Apple Self-Driving Test Vehicles Doubled Mileage in 2020

[nikaru]

Tesla and Apple have made the same profit selling cars.

A company can exist even without profit. What it really needs is revenue to pay for its existence.

Apple has 200 billion dollars burning a hole it is pockets, and yet it uses a silly looking Lexus doing 18k miles A YEAR to test a system in order to put it in car that at most, is still in a prototype stage (i.e. where Tesla was 14 years ago).

How fast do you think Apple can manufacture 1 million vehicles, build a worldwide network of charging stations and get the amount of engineering expertise equal to what Tesla currently has? By the time the first Apple car is seen on the road, Tesla will be releasing a fourth generation drive trains, battery packs, and chassis. I love Apple, but they cant do miracles. You first have to build quite a lot of cars until you start building them with a decent quality.

 

[nikaru]

Thats a laughable amount compared to Tesla. Apple has a very very very long way before they catch up (if they ever will).
Currently nothing is even close to Tesla so how is Apple planning this will be interesting to watch. Either way, I wouldn't be buying first version of Apple car.

Agree with you. My only guess is that Apple has some secret location in a foreign county with different company name that is testing extensively a self-driving vehicle system in a larger scale, but we just dont know about it. It is difficult but not impossible. Another option is that Apple system isnt relying or neural engines and LIDAR/image scanning but works on entirely different basis (computer simulations for instance). My last option is that the self-driving capability is not a core feature of any Apple Car but instead the car is based on a revolutionary battery and drive train technology that allows for autonomy and power that is years ahead of the competition. What is clear is that Apple cant catch up in self-driving capability with a few Lexus vehicles doing 50 miles a day of testing. That's impossible. You need millions of miles of real world data to build sufficiently intelligent system for something as sensitive as car driving itself with 70miles/h.

 

[Yokon54]

A company can exist even without profit. What it really needs is revenue to pay for its existence.

Apple has 200 billion dollars burning a hole it is pockets, and yet it uses a silly looking Lexus doing 18k miles A YEAR to test a system in order to put it in car that at most, is still in a prototype stage (i.e. where Tesla was 14 years ago).

How fast do you think Apple can manufacture 1 million vehicles, build a worldwide network of charging stations and get the amount of engineering expertise equal to what Tesla currently has? By the time the first Apple car is seen on the road, Tesla will be releasing a fourth generation drive trains, battery packs, and chassis. I love Apple, but they cant do miracles. You first have to build quite a lot of cars until you start building them with a decent quality.

In case you forgot, Apple isn’t a car company and never mentioned cars. They just made $29B in profit in 90 days without selling a single car. I think their business is fine without cars.

Apple also just put up 21% revenue growth to Tesla’s 28% growth, so what revenue growth can Tesla really tout?

I understand markets. Tesla is a car company. They manufacture cars in a very tough and competitive landscape. Energy credit are rolling off and Tesla will eventually have to deliver a profit selling cars, something they have NOT been able to do yet.

Furthermore, their runway is running out. Other car companies have already produced interesting and in some cases better EVs.

Porsche made a better Model S on their first try. More expensive? Sure, but it’s a Porsche. There are many more desirable car brands than Tesla and many with better and higher quality manufacturing ability.

Tesla’s quality is still pretty bad. Apple will never take the risk of manufacturing. They will contract like they have successfully done with iPhone, iPad and all their products. Apple isn’t stupid. All the nonsense you talk about with networks and electric grids can be leased or purchased with money. Apple has plenty of that.

FYI, Apple only has about $85B in net cash, so it’s not $200B in reality. You have to back out the long term debt which they correctly raised in low interest markets to buyback shares...the most successful buyback in history.

 

[Yokon54]

Wrong. Even subtracting ev credits, Tesla made a profit.

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA is a car company worth over $800 billion that has never turned a profit selling cars. Despite a cult following and intense brand loyalty, Tesla has been unable to wring any profits out of the half a million cars it now sells annually.

To be clear, Tesla did report a profit for 2020, under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP, marking the company's first full year of profitability. But that profit did not come from the core business of manufacturing cars. Tesla booked a whopping $1.58 billion of revenue from selling regulatory credits last year, more than the previous three years combined. Tesla's net income of $721 million in 2020 turns into a substantial loss if those regulatory credit sales are backed out.

Now, I’m not pretending I am some expert on Tesla’s financials, but what I say is true. Even if you could massage the numbers to find some profit, the reality is they make most of their money on the credits, not the cars.

And even if you ignore it and JUST look at their profit, it’s laughably low given the $800B valuation...with the energy credits or not. $721M in profit with energy credits driving it...😂😂.

To put it in perspective, Apple made $721 in profits 2.5 days last quarter.

 

[nikaru]

In case you forgot, Apple isn’t a car company and never mentioned cars. They just made $29B in profit in 90 days without selling a single car. I think their business is fine without cars.

Apple also just put up 21% revenue growth to Tesla’s 28% growth, so what revenue growth can Tesla really tout?

I understand markets. Tesla is a car company. They manufacture cars in a very tough and competitive landscape. Energy credit are rolling off and Tesla will eventually have to deliver a profit selling cars, something they have NOT been able to do yet.

Furthermore, their runway is running out. Other car companies have already produced interesting and in some cases better EVs.

Porsche made a better Model S on their first try. More expensive? Sure, but it’s a Porsche. There are many more desirable car brands than Tesla and many with better and higher quality manufacturing ability.

Tesla’s quality is still pretty bad. Apple will never take the risk of manufacturing. They will contract like they have successfully done with iPhone, iPad and all their products. Apple isn’t stupid. All the nonsense you talk about with networks and electric grids can be leased or purchased with money. Apple has plenty of that.

FYI, Apple only has about $85B in net cash, so it’s not $200B in reality. You have to back out the long term debt which they correctly raised in low interest markets to buyback shares...the most successful buyback in history.

Few clarifications:

Tesla is virtually investing all its hard-earned cash in R&D expenditures and other development cost that in most cases cant be capitalized so there is direct hit on the P&L account. It is actively building manufacturing plants on three continents with energy credits and cash from selling a few vehicles. By the time these credits run out, Tesla would have scaled its manufacturing capabilities to millions of cars per year, it would have development a portfolio that extends far beyond normal vehicles, and would have optimized its manufacturing process to reduce costs significantly. You cant just expect profit from a company that is still building its infrastructure.

I dont agree that that there are better EVs on the market than Tesla. Porsche didnt had to develop seats, trucks, headlines, lighting, switches, etc from ground up to release the Tycan. Traditional manufacturers have the natural advantage over new companies in building and designing non-core components since they have been doing these for decades. Is this year Tycon Turbo S better than this year Tesla Model S Plaid? We will see but it all points out that by the end of this year, the Tycon will be obsolete, as well as all new EV coming to the market, both in range and power. It took Porsche 9 years to release a vehicle that is somehow similar to Model S which was released 10 years ago.

Even with all the money in the world, there are still things you cant buy. Expertise and experience, extensive testing, training, deployment, logistics, building facilities, securing stable supplies, setting up complex industrial machinery and equipment, programming robots, etc -all these task take TIME which you cant reduce just by trowing money at different subcontractors. Ofc having money is of a big help, but if Apple wants to jump in the game, it better make it quickly.

I wasnt sure about Apple net cash position, but any case, if you account marketable securities and other liquid assets, probably you end up with quite a bit more than 85 billion, but in any case, this is irrelevant data. It is a lot of money!

 

[Victor Mortimer]

A company can exist even without profit. What it really needs is revenue to pay for its existence.

Apple has 200 billion dollars burning a hole it is pockets, and yet it uses a silly looking Lexus doing 18k miles A YEAR to test a system in order to put it in car that at most, is still in a prototype stage (i.e. where Tesla was 14 years ago).

How fast do you think Apple can manufacture 1 million vehicles, build a worldwide network of charging stations and get the amount of engineering expertise equal to what Tesla currently has? By the time the first Apple car is seen on the road, Tesla will be releasing a fourth generation drive trains, battery packs, and chassis. I love Apple, but they cant do miracles. You first have to build quite a lot of cars until you start building them with a decent quality.

More likely Apple is just doing this as some exec's non-serious pet project.

The number of miles is laughable, Apple is at least a decade behind the companies seriously working on self driving technology. Google hit 20 million total miles last year, and 65k without a backup driver.

At this rate, Apple might have something close to workable by 2030. Maybe. I wouldn't expect an iCar before at least 2035-2040.

I will say there's no need for Apple to build their own charging stations though. Tesla has already abandoned their proprietary charge port in Europe, and non-Tesla cars can use some of the European Superchargers. I expect that'll come to the US as well when the gov gets around to requiring standard connectors, I'd bet on Type 1 CCS combo here.

 

[erthquake]

In case you forgot, Apple isn’t a car company and never mentioned cars. They just made $29B in profit in 90 days without selling a single car. I think their business is fine without cars.

Apple also just put up 21% revenue growth to Tesla’s 28% growth, so what revenue growth can Tesla really tout?

I understand markets. Tesla is a car company. They manufacture cars in a very tough and competitive landscape. Energy credit are rolling off and Tesla will eventually have to deliver a profit selling cars, something they have NOT been able to do yet.

Furthermore, their runway is running out. Other car companies have already produced interesting and in some cases better EVs.

Porsche made a better Model S on their first try. More expensive? Sure, but it’s a Porsche. There are many more desirable car brands than Tesla and many with better and higher quality manufacturing ability.

Tesla’s quality is still pretty bad. Apple will never take the risk of manufacturing. They will contract like they have successfully done with iPhone, iPad and all their products. Apple isn’t stupid. All the nonsense you talk about with networks and electric grids can be leased or purchased with money. Apple has plenty of that.

FYI, Apple only has about $85B in net cash, so it’s not $200B in reality. You have to back out the long term debt which they correctly raised in low interest markets to buyback shares...the most successful buyback in history.

Apparently you don't understand markets or balance sheets.

• Tesla's year-over-year revenue growth in Q4 was 46%.
• Tesla is profitable after subtracting regulatory credits. The bears who say otherwise incorrectly ignore the line items for stock based compensation and the taxes paid on the regulatory credit revenue.
• Markets are forward looking. They are pricing in Tesla's ability to expand into a nearly limitless new market in EVs and grid storage. They are practically creating their own market, much as Apple did with the iPhone. Given the Fed's loose monetary policy right now, the high market cap is justified when you assume Tesla will be selling 15M-20M cars/year by 2030.
• Porsche Taycan is not better than a Model S (it's not even better than an S from 2012). Taycan has less range, charges slower, has less access to high-speed charging, accelerates slower, costs more, less interior space, less energy efficient and no Autopilot. It's a good EV, probably the best non-Tesla to date, but that's not saying much at this point.
• Tesla's runway is getting longer, not shorter. They innovate faster than legacy auto (520+ miles of range for Model S), which, by definition, means that they're not catching up to Tesla.
• Tesla is the #1 brand for overall owner satisfaction in Consumer Reports surveys.

 

[Freida]

Couldn't agree more. People are hyping Apple like they can do no wrong and are expecting the same as with iPhone. Its just naive to think that it will be the same.
Just for illustration:

- Touch bar
- 2013 Mac Pro
- Removal of Magsafe
- Cube
etc.

Apple did a lot of "failed" products or features. I just don't understand why people think that whatever Apple touches is as successful as the iPhone story. That itself is naive thinking.
I love Apple and I do defend it often but I'm also fairly realistic and I do try to be objective as much as I can. Simply put, Apple is going to have immensely hard time to even get close to Tesla an you can count on the fact that first Apple car will be a "trash". By then Tesla will be ahead again so eventually Apple might catch up but not with first version. That will be glorified and expensive alpha product.
I hope that Apple will catch up and maybe even surpass Tesla eventually as competition is always great for all of us but that is at least 7 years away (most likely more).
Remember the first iPhone? It was crap device that didn't allow many basic features. 3G was missing when whole Europe was on it, copy&paste, forwarding etc. - missing. The first iPhone was breakthrough because of its new form and not because of features. (at least not on the phone side)

So lets be real here. ;-)

Right now there is no better car than Tesla. Sure, their manufacturing is not perfect but if we take perfect car from them and compare it to perfect car from other companies then there really is no competition.
And when solid state batteries roll our slowly this year it will be again even further away.

Lets see what Lucid will achieve. For now its all Tesla.

Few clarifications:

Tesla is virtually investing all its hard-earned cash in R&D expenditures and other development cost that in most cases cant be capitalized so there is direct hit on the P&L account. It is actively building manufacturing plants on three continents with energy credits and cash from selling a few vehicles. By the time these credits run out, Tesla would have scaled its manufacturing capabilities to millions of cars per year, it would have development a portfolio that extends far beyond normal vehicles, and would have optimized its manufacturing process to reduce costs significantly. You cant just expect profit from a company that is still building its infrastructure.

I dont agree that that there are better EVs on the market than Tesla. Porsche didnt had to develop seats, trucks, headlines, lighting, switches, etc from ground up to release the Tycan. Traditional manufacturers have the natural advantage over new companies in building and designing non-core components since they have been doing these for decades. Is this year Tycon Turbo S better than this year Tesla Model S Plaid? We will see but it all points out that by the end of this year, the Tycon will be obsolete, as well as all new EV coming to the market, both in range and power. It took Porsche 9 years to release a vehicle that is somehow similar to Model S which was released 10 years ago.

Even with all the money in the world, there are still things you cant buy. Expertise and experience, extensive testing, training, deployment, logistics, building facilities, securing stable supplies, setting up complex industrial machinery and equipment, programming robots, etc -all these task take TIME which you cant reduce just by trowing money at different subcontractors. Ofc having money is of a big help, but if Apple wants to jump in the game, it better make it quickly.

I wasnt sure about Apple net cash position, but any case, if you account marketable securities and other liquid assets, probably you end up with quite a bit more than 85 billion, but in any case, this is irrelevant data. It is a lot of money!

 

[farewelwilliams]

Now, I’m not pretending I am some expert on Tesla’s financials, but what I say is true. Even if you could massage the numbers to find some profit, the reality is they make most of their money on the credits, not the cars.

And even if you ignore it and JUST look at their profit, it’s laughably low given the $800B valuation...with the energy credits or not. $721M in profit with energy credits driving it...😂😂.

To put it in perspective, Apple made $721 in profits 2.5 days last quarter.

Not sure how you can say "what I say is true" and "I'm not an expert" in the same sentence.

For Q3 and Q4, subtracting EV credits from automotive sector will still gain a net profit. And no, you don't just subtract ev credits from the final net profit (which the article you're pasting from probably did). You subtract credits from Earnings Before Tax, then you tax the earnings. Subtracting it from net profit means Tesla would be paying a much higher tax for a smaller earnings amount which is incorrect.

Reuters and many other media outlets have gotten this wrong. Even authors refuse to issue corrections on their calculations. Just read the replies in this thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319385842847256577

where the author simply replies "Nah" and refuses to offer an explanation why they don't want to offer a correction on their math.

Tesla is still on the bottom of an exponential curve considering they only launched Model Y in March of last year and is still ramping up new giga factories to meet demand.

 

[farewelwilliams]

the nonsense you talk about with networks and electric grids can be leased or purchased with money. Apple has plenty of that.

Wrong (among the other things you say). Snazzy sums up this situation nicely.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1359245703579508737

 

[Yokon54]

Few clarifications:

Tesla is virtually investing all its hard-earned cash in R&D expenditures and other development cost that in most cases cant be capitalized so there is direct hit on the P&L account. It is actively building manufacturing plants on three continents with energy credits and cash from selling a few vehicles. By the time these credits run out, Tesla would have scaled its manufacturing capabilities to millions of cars per year, it would have development a portfolio that extends far beyond normal vehicles, and would have optimized its manufacturing process to reduce costs significantly. You cant just expect profit from a company that is still building its infrastructure.

I dont agree that that there are better EVs on the market than Tesla. Porsche didnt had to develop seats, trucks, headlines, lighting, switches, etc from ground up to release the Tycan. Traditional manufacturers have the natural advantage over new companies in building and designing non-core components since they have been doing these for decades. Is this year Tycon Turbo S better than this year Tesla Model S Plaid? We will see but it all points out that by the end of this year, the Tycon will be obsolete, as well as all new EV coming to the market, both in range and power. It took Porsche 9 years to release a vehicle that is somehow similar to Model S which was released 10 years ago.

Even with all the money in the world, there are still things you cant buy. Expertise and experience, extensive testing, training, deployment, logistics, building facilities, securing stable supplies, setting up complex industrial machinery and equipment, programming robots, etc -all these task take TIME which you cant reduce just by trowing money at different subcontractors. Ofc having money is of a big help, but if Apple wants to jump in the game, it better make it quickly.

I wasnt sure about Apple net cash position, but any case, if you account marketable securities and other liquid assets, probably you end up with quite a bit more than 85 billion, but in any case, this is irrelevant data. It is a lot of money!

This is a myth about Tesla “plowing” money back into the business. Operating income, the line above R&D is simply low at under $2B, and again, mostly on energy credits. Tesla mostly finances by borrowing and issuing new shares, not from income.

For reference, Apple spent almost $19B on R&D to Tesla’s under $1.5B.

I post facts for the most part, the rest of your post is opinion. There are other competent EVs for sale, we don’t need to argue about which is better.

Again, electric vehicles account for only a fraction of new cars, so other manufacturers like Porsche aren’t serious about it yet. It will happen when it makes sense, which is sooner than later, but not today. The Tesla Plaid will be a monster, but what else can it do? They are notorious for overheating and being terrible at the track, something Porsche is known for.

 

[Yokon54]

Apparently you don't understand markets or balance sheets.

• Tesla's year-over-year revenue growth in Q4 was 46%.
• Tesla is profitable after subtracting regulatory credits. The bears who say otherwise incorrectly ignore the line items for stock based compensation and the taxes paid on the regulatory credit revenue.
• Markets are forward looking. They are pricing in Tesla's ability to expand into a nearly limitless new market in EVs and grid storage. They are practically creating their own market, much as Apple did with the iPhone. Given the Fed's loose monetary policy right now, the high market cap is justified when you assume Tesla will be selling 15M-20M cars/year by 2030.
• Porsche Taycan is not better than a Model S (it's not even better than an S from 2012). Taycan has less range, charges slower, has less access to high-speed charging, accelerates slower, costs more, less interior space, less energy efficient and no Autopilot. It's a good EV, probably the best non-Tesla to date, but that's not saying much at this point.
• Tesla's runway is getting longer, not shorter. They innovate faster than legacy auto (520+ miles of range for Model S), which, by definition, means that they're not catching up to Tesla.
• Tesla is the #1 brand for overall owner satisfaction in Consumer Reports surveys.

We’ll see. The revenue growth I referenced was for a year, versus Apple’s quarter. I should have been clearer, but Tesla is no revenue juggernaut given its multiple.

All your other stuff is more Tesla marketing nonsense.

I completely disagree on the profitability and I’m not alone. I will concede anyway and assume all of it is legit. Still, the profitability is a complete joke relative to their valuation.

Let’s be serious. Even Elon would have sold Tesla for $420/share at a <$100B valuation. Markets look forward, but they can be irrational too. We’ll see if it’s right.

I’m a car guy and I would take the Taycan, no question. Range will improve for others, but Tesla talks both sides. They say range doesn’t matter but also say higher range is better. It’s still slower than filling up with gas and that is the major hurdle.

And I can link stuff too.

Consumer Reports is no longer recommending Tesla's Model S and is panning the reliability of the new Model Y​

Consumer Reports is no longer recommending Tesla's Model S and is panning the reliability of the new Model Y

The latest Consumer Reports' annual Auto Reliability Survey also dropped a Toyota brand from No. 1 for the first time in 15 years.

www.google.com

 

[erthquake]

This is a myth about Tesla “plowing” money back into the business. Operating income, the line above R&D is simply low at under $2B, and again, mostly on energy credits. Tesla mostly finances by borrowing and issuing new shares, not from income.

For reference, Apple spent almost $1B on R&D to Tesla’s under $1.5B.

I post facts for the most part, the rest of your post is opinion. There are other competent EVs for sale, we don’t need to argue about which is better.

Again, electric vehicles account for only a fraction of new cars, so other manufacturers like Porsche aren’t serious about it yet. It will happen when it makes sense, which is sooner than later, but not today. The Tesla Plaid will be a monster, but what else can it do? They are notorious for overheating and being terrible at the track, something Porsche is known for.

We ended 2020 with $19.38 billion in cash and cash equivalents, representing an increase of $13.12 billion from the end of 2019. Our cash flows from operating activities during 2020 was $5.94 billion, compared to $2.41 billion during 2019, and capital expenditures amounted to $3.16 billion during 2020, compared to $1.33 billion during 2019. Sustained growth has allowed our business to generally fund itself, but we will continue a number of capital-intensive projects in upcoming periods.

"Plowing" money back into the business also includes capex to build/expand three factories simultaneously, not just R&D.

It's laughable that bears complain Tesla's not spending enough on R&D. Tesla's just ultra efficient with their R&D and extract higher ROI from it than most companies.

 

[Yokon54]

We ended 2020 with $19.38 billion in cash and cash equivalents, representing an increase of $13.12 billion from the end of 2019. Our cash flows from operating activities during 2020 was $5.94 billion, compared to $2.41 billion during 2019, and capital expenditures amounted to $3.16 billion during 2020, compared to $1.33 billion during 2019. Sustained growth has allowed our business to generally fund itself, but we will continue a number of capital-intensive projects in upcoming periods.

"Plowing" money back into the business also includes capex to build/expand three factories simultaneously, not just R&D.

It's laughable that bears complain Tesla's not spending enough on R&D. Tesla's just ultra efficient with their R&D and extract higher ROI from it than most companies.

Again, round and round we go.

The trouble with the bulls is that it doesn’t matter Tesla went from $100B to $800B in a year. They tout the same story, same take over the world statements and talk about future sales, infrastructure and even SpaceX. There is no limit to the valuation when you don’t have to tie financials to valuation. Look at Bitcoin. That always works itself out, but it may take a long time.

I’m an Elon Musk fan and would NEVER bet against him. However, I’m saying Tesla WILL have to deliver profits, much like Apple already has to justify its ridiculous valuation. They have not done this yet and will have an uphill battle in a highly capital intensive and competitive market. Again, there will be competition in the EV space and the gap will close, fast. It’s already closed and we can argue how much.

I find it interesting so many people discount how powerful other car brands are in not only the minds of consumers but their ability to manufacture cars. Tesla isn’t even close to a top manufacturer of autos. They are still learning.

Is Tesla worth as much as Walmart, Disney, and BMW combined? Today’s price says yes. I find it hard to believe, but who knows?

 

[Yokon54]

Wrong (among the other things you say). Snazzy sums up this situation nicely.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1359245703579508737

And? This will be solved. Tesla needs the network bc they only make electric cars. Ford, GM, and others will solve this and it becomes a non-factor long term.

EVs aren’t a huge market yet because there are still downsides to owning them. Over 98% of all cars sold are still using gasoline.

 

[farewelwilliams]

And? This will be solved. Tesla needs the network bc they only make electric cars. Ford, GM, and others will solve this and it becomes a non-factor long term.

EVs aren’t a huge market yet because there are still downsides to owning them. Over 98% of all cars sold are still using gasoline.

Your exact words were "networks and electric grids can be leased or purchased with money". What current charging network is sufficient enough for EVs that can be purchased or leased with money? Electrify America? Chargepoint? These networks may be sufficient in one country, but won't be sufficient in other major countries.

Electric grids alone won't get you a network that ev owners need. You need to apply for permits to build chargers in public areas. Each site takes months of paperwork to deal with. It's not something you can throw $10 billion at and build it out in 1 year. By the time Apple has a sufficient network, Tesla would have expanded their charging network by 10x. And Apple will have growing pains that Tesla is currently experiencing now (Supercharger lines during July 4th holidays).

Only way Apple can do this is if they ask Tesla to be able to use their supercharger network. If so, that's just extra net profit Tesla can rake in to expand their services.

 

[Yokon54]

Your exact words were "networks and electric grids can be leased or purchased with money". What current charging network is sufficient enough for EVs that can be purchased or leased with money? Electrify America? Chargepoint? These networks may be sufficient in one country, but won't be sufficient in other major countries.

Electric grids alone won't get you a network that ev owners need. You need to apply for permits to build chargers in public areas. Each site takes months of paperwork to deal with. It's not something you can throw $10 billion at and build it out in 1 year. By the time Apple has a sufficient network, Tesla would have expanded their charging network by 10x. And Apple will have growing pains that Tesla is currently experiencing now (Supercharger lines during July 4th holidays).

Only way Apple can do this is if they ask Tesla to be able to use their supercharger network. If so, that's just extra net profit Tesla can rake in to expand their services.

And I’m right about that. The electrical network isn’t a long term issue for other EV. Power is everywhere. Businesses innovate. They could contract with any company you can name and have charging stations at every Walmart, Target, or....Exxon, Shell, or Chevron in the country. Wait and see. You’ll just have to wait until EVs are a thing, which they aren’t today.

There is $2B in operating income in the EV space today for Tesla. It’s peanuts and not b big enough for companies to be interested. It will happen as demand grows and EVs are improved.

You think BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, VW, GM, and Ford are just going to die because they couldn’t figure out how to charge an EV? Or throw up their hands bc they can’t figure out how to make one?

Again, EVs are not even ready for prime time. There are problems with owning one, primarily that it takes too long to charge fully. That will also be solved, with the help of competition. Tesla couldn’t even make the cars if every person wanted one.

I told you, people would have the same story if Tesla had a $4T valuation. “It makes sense bc Tesla is leading in these areas.”

I LIKE what Tesla and Elon Musk are doing. I think he’s a top 10 smartest person in the world. I just don’t think his car company is worth $800B after being worth $100B less than a year ago. At some point, the story makes less sense relative to the valuation and there will be massive competition. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[farewelwilliams]

And I’m right about that. The electrical network isn’t a long term issue for other EV. Power is everywhere. Businesses innovate. They could contract with any company you can name and have charging stations at every Walmart, Target, or....Exxon, Shell, or Chevron in the country. Wait and see. You’ll just have to wait until EVs are a thing, which they aren’t today.

1. Tesla has had about a decade headstart in building their supercharger network.
2. ChargePoint, Electrify America, and Tesla did team up with Target in 2018. Guess how many chargers they installed in total today? 600. My local Target has many more Superchargers than there are Chargepoint installations too (not to the mention the Chargepoint stalls were the slower chargers).
3. EVs are a thing considering the impending doom of ICE cars. Ford and GM are scrambling to figure out EVs. It's not something they can through $10 billion at and have it solved in 1 year.

There is $2B in operating income in the EV space today for Tesla. It’s peanuts and not b big enough for companies to be interested. It will happen as demand grows and EVs are improved.

Considering countries are banning ICE production, companies are forced to be interested yesterday if they want to exist in the future.

You think BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, VW, GM, and Ford are just going to die because they couldn’t figure out how to charge an EV? Or throw up their hands bc they can’t figure out how to make one?

They will die if they couldn't figure out how to build a great EV experience which includes charging (and for some of those companies, affordability plays a huge factor). So far that's the path today.

Also, Tesla's goal is for minimal maintenance to the car (since they're betting on running their own robotaxi service in the future) while some of those companies you listed rely on service/parts markup for a majority of their profits. If they want to make a compelling EV, they'll need to figure out how to live without the profit margins of maintenance.

Again, EVs are not even ready for prime time. There are problems with owning one, primarily that it takes too long to charge fully. That will also be solved, with the help of competition. Tesla couldn’t even make the cars if every person wanted one.

All superchargers can recharge a Tesla to 90% in less time it takes to have lunch. The much faster V3 superchargers can refill most use cases in 15 minutes which is about the same time as taking a break to stretch your legs and have a snack to eat. Charge times aren't a issue for roadtrips.

And for daily commutes, charge time isn't an issue since you're charging overnight anyways.

I told you, people would have the same story if Tesla had a $4T valuation. “It makes sense bc Tesla is leading in these areas.”

I LIKE what Tesla and Elon Musk are doing. I think he’s a top 10 smartest person in the world. I just don’t think his car company is worth $800B after being worth $100B less than a year ago. At some point, the story makes less sense relative to the valuation and there will be massive competition. That’s all I’m saying.

The valuation is factoring in many other areas of the company. If you think robotaxis are going to happen within the next 1-3 years, Tesla is at least a $1tril company. If you think robotaxis are impossible for current Tesla vehicles, then sure, it'll be worth less than that. But then they have the dojo system which many companies who need to train their machine learning models are going to pay Tesla to use their system. Then they have Autopilot system which Elon has already said that a few companies have came forward and are interested in purchasing the system from them. They have the commercial powerpack project that's being deployed. Commercial semi trucks, $25k model coming, solar panels and solar roof are ramping up....etc....the list goes on and on.

 

[Yokon54]

1. Tesla has had about a decade headstart in building their supercharger network.
2. ChargePoint, Electrify America, and Tesla did team up with Target in 2018. Guess how many chargers they installed in total today? 600. My local Target has many more Superchargers than there are Chargepoint installations too (not to the mention the Chargepoint stalls were the slower chargers).
3. EVs are a thing considering the impending doom of ICE cars. Ford and GM are scrambling to figure out EVs. It's not something they can through $10 billion at and have it solved in 1 year.



Considering countries are banning ICE production, companies are forced to be interested yesterday if they want to exist in the future.



They will die if they couldn't figure out how to build a great EV experience which includes charging (and for some of those companies, affordability plays a huge factor). So far that's the path today.

Also, Tesla's goal is for minimal maintenance to the car (since they're betting on running their own robotaxi service in the future) while some of those companies you listed rely on service/parts markup for a majority of their profits. If they want to make a compelling EV, they'll need to figure out how to live without the profit margins of maintenance.



All superchargers can recharge a Tesla to 90% in less time it takes to have lunch. The much faster V3 superchargers can refill most use cases in 15 minutes which is about the same time as taking a break to stretch your legs and have a snack to eat. Charge times aren't a issue for roadtrips.

And for daily commutes, charge time isn't an issue since you're charging overnight anyways.



The valuation is factoring in many other areas of the company. If you think robotaxis are going to happen within the next 1-3 years, Tesla is at least a $1tril company. If you think robotaxis are impossible for current Tesla vehicles, then sure, it'll be worth less than that. But then they have the dojo system which many companies who need to train their machine learning models are going to pay Tesla to use their system. Then they have Autopilot system which Elon has already said that a few companies have came forward and are interested in purchasing the system from them. They have the commercial powerpack project that's being deployed. Commercial semi trucks, $25k model coming, solar panels and solar roof are ramping up....etc....the list goes on and on.

Gotta be faster than eating lunch. Again, still downsides and companies are investing in the tech...they just aren’t releasing a ton of cars until it makes sense. Watch and see how fast 10 years vanishes once there is money to be made.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Gotta be faster than eating lunch. Again, still downsides and companies are investing in the tech...they just aren’t releasing a ton of cars until it makes sense. Watch and see how fast 10 years vanishes once there is money to be made.

It sure is faster than eating lunch. Annoyingly so. Last time I charged at the V2 Supercharger, I had to rush back from in-n-out. Didn't even receive my burger when my car was reaching 100%. Had to move the car so that others wouldn't be blocked from charging.

Charging at a V3 Supercharger wouldn't even allow me to have enough time to walk to in-n-out since it would charge way too fast before hitting near 100%.

 

[Yokon54]

It sure is faster than eating lunch. Annoyingly so. Last time I charged at the V2 Supercharger, I had to rush back from in-n-out. Didn't even receive my burger when my car was reaching 100%. Had to move the car so that others wouldn't be blocked from charging.

Charging at a V3 Supercharger wouldn't even allow me to have enough time to walk to in-n-out since it would charge way too fast before hitting near 100%.

Has to be as fast or faster than filling your tank. It will be. It’s not yet and is a compromise.

I drive an M5 as a daily and a 570GT on the weekend, so I’m a car guy. There are many things missing from EVs, particularly soul and appearance. Teslas are just ugly and are poorly built in comparison to German cars and others. Even consumer reports mentions Tesla’s poor quality and those guys are not car enthusiasts.

I just had a chance to drive a Taycan and not only is the Porsche better to drive than the Model S I drove, the interior quality is night and day. It feels so much tighter...so much more....German. I do like Tesla, but they have work to do.

And again, the move from $100B to $800B is all I question about Tesla’s value. They are solid, but not worth 8X more than a year ago in any reasonable scenario. At $100B, you’re still at 120X 2020 earnings. Now it’s over 1200X. It might as well be 12,000X.

Talk about the future all you want...Apple could cure cancer and make reliable flying cars. There has to be some reality in the story or it’s speculation. You don’t just ramp from 500,000 cars to 20,000,000 cars in a straight line. You need demand, an irreplaceable products, total failure of competition, time, etc.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Has to be as fast or faster than filling your tank. It will be. It’s not yet and is a compromise.

It doesn't. The range has to be long enough where a human needs to take breaks and we're getting 500-600+ mile cars from Tesla by the end of this year.

Maybe you enjoy 12 hour drives with 5 minute fill ups in between. That's fine, but I'm willing to bet the majority of the world prefer to take breaks between long drives, either 45 minutes to have lunch (V2 150kW supercharger) or 15 minute breaks (v3 250kW supercharger).

For daily commutes, charging speed is not a factor. What's more of a problem than charging speed is getting apartment garages to install plugs.

I drive an M5 as a daily and a 570GT on the weekend, so I’m a car guy. There are many things missing from EVs, particularly soul and appearance. Teslas are just ugly and are poorly built in comparison to German cars and others. Even consumer reports mentions Tesla’s poor quality and those guys are not car enthusiasts.

I just had a chance to drive a Taycan and not only is the Porsche better to drive than the Model S I drove, the interior quality is night and day. It feels so much tighter...so much more....German. I do like Tesla, but they have work to do.

Very subjective. I prefer the minimal look with touchscreen handling all controls over a dashboard with 100 buttons.

But if you're going to quote Consumer Reports, they reported #1 customer satisfaction with Teslas (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/08/car-truck-owner-satisfaction-survey-consumer-reports/), tops BMW and Porsche.

And again, the move from $100B to $800B is all I question about Tesla’s value. They are solid, but not worth 8X more than a year ago in any reasonable scenario. At $100B, you’re still at 120X 2020 earnings. Now it’s over 1200X. It might as well be 12,000X.

Talk about the future all you want...Apple could cure cancer and make reliable flying cars. There has to be some reality in the story or it’s speculation. You don’t just ramp from 500,000 cars to 20,000,000 cars in a straight line. You need demand, an irreplaceable products, total failure of competition, time, etc.

Of course there's speculation. It's because analysts see the exponential rise in the next 5 years. They want to get in before it happens. You don't buy Apple stock until after everyone has iPhones. Best time to buy Apple stock was before many bought iPhones.