the max that are heading towards extinction, whilst including the realities of currency resource allocation, to achieve that difficult goal.

This is not meant to be a justification of any kind, nor a political statement to support any party, rather it is meant as a different perspective to gain a better understanding of the challenges these proposed changes must first overcome. That starts with putting "all" the externalities, including environmental and social costs, on the balance sheets of corporations and governments, so that each might be persuaded of their "response-abilities" as actors on the planetary stage.

The fact is that economic activity in itself is also not beholden to be sustainable in any form, primarily because the current supply/demand structure is too short to provide feedback to provoke change. The mere fact that we have quarterly and annual returns, and taxation, as if by some miracle things should be so temporally relevant to the earths orbit of the sun, is a part of the exact same problem.

On a planetary perspective these manmade systems and constraints appear trivial and mundane, but their impact on the planet, and all of it's inhabitants, are profound and expedient. As humans we have the unique capability to plan ahead, using our cognition of history, but if we don't even agree on what reality is, how can we agree on what plan to follow, and what systems to use to get there? In this instance, we also need a revolutionize our own choices along with those we make involuntarily as a group, and choose and prioritize the paths to sustainable change.

 

[PilotPete]

No problem. Just clarifying the language that CarDealershipGuy used. No dealership outside Tesla "sells" Tesla vehicles.

 

[Arctic_White]

PS: “But, I hear about how Ford loses money on every BEV while tesla has amazing margins”

yeah, because $TSLA xwitter twirps don’t understand that Tesla also ‘lost money on every BEV’, except - now - for a brief period during 2020/2021 … despite it’s D2C/small distribution advantages

this idea that Tesla is importantly any different than OEMs in this respect stems entirely from people incorrectly (fraudulently?) comparing eg (A) Tesla’s per-vehicle margin to ((B) Ford’s corporate net income divided by number of units sold.

There are 3 very important points that you have missed:

1) When Tesla was losing money on each vehicle sold (2012 to 2019), the reasoning went something like this: legacy has decades worth of experience and it is so easy to switch to EVs and when the legacy automakers decide to do that, Tesla will go kaput. Remember those articles? I do!

2) During those years (until 2019) the EV market was in its infancy. Tesla literally created the supply chain. So shouldn't legacy automakers not be losing money on each EV they sell now because hey, they have decades' worth of manufacturing experience and the EV supply chain is so much better now?

3) The fact that legacy automakers are slowing down their EV production means that they will never be able to scale and show healthy profit margins. Ergo, they are on their way towards bankruptcy.

As I have said before, Stelantis, GM, VW, and a few others will either a) go bankrupt within a decade, b) get bailed out, or c) become a shell of themselves. The fact that you (a very smart person) can't see that is puzzling to me.

Ford still has a fighting chance and they are really trying. But no guarantees.

 

[Arctic_White]

But at best, what it means is that I find really odd these sorts of assertions that “what what evidences Tesla is so good are it’s auto sales margins, and nobody gets what Tesla’s about”

it’s margins aren’t that remarkable, and enough people get what Tesla is about that it has a 25X market cap compared to Toyota on a car volume basis

You really have no idea, do you?

Compare gross profit margins for those that produce EVs. How many EVs does Toyota produce?

The biggest thing that you fail to see is that Tesla isn't just an automotive company. You are way out of depth here when it comes to TSLA and it shows.

 

[MiguelAznar]

That starts with putting "all" the externalities, including environmental and social costs, on the balance sheets of corporations and governments, so that each might be persuaded of their "response-abilities" as actors on the planetary stage.

 

[cvalue13]

You really have no idea, do you?

Compare gross profit margins for those that produce EVs. How many EVs does Toyota produce?

The biggest thing that you fail to see is that Tesla isn't just an automotive company. You are way out of depth here when it comes to TSLA and it shows.

ok

Said while patently evidencing not even 101 level of grasp of gross profit comps

which is it, Buffet: these companies are so similar their comps are informative, or so dissimilar their comps aren’t informative


You’re absolutely correct about one thing: I’m way out of my depth here

Sponsored