Tesla tops $1 billion in profit, delays Semi launch:
Tesla TSLA, +2.21% said it earned $1.14 billion, or $1.02 a share, in the second quarter, compared with $104 million, or 10 cents a share, in the year-ago quarter. Adjusted for one-time items, the company earned $1.45 a share.
Revenue rose 98% to $11.96 billion, from $6.04 billion a year ago, which the company pinned in part on “substantial growth” in vehicle sales.
[...] The chip shortage “remains quite serious,” Chief Executive Elon Musk said in a call after the results. “The chip supply is fundamentally the governing factor on our output,” and it’s hard to say how long it will last because it’s out of Tesla’s control, he said.
Tesla has used alternative chips, but that’s not just a matter of doing a swap, as new software then has to be rewritten, Musk said.
Besides the delay of the Semi launch to 2022, Musk and Tesla executives left vague the start of production of the Cybertruck, its much-awaited pickup, at the under-construction Austin, Texas, plant, saying only it would be later this year.
Production of the vehicle was expected for early 2021, and the Tesla Semi, revealed in 2017, has been delayed by a couple of years.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @04:12PM (9 children)
weeeeh for profits!
tho i am not a businesses man, would making them teslas more expensive not give more profit and shafting the shareholders would give less profit but cheaper and thus more climate saving electrical cars?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @04:30PM (2 children)
Most of Tesla's profit is spent on building new factories, allowing them to make more climate saving cars. Reducing the price would reduce that growth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:17PM (1 child)
> Tesla's profit is spent on building new factories...
Tesla/Musk are very good at having local governments build new factories for Tesla...
ftfy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28 2021, @01:06AM
That Tesla is able to secure outside finding in addition to what they invest themselves doesn't negate my point.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday July 27 2021, @04:48PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:35PM (4 children)
well this is off topic but it's been crawling around in my head a long time, so here goes:
first: everything you touch is covered by a thin (or thick) layer of invisible oil.
second: for all people who have "book keeping" where energy is just a fraction of overall expenses i would like to remind you of the life and tribulation of a one professor dr. newton who said "stuff either remains at rest or continues on a constant path". anything deviating from this requires a energy input.
now let's look at a ...uhmm... say mobile phone it could be anything really (short of the grass in your garden).
mobile phones don't grow on trees and you cannot pull them from the ground.
if we disect the device into all elemental parts, we can see that not one piece grows on trees or is a solid piece harvestabe from nature. thus each part was NOT at rest and NOT on a continues path.
that means energy had to be invested. to make the part and the "accelerate" them together.
if you close your eyes and randomly touch ANYTHING (even your industry feed cat, who would be a mummy by now) and open your eyes, you will find that this object does not grow on trees.
if we now believe the reported amount of energy use worldwide and look at the pizza slice that says "fossile fuel" we can now, maybe, thru slitted eyes start to make out the nesr invisible layer if oil that covers everything ... also those cars that bare the name if a great inventor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:51PM
anywho, here we could debate if emphasize should be on powering manufacturing with renewables or transport. my opinion is that emphasizing transport is like eating the chicken before it hatched and also because there seems to be an invisible force pushing back on expanding renewable energy production capacity whilst there seems to be non (excluding plain lazyness) when it comes to transport :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:53PM (2 children)
A little hard to follow your English, but thanks for writing this.
Along the same lines, the greenest thing anyone can do is to have less (or no) children. At this point in history adding another consumer (of all these fossil-fuel-tainted items) is about the last thing humanity needs.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28 2021, @05:23AM (1 child)
Or we get off this rock and harvest the solar system, there's plenty of land and resource. Sure not something we can achieve in the next few decades but possible in a generation or two especially if humanity puts enough collective effort into it.
Reducing our footprint is a good short-term compensating solution but not long term viable - also artificially limiting ourselves is a bit risky to be honest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28 2021, @02:18PM
limiting growth is wrong.
we have to limit "once-thru" energy sources and GROW renewables.
the problem is, that our economics operating system calculates "once-thru" or "waste" as profit.
just like bitcoin, you can only spend it once.
with "coins" (or renewables or infinit energy) that you can spend and buy infinit times the operating throws a fit and the dollar bill printer jams.
so the "solution" is to limit "carbon emissions" which in non-between the lines english acctually means "limit carbon emissions from womans wombs" NOT "burn less fossile fuel and make the difference up with renewable coins ... energy".
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:59PM (1 child)
I wonder if that 5 second 0 to 60 time is correct. If it is, the truck has to be empty. When fully loaded, 80,000 pounds is a lot of mass to accelerate to 60 mph in just 5 seconds.
I should think the measures that matter are those the truck posts while fully loaded. Yes, trucks often do have to travel empty, but that is to be avoided if at all practical. At a minimum, half the trips a truck makes should be while hauling freight.
The article also says that 5 seconds is 3 times as fast as a diesel. So, diesel trucks can accelerate to 60 in just 15 seconds? Uh, no, not unless they're empty, and maybe don't even have a trailer hitched on, then, yeah, I could see the tractor managing 0 to 60 in 15. Searching, I find 0 to 60 times of 65 seconds for fully loaded semi trucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @11:41PM
You never seen unhinged 18-wheeler on down hill, eh?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28 2021, @03:52AM
They must be in sell mode because Musk hasn't bad mouthed bitcoin in a while. Wanna guess when you can tell they are in buy mode?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 28 2021, @01:42PM (2 children)
Yes, Tesla has sometimes earned profits, especially in the recent quarters. But, the important thing to keep in mind here, is that Tesla, a company that was bought, not founded by Musk, makes cars. And Tesla has not made any profit on a single car it has sold.
Tesla's profits come from regulatory credits, selling CO2 credits, and bitcoin. But yes, bottom line is, it did make a profit.
So let's apply this to someone else. Big John's lemonade stand. Big John sells Big Lemonades. He loses a dollar on every lemonade he sells. He also sells weed on the side though, and sometimes steals your wallet when you'r buying a lemonade. So Big John is net positive in his business ventures. Just don't call him a car company. Because he sells lemonade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29 2021, @11:30PM (1 child)
Well if Big John is listed and publicly traded and the those profit on the side goes into the balance sheet and folks take that into the account on speculating its worth in the stock market much like every other stock then it makes no difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30 2021, @12:36AM
Well if anyone was talking about the stock market, you would have a point instead of a strawman. Then again, if anyone was talking about the stock market, they would not have made the point you are proving wrong here.
The article, which you didn't read, and the title, which you purposely ignored, are making it seem like Tesla is now a successful car company. They are, and always have been, a complete failure as a car company. Musk does seem to be good with bitcoin pump and dump, and grabbing taxpayer money though, and selling government CO2 credits, which he should never have had in the first place.