SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Alan Boyle writes that over the years, Elon Musk's showmanship, straight-ahead smarts and far-out ideas have earned him a following that spans the geek spectrum — to the point that some observers see glimmers of the aura that once surrounded Apple's Steve Jobs. "To me, it feels like he's the most obvious inheritor of Steve Jobs' mantle," says Ashlee Vance who's writing a biography of Musk that at one time had the working title "The Iron Man." "Obviously, Steve Jobs' products changed the world ... [But] if Elon's right about all these things that he's after, his products should ultimately be more meaningful than what Jobs came up with. He's the guy doing the most concrete stuff about global warming."
So what is Musk's vision? What motivates Musk at the deepest level? "It's his Mars thing," says Vance. Inspired in part by the novels of Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, Musk has come around to the view that humanity's long-term future depends on extending its reach beyond Earth, starting with colonies on Mars. Other notables like physicist Stephen Hawking have laid out similar scenarios — but Musk is actually doing something to turn those interplanetary dreams into a reality. Vance thinks that Musk is on the verge of breaking out from geek guru status to a level of mass-market recognition that's truly on a par with the late Steve Jobs. Additions to the Tesla automotive line, plus the multibillion-dollar promise of Tesla's battery-producing "gigafactory" in Nevada, could push Musk over the edge. "Tesla, as a brand, really does seem to have captured the public's imagination. ... All of a sudden he's got a hip product that looks great, and it's creating jobs. The next level feels like it's got to be that third-generation, blockbuster mainstream product. The story is not done."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 17 2014, @04:14PM
>Personal EVs were not built because there was no financed need for what the industry could deliver at that time
Wrong. There were lots of people who wanted to keep their EV1s, even offered to buy them outright, but GM refused. People wanted the cars, but the automakers refused to build them. There was plenty of demand for cars like that, at least as much as for many niche cars, if not far more. Lots of people want economical commuter cars (frequently as a second car, for commuting only), and don't care much about range because they only use it for daily commuting and local driving.
Elon Musk proved this when he started Tesla. People were jumping up and down to buy his cars, the cars which the rest of the auto industry claimed, just like you, that "no one wants". If he's able to build such a successful company making EVs, what makes you think there was no demand? There simply wasn't any supply. Not just anyone can build a good EV; it's not something you can just build in your backyard (a few intrepid people did build their own, converting existing gas cars with motors and batteries, with mixed results; you get better results when you build from the ground-up, with teams of automotive engineers, as the EV1 proved).
Why was there no demand?
There was plenty of demand, there just wasn't any supply. You can't start a competiitive car company without a huge amount of capital, and there aren't that many automakers these days, and none of them wanted to build EVs as they would hurt their profits.
They certainly had the capital, and even they had vehicles on lease to happy drivers. If we exclude the oil conspiracy from consideration, the answer would be much more boring: GM did not want to carry legal and manufacturing obligations for a vehicle that they are not going to produce.
BS. They already manufactured them. If they didn't want any more obligations, they could have just stopped making them. They crushed them because they wanted people to forget about them, to not see them on the roads and see them as successful, viable vehicles, because this would hurt their gas car sales. Gas cars require far more maintenance and repairs over the car lifetime, which is where much of the profit is, not in initial manufacturing. Dealerships, in particular, make all their money on after-sales parts and service. They barely get anything for the initial sale. EVs don't need as much of this.
I'm very utilitarian in my needs. Tesla S does not offer me anything that I don't already have.
You sound like someone who'd be happy driving a Pinto, and obviously someone who can't appreciate a high-end vehicle. As such, you're not in Tesla's target market; they're doing well because they're targeting people willing to spend a lot of money on something that competes with high-end Mercedes, BMWs, Audis, etc.
The Tesla does offer something you don't already have: the ability to not spend money on gasoline, or waste time stopping at gas stations, assuming your driving is all local or at least within 100 miles or so (so you can drive there and back on one charge). If not, that's why people have 2 cars.
However they are nearly made out of gold,
Huh? Do you live in a trailer park or something? $60-100k isn't that much for a car these days; there's lots of Mercedes, BMWs, Maseratis, Lexuses, etc. that are priced in that range. The Tesla isn't designed to compete with your Aveo or Cavalier.
Also, Teslas are selling like hotcakes in Norway, because the people there have money, and the Tesla doesn't get hit with the enormous tax that gas cars there do, so it ends up being comparable in cost to a typical $35k car.
If a new, better or cheaper battery comes along, Tesla is going to lose,
Why wouldn't they just switch to the new battery? Last I heard, Tesla gets its battery cells from Panasonic.
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/panasonic-and-tesla-reach-agreement-expand-supply-automotivegrade-battery-cells [teslamotors.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/business/tesla-and-panasonic-to-build-battery-factory-in-us.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
It probably wouldn't be that hard to retool for improvements in battery technology. Other automakers retool their factories for new technology and new car designs all the time.
when some Indian or Chinese billionaire starts selling EVs for a price that isn't even enough to keep the lights on at the Tesla's factory.
So why aren't Indian and Chinese gas cars being sold here and putting Ford and GM out of business? They already make such cars in those countries, but they're not sold here. They don't even meet our safety standards. There's a lot more to outcompeting American companies than simply labor cost.
You can see the same problem with Apple. It had the entire smartphone market in the pocket - and surrendered nearly all of it to Android.
That's because Apple was stupid and greedy. Their prices are insanely high, and everything is their-way-or-the-highway, and people chose the cheaper Android highway. Tesla isn't quite like that; they're starting at the high end because of high Li-ion battery costs, and pushing downwards into the middle range of the market as they're able to reduce costs. Smartphones aren't like cars: a car (even an EV) isn't limited as to which roads it can drive on, and there's nothing preventing many different makes of car from sharing the same roads. Not so with phones: you can't run Apple apps on an Android phone, and vice versa. Google's aim was to make a common platform, instead of every phone company having their own different and incompatible OS, so it doesn't matter if you have a Samsung or Motorola or HTC phone, you can still run all the same apps. Of course, there's been some problems with this approach (phonemakers abandoning support and upgrades for phones after a fairly short time for instance), but overall it's been successful for Android and Google.
I am working this very minute on an Android application for industrial use. I don't need a Mac to compile anything; I don't need to know a very special programming language; I don't need to buy any software; I don't need to beg anyone to allow me to install my software on the customer's device.
Yes, these are good points in Android vs. iOS, however they are not in any way analogous to Tesla's situation. There's no roadgoing car that requires its own special roads.
My own customers do not even mention iOS - it is nonexistent to them. So what does Apple do? Well, what *can* they do? They forge ahead, selling fashionable glitter to the masses. Tesla seems to do exactly the same - more bling, more luxuries, more cost.
Tesla sells at the high end because the profit margin is high there. It's the same reason BMW doesn't sell cheap cars, nor does Maserati or Ferrari. It works for them, and it works for many companies, in many markets, which don't care too much about dominating their markets (like mass-market companies like GM or Walmart do) and being profitable through high volumes. However, you can drive your Tesla on the same roads as anyone else. Not so with Apple products. That's the whole problem. If Apple made a luxury Android phone where they concentrated on making the software as high-quality and bug-free as possible and making the best hardware in the market, they might just do better. But it's hard to say; Apple customers seem to like the exclusivity and seem to be of the mindset that paying more gets you more. With customers that gullible^Wloyal, being incompatible just might be a more profitable strategy.