BMW doesn't need to pay top dollar for a prestigious brand, they already have one. Tesla will be bought out by the likes of Geely or Tata who don't have strong brands of their own, but have already been going around and scooping up smaller car brands like Volvo and Jaguar.
They saw the value of the Mini brand and didn't want to put a BMW badge on a lower end car, so they held onto it when they jetisoned the rest of the Rover group. The RR brand is selling to different customers than the BMW brand is. But I don't see that BMW would need the Tesla brand, there's too much overlap there IMO.
Not really. They merged with Rover and bought Rolls-Royce in the 90s. At the time the BMW management wanted to expand. Mini is a holdover from the Rover merger. This merger is largely seen as a failure and BMW divested from all Rover brands (except Mini). For more than 20 years BMW has not expanded.
It's quite possible something similar to the Fisker bankruptcy might happen - Fisker's assets were bought out by Wanxiang Group who then launched Karma Automotive, resuming manufacture
of their 'Revero' plug-in hybrid car, which is an improved version of the old Fisker Karma.
Much worse than that: their (pre-market) valuation is 44B and takeovers require shareholder agreement, usually at least 20% premium to the market — I'd wager the ask price would be a lot more but let's be conservative... 53B buys you a 9B debt.
Seen the Cornell paper "Pseudo-LiDAR from Visual Depth Estimation: Bridging the Gap in 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Driving" or the more consumer friendly "Elon Musk Was Right: Cheap Cameras Could Replace Lidar on Self-Driving Cars, Researchers Find"?
Looks like a pair of cheap cameras with good stereo separation (distance between the cameras) provides very similar data to Lidar. All without the giant domes on the roof (like the waymo cars).
Not in scenes with poor lighting, not in rain, not in fog, not in scenes with poor surface variation, and not at the ranges needed for safe on highway driving.
Sure. Problem is cameras are more similar to humans. So a camera based system will drive more like humans, and be less dangerous. If you use a Lidar based system and conditions are great for lidar, but terrible for cameras it's going to be very dangerous to mix autonomous lidar cars with human driven cars.
That's why you should have LIDAR and cameras, if nothing else so the car can use the cameras to predict and adjust to the condition-driven changes in behavior of the human drivers.
First US car company in 60 years, electric at that. Best crash test ratings. Highest owner satisfaction. First US-owned factory in China. Built in about 6 months. Ability and willingness to use OTA updates. Willingness and ability to put auto-pilot on the road for consumers. Ridiculous performance. Better chip than Nvidia. Top 2 auto battery supplier. Best selling lux car in US (ICE or EV). Dramatically better battery efficiency. No dealerships. Online ordering. Plausible FSD story. Camera-based autonomy. $35k price point.
VW Group’s recent Audi e-tron has to 30-40% lower range than a Tesla 3 (~200 miles vs ~325 miles) and as such I would totally see them putting forward the money to buy Tesla in order to bridge this big technological gap.
I may be delusional but I actually own a VW Group car, I know of people who make their living on mostly repairing VW's past mishaps (stuff like this [1]), I have no stake whatsoever in Tesla's future financial success, and as such I can tell you that VW (and the Germans generally speaking) are way, way behind in terms of EV technology compared to Tesla because stuff like this it's not in their engineering DNA.
$10 billions is a pittance, it gives you two thirds of Whatsapp or the entire Skype before it was acquired by MS (adjusted for inflation), so I don't think I'm delusional when I'm saying that it is not a great sum to pay when the future of your entire industry depends on you being best at building EVs (and Tesla now is the best).
I've had the same discussion on places like /r/cars, i.e. that Tesla doesn't sell cars, it sells batteries and the accompanying software (with some wheels attached to the whole thing), while companies like VW, MB or BMW have almost no clue on how to build the best batteries, never mind the best software, they're only good at building cars (and lately not so good even at that), which is an industry on its way out.
Also other companies might be willing to go in on at this price to be a top compeitor for self driving or batteries. Apple must have considered it. Uber. Tencent. Facebook. Alibaba. Walmart.
Outside car manufacturers there's a lot of cashed up companies that would like to take a punt in this space.
I could not have said it better. I own a Model X, and I always tell my friends "Tesla is a tech company, but they have no idea how to build cars". I think I'm going to expand that into what you said.
> Access to the Panasonic battery supply is likely worth a pretty penny.
Licensing/partnership contracts are often written so that they don't automatically survive changes of ownership, which makes buying into such a partnership by acquisition less than reliable.
Anything that comes out of the mouth of Elon is an instant fact, and is repeated as fact until it's proven false. Then it was merely a prediction or plan.
He just went on stage and told investors that their non-existent, full self-driving robot taxi fleet will cut the cost of personal transport by 90% over Uber, and will make the car owners $10-$30k+ ("in some cases more!") in annual income. It's a pipe dream, but now it's talked about like it's already happening.
Remember Solar City and the solar shingles? Their solar deployment is 25% of what it was the quarter he made that announcement. "Synergies!". Meanwhile, they are winding down the company. In a year people will forget it was ever a thing.
Did you watch the presentation relating to the Tesla chip release - along with watching the fully self-driving vehicle video? They had the lead chip engineer explain their improvements, and they had their AI lead explain why they're at the lead for this - both very experienced and articulate people in their fields.
I don't understand how you say it's a pipe dream unless you don't comprehend what they're sharing. If they're outright lying about the operations per second speeds (TOPS) they announced then that's one thing, however I doubt they would.
Another thing to realize is Tesla will be self-interested, as they should be to some degree, so how much profit they will allow non-Tesla owned vehicles to operate in the Tesla Network could heavily be dictated by them - so I wouldn't necessarily go out and buy 20 vehicles to inject them for full-time Tesla Network usage, however some people may take that gamble and then it also fronts money to Tesla. Even if the improvements are 1/4 of what they announced, it is significant.
Re: Solar City - they've had to redirect battery and other resources to focus on the vehicles. You're making a lot of assumptions. It might help to balance that out with they're working very hard, have very intelligent people on board, their work and effort has already lead them to this level of success, they're working on creating a whole ecosystem on limited resources that they have to manage, and they have the semi and other vehicles lined up for next year - which they already have pre-orders in for as well. I'd say you're a bit too hyper-focused on certain things, and no, I'm not suggesting to not be skeptical and understand they may not meet their goals and on time the 100% that gamblers-as-investors are betting on them to have.
They lied about being the best in the world about their chips. Nvidia posted about them.
They lie about autopilot and fsd being driverless, while they are irresponsibly deployed driver assistance technologies.
Their whole argument for feasibility of driverless cars is that humans user only their eyes too, and they have a lot of data. That is like saying that if you outfit a million gopro on people, they'll have better humanoid robots than Boston Dynamics.
This whole convoluted scheme about fronting cash, wow. If they are so confident about their cars earning 30k$ a year, they should have no problem raising money via equity or debt, and pivoting from a car manufacturer to a taxi company. Later they can fire the drivers and be driverless taxi company.
Solar City, another wow. I didn't know solar panels are made of batteries, or that Tesla is the only company that makes batteries in the world. Are you just closing your eyes and denying that they laid off solar City personnel? That the 2 billion dollar was nothing but a family buyout, and infact a spacex bond bailout?
According to Elon musk and Tesla fanboys, Tesla is an amazing company. They have the most performing and cheapest batteries in the world. They have the best AI chops, not just to make the best chips, but also use it to make the most automated factory, and have the technology to have their cars be fully driverless. Their factories are so advanced that air friction is a problem, and they use strobe light to see robots. But after all these advantages, they don't sell batteries, direct AI products, manufacturing expertise, driver assistance technologies, EV drivetrains etc. They only sell cars at luxury prices, that too at a loss, while having shitty interiors, fit, finish, panel gaps, paint etc.
>Did you watch the presentation relating to the Tesla chip release - along with watching the fully self-driving vehicle video?
Yeah, I did. It was very interesting, but it was also Computer Vision 101. Karpathy essentially explained how neural nets work to a non-technical audience. It was nice.
But did you not assume this was exactly what they were doing? I certainly did. Do you think no one at Waymo/Google/Uber/Apple/Lyft/Ford/GM/VW understands this or is trying to do the same or similar? Tesla does have a fleet data advantage, but Elon's "simulated data won't work" is nonsense.
>If they're outright lying about the operations per second speeds (TOPS) they announced then that's one thing, however I doubt they would.
They weren't lying about the specs, but it isn't industry leading, like they claimed. So now they have a second best chip that they have to produce themselves in small volumes.
>Re: Solar City - they've had to redirect battery and other resources to focus on the vehicles. You're making a lot of assumptions.
No, you are making a lot of assumptions. I am looking at the data. Since the solar shingle reveal, solar revenue has decreased every quarter. It is now 25% of what it was then. The reviews on Yelp and other sites are terrible. The Buffalo plant is in trouble, and hasn't fulfilled employment requirements. What does any of that have to do with batteries going to the Model 3 in volume in 2018?
Again, your whole argument revolves around "Tesla says..."
Of course others are working towards the same. That's the point and value of competition - and what Elon wanted to cause (whether you take it up as clever PR or genuine care) other manufacturers to start producing EVs. The point is in a highly competitive environment every incremental improvement is potentially a huge advantage in getting to market and scaling faster; Elon referenced the exponential aspect of this, especially in terms of the amount of sensor data they're already capturing and able to analyze compared all competitors combined.
Citation needed for it not being industry leading, for their specific use case - hoped for TOPS along with maximum energy usage considerations? TOPS alone isn't the only factor, doing operations efficiently is required to keep energy usage as low as possible. Unless the lead engineer and whole chip team is pulling a fast one over Elon's head - he's not an idiot and not going to move forward in a direction he's not confident in.
I wouldn't say ~1MM chips per year is small volume, and that's fine that they're producing in small volume - especially because they have the next version coming out in I think Elon said 2 years. They're likewise not building the facility to produce them themselves, they're outsourcing it - I think they said to Samsung in Austin, TX?
I'm not making assumptions, and wasn't referring to that data you were referencing. Elon has said they had to divert resources from battery-related production; yes, it could be a convenient false story, however we can agree they're under a lot of pressure and have limited resources - so it's believable enough.
My whole argument doesn't revolve around "Tesla says" of your generalized statement - however it does try to put down my argument to elevate yours. If you don't want to give any amount of trust to what Tesla says - yes, they've not been honest/straight-forward in all situations which isn't ideal - then the foundation for your arguments aren't taking into account a lot of the proof points. Just like now I believe you're being genuine in your belief, and that we just have different experiences, understandings, analysis - I suppose it's possible you have financial interest in Tesla failing and haven't disclosed that, however I won't make that assumptions - and will assume you're speaking in good faith.
I don't really get what you're defending or your point is? Do you think Tesla will completely fail? Do you believe their stock is overvalued? That all auto manufacturers are now investing shittons of capital towards EV vehicles and infrastructure is perhaps the strongest signal that the market is there, and Tesla is leading it - and Elon believes they're 3-7+ years ahead of everyone else; and during even only 3 years they get get much further ahead in the race.
>My whole argument doesn't revolve around "Tesla says"
You wrote in this single reply:
Elon wanted...Elon referenced...Elon said...Elon has said...Elon believes...
This is the foundation of your argument.
Elon also said he was taking Tesla private and had a buyer at $420, and settled after being accused of fraud. Things that Elon says, wants or believes are not facts. That is my point.
>Citation needed for it not being industry leading, for their specific use case
Go look at NVIDIA’s products, or the press release they put out after the Autonomy Event. Do you think NVIDIA knows a thing or two about autonomous vehicle tech and this use case? Because Tesla’s entire program up to this point, the one I’m sure you believe is best-in-class, is built on NVIDIA product.
Can you provide a single citation that the Tesla chip is industry leading?
>I wouldn't say ~1MM chips per year is small volume,
First, 1 million is small. Second, you assume that they'll be building 1MM cars a year anytime soon, probably because "Elon said". Tesla produced ~70,000 cars this quarter. That's the reality. There is no evidence whatsoever that Tesla can produce, nor that there is demand for 1MM of these cars annually.
>I suppose it's possible you have financial interest in Tesla failing and haven't disclosed that
Ah yes, baseless accusations. You "won't make assumptions", but you'll throw that out there anyway. Just in case. If anyone disagrees about the future of Tesla, they obviously have some agenda. Elon said as much. If this forum had any neutrality, the admin would be warning and/or banning people making these accusations, which violate a number of the HN guidelines.
I don’t short stocks. I buy the odd put. I'm long everything, including Tesla through various funds. I don’t get paid by the oil industry. If Tesla went belly up tomorrow, it would harm me financially. How about you? I’m willing to bet you own a Tesla car or stock, but didn’t disclose that, while speaking with vehement positivity about the company. Why not, if you expect it of others?
I am interested in this subject matter because I find it absolutely baffling and mind-bending that there are so many red flags with this company, and yet there are segments of the population that simply cannot or refuse to see them. Of note: there seems to be a large overlap between that segment and the one that likes accusing other people of financial malfeasance or astroturfing.
>Do you think Tesla will completely fail? Do you believe their stock is overvalued?
No idea, but I doubt it fails completely. There's value in there somewhere. Probably selling high-end, high-margin EVs to wealthy people, the market they probably should have stuck to.
I'm not going to pick apart your analysis to point out the logic errors because there's enough that I don't have time - I'll just point out an obvious one:
My saying "I suppose it's possible you have financial interest in Tesla failing and haven't disclosed that" isn't a "baseless accusation" - which you claim, which then wrongly lets you build your anger and is a bad foundation giving you the argument that I'm being hypocritical and also making assumptions. I didn't accuse you of such - realize there's a difference between an accusation and brainstorming through possibilities.
In the end we'll see how Tesla and Elon does. I believe most people are terrible at understanding exponentials, terrible at foresight at the holistic level - and only believe something once it's been 100% for X years; part of the whole Product Adoption curve: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards (or other labels: tech enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, skeptics).
>I'm not going to pick apart your analysis to point out the logic errors because there's enough that I don't have time
Translation: you have no idea what you're talking about.
>I didn't accuse you of such - realize there's a difference between an accusation and brainstorming through possibilities.
Bull. You were implying I was a short-seller with an agenda, just like Elon does to all critics and whistleblowers, just like happens in every Tesla discussion on these boards.
It's hilarious, because the critics are "evil shorts", but the proponents are innocent "good people" who would never talk their book.
Because I find them pretty similar in terms of size, the e-tron is 4.9 m long while the model 3 is slightly shorter, at 4.6 m, but it’s in the same ballpark. For comparison my hatch-back is 1 meter shorter, it has a length of 3.6 meters. In the end the market will be the one to decide.
That's actually complete wrong. Amazon did have 2 years of somewhat heavy losses (around 1999 to 2002), with one pretty dramatic loss the quarter the dotcom bubble exploded.
But after that, they turned a profit almost every quarters, generally very small compared to their revenue, but a profit, and when they lost money, it was also quite small compared to their revenue (apart from 2 isolated quarters in 2012 and 2014).
Basically, apart from it first 2 or 3 years, and some isolated losses, Amazon was, for most of its existence, targeting a slightly above 0% net margin, and succeeded at it, proving it was self-sustainable.
It's not the same as Tesla which is consistently losing around 10 to 20% of its revenue for nearly the past 10 years.
There are network effects, maybe not as strong, but they're there.
Theres the supercharger network, if you have one car of a certain brand in your house hold, the others are probably disproportionately likely to be of the same brand, and this can radiate out to friends, family and work colleagues. Theres probably a 'no one got fired for buying IBM' element also. Tesla is kind of the default electric car, you aren't going to be judged harshly for buying one because most ev buyers do.
I'm struggling to think of any individual car manufacturer that has driven other manufacturers out of the market. The market doesn't really work in a way, capital requirements are too high, lead times too long, to make that possible. Its still reasonable for them to forgo short term profits, just not quite to the same extent as the winner takes all nature of the internet.
It has both those things. It’s literally devouring market share from similar class vehicles of competitors. The network effect is also happening slowly.
From my point of view Tesla hasn't driven BMW, Audi or Mercedes out of business in the last 15 years, but I didn't take a look at their recent numbers, perhaps they already have.
This is probably the most likely endgame for Tesla. One of the other carmakers buys them, liquidates physical assets, and sells their own cars under the Tesla brand.
Elon Musk only controls 20% of Tesla shares, the board can force a sell upon him if the other shareholders agree on one.
And I'm not sure why Apple would buy a car company, it's too far of their core business (aka selling computers ranging from phone sized to desktop size).
The other car manufacturers are not blind idiots, they are seeing EVs are becoming a thing, but it's also in its early stages. The question for them is when should they start switching their line-up, and that's the difficult decision. Too early, and they end-up with too expensive and less convenient cars compared to IC vehicules, too late and you have basically miss the bus.
I think Elon isn’t the typical startup CEO that is only looking for the biggest cash pile, which ironically Apple has probably the biggest cash pile on earth as a corp.
