Boring lineup, Lack of recent innovation, poor repairability and a CEO who has alienated people on both sides of the political isle. The 1 trillion dollar package the board is offering Musk is a joke. They need to find a new CEO.
The 1 trillion dollar package the board is offering Musk is a joke. They need to find a new CEO.
Problem for Tesla is that Musk is the reason it has a 200 P/E ratio (and increasing at that). Without Musk, they are likely to go all the way down to a 15 P/E or less ratio in my opinion because they're decreasing in growth. That'd make them go from being worth $1 trillion today to just $75 billion instantly.
I don't own TSLA but it could crash the market if it drops that low.
> I don't own TSLA but it could crash the market if it drops that low.
TSLA is about 2% of the s&p. If they crash I think the market will shrug that off easily. Tesla's (lack of) success is not tied to the health of the larger market, and everyone knows they are overvalued so there would be no surprise factor either.
It's not about how much of it is the S&P. It's about sentiment.
I agree with that but I also agree that everybody knows they are overvalued. A Tesla crash is unlikely to spook the market that much.
The mother of all meme stocks collapsing would trigger people to exit all very risky equities.
I doubt it.
I don't doubt it.
> Problem for Tesla is that Musk is the reason it has a 200 P/E ratio (and increasing at that).
The reason for the ratio is because he overpromises and lies all the time. The valuation is now hinging on Tesla being a leader in robotics when Musk doesn't even understand what sensor fusion is. But Tesla's astronomical valuation is a liability for them because it's the result of Musk defrauding both Tesla's customers and investors. The big number looks great but it's based on a fantasy.
PE is no longer relevant to these type of stocks. Because they print like crazy. This is not 1980 or 2001.
They were coasting for a while on false promises of self-driving abilities by "the end of this year" every year and consumers have finally caught on that Tesla's not trustworthy about such claims.
And their recent updates have made basic autopilot frustrating to use. Their reliance on only camera and map data is really showing how much Elon actually knows about self driving reliability.
Heck, the backup cross traffic detection only alerts when a car or pedestrian is already crossed and out of view. It’s absurdly bad.
I've generally advocated ignoring Musk, but it's impossible to defend him in good faith as a reasonable figurehead for a multinational company. His X page in particular portrays a man who cares deeply about 4chan/pol politics and very little about his car company.
If he cared at all, you'd see a better repair process with them. There is a Tesla repair hub in Calgary where I live, and I had to wait 5 weeks for them to see my car (including an un-explained situation where they bumped me, despite me being concerned about a safety issue). I eventually took it to an EV repair shop who did it for half of what Tesla quoted because, FFS, the world's most valuable auto company is "Resource Constrained" with mechanics.
Seriously, how can they afford a trillion on a CEO when they are parking expensive Cybertrucks on the front lawn of their Calgary store?
I still love driving my car (a 2019 Model 3), but I have no faith that Tesla will actually improve on it with their current leadership structure.
I think the plan is:
1. Promise investors FSD/AI/robots are coming next year, sell them your stock
2. ???
3. Profit!
The fun thing is you don't have to sell any Cybertrucks as long as people are buying your stock!
It is all about the hype cycle. Now that other people can make cars, it is going to have to be all about the robots.
They are hoping Musk can repeat his roadshow magic and drive an insane multiple on the dream.
[flagged]
Non appropriate language
Tesla exists to make money. Every car company in the world charges more than independent mechanics for repairs, because that's how you make money.
Unlike Tesla, legacy OEMs are prohibited from owning dealerships in the US. They make the same (or more) money selling the parts to an independent shop. They only lose out on things like certification / training / diagnostic equipment with third party shops that don't buy everything the way a dealership is required to.
The relationship between dealerships and OEMs is complicated, incestuous and fundamentally adversarial.
Tesla are also prohibited from running OEM dealerships by most states.
That they went with online sales only was an incredibly smart move and they cut out an unwanted middleman. I’ve been following Tesla for a long time. I made a small fortune investing in them in 2012.
The folks at Tesla Motor Club were very happy to buy directly from Tesla.
Tesla's genius move is just the opposite, it is to oppose online sales of cars through law. Let me explain.
Ever notice how defense of corruption is often described as something being a "genius move" by one company, totally discounting that the same move is illegal for all their competitors. Usually, to mask the open corruption, this is then masked as a detail of some law, or multiple laws. A law which when looked at is really complicated and detailed and "just happens" to target every competitor except one company?
The detail in question is that almost all US states prohibit "direct sales", meaning car manufacturers have to sell through independent dealerships. So technically you can buy a Ford online, just not from Ford, you have to go through a dealership. The exception in a number of states is that you can buy a car from the manufacturer if there are no dealerships ... and Tesla never had any dealerships. The other car manufacturers can't sell online, because their dealerships are independent, and they are legally forced to treat them equally. They'd have to force dealerships into bankruptcy and only then they'd be allowed to sell online. Not the dealerships in a particular state, mind you, all of them, across the entire US.
Of course, other vendors that are in the same position as Tesla, don't get this advantage, for example BYD, but also a number of European and even an Indian automaker that only have dealerships in a very limited number of states, and should, in theory, be allowed to sell cars directly in most states. Well, they're not allowed. Trade deals, tariffs, ... but somehow they can't do it (perhaps this is why Elon Musk joined Trump, if so, it would make Musk and Trump not just corrupt, but incompetent at corruption, given the title of this ycombinator story)
See how the "genius move" of Tesla really works? It is not at all the decision to sell online. The genius move of Tesla is exactly the opposite of what you claim: Tesla opposes online sales of cars, and for this to be enforced legally. Against everyone but Tesla, of course.
Of course, anyone who has gone to a Tesla demonstration knows that there is zero actual difference between a car dealership where you check out a physical car and then order on a computer over the internet with a salesperson assisting, and a Tesla demonstration where you check out a physical car and then order on a computer over the internet with a salesperson assisting.
And, obviously, yes, Musk is still lobbying and has lobbied [1] (ie. paid money to politicians) to keep things this way. Of course, other car manufacturers also lobby. I guess Tesla pays better.
[1] "Tesler, great buy!" Trump https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/trump-musk-tesla-whit...
The price was not the issue, the fact that they took 5 weeks for a potential safety issue was. (In my case, it turns out that the issue was related to a torn bushing in the suspension; a common issue with a Model 3 w/ more than 100k kilometers apparently).
The fact that they took longer AND were more expensive than local providers was ridiculous, and certainly not a good look compared to my experiences at Toyota with my Sienna.
-edit- (That and the fact that they shouldn't be resource constrained when the most valuable car company in the world)
the model y update to mimic the cybertruck made me groan.
I think the old model y looks great. It was a success!
But they messed with it and the new one looks like a duck.
in comparison the model 3 update looked ok.
But for me the relentless march to remove controls from the car is the worst.
It started with no dashboard on the model 3, (crowded central display off to side).
But then got worse and worse.
No stalks makes it unbuyable to me. No drive select stalk (it will guess), no turn signal stalks. Critical controls on the touchscreen. Small targets that are hard to hit in a moving car.
It looks minimal in the showroom, but day to day it makes you a worse driver. It is techno poverty.
Can they find a new CEO? Tesla's valuation has been crazy for a while and Musk an his magic has been a part of that ...
Are they faced with picking someone else also admitting Musk's magic is at an end for them and thus at the same time triggering a return to reality?
The 1 trillion dollar package seems to me a bit like trying to pump a meme stock. Saying he'll get 1 T when the stock is 8 T will encourage people to buy in now when it's a bargain at a 1 T market cap.
I low key have a conspiracy theory that the "1 trillion dollar pay package" is just Tesla PR fluff - smoke and mirrors to steal attention away from the poorly performing cybertruck sales and falling stock. If they spin news with dramatic flair highlighting Musk’s bonkers pay package it's a distraction from Tesla’s more immediate and tangible troubles, political alienation of their buyers and ongoing regulatory and manufacturing operational crises.
I think it's a desperate attempt by the board to get Musk to focus on Tesla again. Tesla has a PE ratio of around 230 right now. If that comes back down to the reality of a declining-sales mid-sized car company, it's going to be an absolute blood bath.
Hiding the cyberflop is much easier than explaining why they have monitors riding in robotaxis while Waymo works
Seems counterintuitive, no?
The first thing I thought of when I saw that pay package being floated was the current state that Tesla is in. That's the primary reason such a package seems so fucking bonkers.
In fairness Musk only gets the payout if he hits various targets, more related to AI than cars.
A pay package of that magnitude is a material business fact. If Tesla is lying about this, that would likely constitute securities fraud and risks imprisonment for the people involved in making it.
I would imagine the current administration has little to no desire to enforce this. There was already an executive order early on to specifically stop enforcing crypto regulation.
The company that had to pay out $20 million (in addition to Musk paying another $20 million) to settle with the SEC after being accused of securities fraud in 2018, and whose owner has just been accused of another instance of securities fraud by the SEC this year may, in fact, be engaging in securities fraud here?
Well, color me just absolutely shocked.
Value of TSLA has been disconnected from the actual car business for a while, and instead vaguely betting on Musk figuring out something with robots, taxis, or AI or whatever.
Now I wonder if it's tied to any future of the company at all. It seems to be a Musk stock: if you want Musk have more power to do whatever he's doing, pump TSLA.
There's a reason why in most companies the CEO isn't allowed to put up inane rants on social media.
Letting go of Musk would let go of the Musk hype and cause the company to be valued like a car company, which would crash the stock.
[flagged]
Nah, they're still the best cars you can buy[1]. It's all down to Musk's political antics.
[1] Seriously, it's hard to be lacking in innovation when other brands still don't even have walk-up unlock or 360° cameras, much less drive themselves around or launch like rockets. And the repairability thing is a meme from back when they had part production lag due to crazy scaling. Getting a Tesla fixed now (and yes, I have) is like "click three buttons in your app and come in tomorrow".
I’ve recently test-driven EVs from a few brands, including Tesla. One stood out for building an EV that actually felt like a functioning car: Kia. It actually has buttons for things that are commonly adjusted while driving. The current crop of Teslas don’t even have physical controls for reverse.
> The current crop of Teslas don’t even have physical controls for reverse.
... Wait, seriously? Like, you have to _use the touch screen to put it in reverse_? That can't possibly be the case.
Yes. This has now infected all models.
No, it’s not. There are buttons on the roof area (where the interior lights and hazard button are) that have the PRND buttons.
Also, all the new models have an auto shift functionality so you don’t even really have to use any buttons at all.
> Also, all the new models have an auto shift functionality so you don’t even really have to use any buttons at all.
This seems utterly insane. It’s already annoying that tapping somewhere on a phone screen has a different effect depending on whether I win or lose the race against some UI update. I do not want my rather heavy vehicle to move in a different direction depending on which way the computer thinks I want it to move.
You don't have to use it if you don't want to. You can turn it off and just use the headliner buttons only. Also, the vehicle is not moving when you don't want it to. The brake and accelerator pedals still function and it should be abundantly obvious if it's in reverse vs. drive, given the backup camera is on vs. off.
In practice, everything I've seen is that it works well, and predictably does what you expect it to do. And if it doesn't, you are one swipe away from fixing that.
Tesla was not first to market for keyless entry, 360 cameras, nor level 2 ADAS. In fact, they are behind. A couple of automakers are now shipping level 3 ADS systems.
> keyless entry, 360 cameras, nor level 2 ADAS
It's the only non-luxury brand I'm aware of with all of those features. Who are you thinking about?
Also you're misdirecting: "keyless entry" isn't remotely the same as "your phone is your key".
And the "level 2 ADAS" business is a transparent attempt to troll an FSD argument to which won't engage except to say, again, that the user experience of letting your car drive a 200 mile leg of a long road trip is also not remotely the same as always bouncing around and stomping on brakes experience of the lanekeeping offered elsewhere.
You know both of these truths, which is why you want to redefine the features to make them false.
>> keyless entry, 360 cameras, nor level 2 ADAS
> It's the only non-luxury brand I'm aware of with all of those features. Who are you thinking about?
Most non-luxury brands offer these features today. Toyota Camry, for instance.
> Also you're misdirecting: "keyless entry" isn't remotely the same as "your phone is your key".
1. You didn't say anything about doing it with a phone. 2. If you do want to do it with a phone, for whatever reason, other automakers also offer this, e.g.:
https://connected-mobility.hyundai.com/what-we-do/connected-...
https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/fordpass/phone-as-a-key...
> And the "level 2 ADAS" business is a transparent attempt to troll an FSD argument to which won't engage except to say, again, that the user experience of letting your car drive a 200 mile leg of a long road trip is also not remotely the same as always bouncing around and stomping on brakes experience of the lanekeeping offered elsewhere.
You shouldn't be taking your hands off the wheel while using systems that require your hands to be on the wheel. Other automakers have hands-free level 2 systems. Here's the list of brands that currently offer a hand-free level 2 system: BMW, Ford, Lincoln, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Jeep, Ram, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Infiniti, Toyota, Lexus
> You know both of these truths, which is why you want to redefine the features to make them false.
I think maybe you're just not aware of what is on the market right now.
Now you're playing games with "offer". I've never once seen a Camry with cameras. I'm sure it's on a trim somewhere, but not on dealers lots or at a price people want to pay.
Look, the simple ground truth is that the experience of driving a four year old Tesla (the age of my Y) is simply better than any vehicle I'm going to find anywhere at that price point or lower (or give a bit for inflation, even).
> You shouldn't be taking your hands off the wheel while using systems that require your hands to be on the wheel.
Sigh. I said I wouldn't be trolled[1], but it's a camera-based attention monitoring system now. There's no requirement for the hand on the wheel (well, it will yell at you if it sees you duck out of the camera center and you need a physical input to acknowledge), and hasn't been for more than a year.
The "car gets new features years after purchase" thing is another point in favor, FWIW.
Look, you're just wrong on this. You'll never believe that, because you'll never drive a Tesla. But I do, and I'm right.
[1] You also played the "level 2" game again, pretending that one number defines the feature set when you know very well it does not. That now has moved from "trolling" to simple lying, I'd say.
> Now you're playing games with "offer". I've never once seen a Camry with cameras.
I test drove one last year, it wasn't even the highest trim... A few of my coworkers are driving used cars with 360 cameras. These aren't really new features.
> Look, the simple ground truth is that the experience of driving a four year old Tesla (the age of my Y) is simply better than any vehicle I'm going to find anywhere at that price point or lower (or give a bit for inflation, even).
Yeah, they're not bad cars. I never said they were. I said other auto makers are also shipping some of these features. I'm not attacking your vehicle; you're allowed to like it.
> Sigh. I said I wouldn't be trolled[1], but it's a camera-based attention monitoring system now. There's no requirement for the hand on the wheel (well, it will yell at you if it sees you duck out of the camera center and you need a physical input to acknowledge), and hasn't been for more than a year.
Yes, they updated their system to do this last year. A lot of auto makers have hands-free systems today, many of them already had them shipped last year, and some shipped them years before Tesla did. And while Tesla still requires you to look at the road, a couple of auto makers are shipping level three systems.
I'm not making any sort of personal attack on your purchase. I'm just here to tell you that they're not the only ones shipping these sorts of features.
We have a model X and model S. I still like them but for our latest car we bought a Rivian SUV instead. The interior is just laid out better and there is a lot more space despite being roughly the same size as the X.
The Rivian has the 360 degree view and other stuff as well.
And as for the delays - our X was in a minor collision last November and is STILL not fixed. The only way to contact Tesla is through the app and so we make an appointment, take photos, describe the issue and then are told to wait two months for our appointment. Then invariably the day before the appointment, we are told that the center we had the appointment at cannot do the work and to go to another center, with another two month delay, which then tells us the same thing.
Not being able to reach a human to fix out $100k+ car is infuriating.
> And the repairability thing is a meme from back when they had part production lag due to crazy scaling.
Respectfully, bullshit; auto insurance companies I've dealt with certainly begged to differ, and have priced comprehensive/collision premiums for Teslas accordingly.
My premiums seem fine. Also I don't see why insurance risk management has anything in particular to do with "repairability".
Insurance premiums for Teslas are well above the national average for insuring a new vehicle. Although, they've gotten better in recent years. The Model S used to be number one most expensive vehicle to insure in the US, even beating out exotic cars.
Repairability is a risk to insurance companies because they are liable to repair vehicle vehicles. When parts and labor are in short supply, they are more expensive. These expenses are something that an insurance company would pay in a claim for a vehicle they are liable to fix. Also, please remember that insurance companies also sometimes must pay consequential costs, e.g. a rental car, while vehicle repair repairs are pending.
Istg I had a ten year old Prius with walk up unlock
They're terrible for privacy too. Just give me the finished product after the AC button is in and the telemetry is gone
I don't know why you're getting junked. A friend's Model Y was rear-ended, and he had it fixed in less than two weeks. Did have a sensor problem afterwards, but that was taken care of immediately. I think you're accurate that they are still ahead of the competition, but the race is getting closer.
Political issues aside, Tesla has a variety problem. If we converge the split between midrange and premium, their lineup consists of a midsize sedan, a midsize SUV, and a niche truck.
Early on this was in their favor, but with more automakers entering the fray with serious attempts to compete, they’re going to have to add at least a couple more models to reman competitive: something in the vein of a Chevy Bolt on one end and an SUV that’s the next step up in size from the Y/X on the other. A more conventional truck that more directly competes with the F-150 also couldn’t hurt.
Again, politics aside, I just find the lineup boring. Every model outside the Cybertruck looks like a ten year old car. Even the refresh of the model Y is still reskinning a design language started with the Model S, but with any interesting soul stripped out to reduce cost.
The nerd in me loves the technology, particularly behind the scenes features of the Cybertruck like 48v architecture. In the end I want to drive something that feels like it has a soul and substance. Teslas lineup right now is not that.
If Teslas were durable, built well, easily repairable, with strong aftermarket support, I would applaud them for sticking with the same bland design instead of endlessly tweaking it like every other car and tech company in a misguided effort to stay "fresh". However the opposite has occurred where Teslas appear to be bland, poorly made, and unrepairable.
This. None of them make me go "Damn, that's a good looking car..." any more than a number of others.
The Cybertruck is just am embarrassment, design wise.
OTOH, Cybertruck is one of the only original car designs in modern memory. It’s dumb as hell, but I like it. That said, I have no idea who it’s for, I wouldn’t buy one. But I respect them for designing such a ridiculous vehicle, and for it actually being able to sell, albeit somewhat poorly compared to expectations.
I say all of this as a recent $TSLA bear with a healthy short position.
It's original in the way that a toddler drawing a car in crayon on your wall is original.
Yes, and there used to be a time when other automakers did crazy stuff too. Sometimes they sold well and sometimes they didn't. But the variety and creativity was nicer than what we have currently on the market, which is a bunch of midsize SUVs, which aren't good at being an SUV, aren't good at being a car, and all look like jellybeans.
I was quite enthused about the cybertruck when it was announced. A lot of it was using the same material as starship and I was quite into the multiplanetary stuff. Since then with Musk doing nazi salutes and DOGE I'd be somewhat embarrassed to have one.
shorting TSLA is never smart because TSLA investors are not driven by any rhyme or reason. Elon is the greatest salesman to ever live and people have been buying his sh*t for decade+ now. if TSLA was a reasonable company investment-wise I would mortgage my house to short the shit out of it :)
Yeah -- I am of the opinion that TSLA is rather obviously highly overvalued, but the market can stay insane for longer than I can stay solvent so there isn't anything I can do to act on that.
Yep, that’s why I clarified that I am a recent bear. I think that in the next year funds will reevaluate them and we will see at least a 20% drop in price.
It'll never drop by 20%. Either it keeps on growing, or it collapses.
Given that they apparently have no new models in development, I'd expect the latter.
- Their roadmap is just updates to their existing line-up, and vapourware crap that relies on their "Full Self Driving" somehow magically starting to work.
I kind of like it. It's one where the pictures and renderings look cool but IRL it looks like they messed it up. However, I've seen a few modded Cybertrucks with bigger wheels and tires and a wrap that actually make me think it doesn't look to bad. Concerns over build quality keep me away from Tesla as a whole, it looks too cheap to me and I've seen too many videos where things are just falling off.
> It's one where the pictures and renderings look cool but IRL it looks like they messed it up.
That's because they did. The initial plan was for the plates to double as the frame of the car. That's how they could have achieved the seamless look of the renders. Turns out they couldn't make it work for whatever reason and the plates are just on top of the frame.
I love the visual design. But the performance looks terrible. Meanwhile china is making utes that look pretty bland but perform amazing for the price.
> ...one of the only original car designs in modern memory. ... I respect them for designing such a ridiculous vehicle
Based on the criteria, you might like the Fiat Multipla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla
It's dumb as hell but I don't like it.
But I know what you're saying. I give it credit for being out there when nothing else in the auto industry is. Sadly though, its failure will likely further entrench the rest of the industry.
I thought it was a neat concept but I'm surprised they took it directly into mass production. I thought they'd take the design language and make something a bit more mainstream with it.
The matte steel body and the unbroken slope on the front are cool, if impractical. There's something funny about the tray and the featureless non-grille though.
Honestly I really think the winning move for the 80% of the market that isnt already in an electric is "This is your current car, but electric".
Electric does make it pretty important that the software is unusually good for a car, though, because the software has to compensate for non-ubiquitous charging infra. Tesla does this very well. There are some quirks around charge scheduling and charge limiting that Tesla does really well too. It's not rocket science but software in most "current cars" is terrible.
This is currently becoming a smaller and smaller problem with charging infra growing fast.
I guess it will become an issue again when "car" becomes synonymous with "EV" and there's a sudden spike in EV registration, but who knows when that tipping point will occur.
I drive a 2018 Nissan Leaf and the software is sometimes laughably bad. But the basics like when you’re charging are ok in my experience
I wonder if the politics will impact the designs in the long run, as Tesla becomes a less desirable place to work
[flagged]
With every insane X post Musk makes we get closer to where having Tesla on your resume is a black mark the same way folks are judging Meta employees in the other thread.
When the politics are that front and center, it becomes a real liability to the company.
If you buy car for looks this forum is not for you.
My wife thinks they all look like jellybeans. Tesla makes them like that to maximize efficiency, and they’re still #1 on that metric, but people don’t care about that.
All cars made in the last 20 years look like that. It’s wind tunnel design, there’s only one optimal overall shape that a car can have.
I have seen this described as “looksmaxxing for cars” and I can’t unsee it now.
it's effiencymaxxing. automotive looksmaxxing peaked in the 80s, the decade when new car designs looked the best
Citroen DS, Jaguar e-type, Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, MB Gullwing, BMW 507 and a whole raft of other 50's, 60's and 70's cars look much better than anything that I even remember designed in the 80's. Of course that's just my opinion, but those cars are so iconic, do you have any particular cars in mind for that period which you really liked?
The new Prius has a similar coefficient of drag as a Tesla Model 3 but the Prius manages to look a LOT better.
The 2024 Prius has a drag coefficient of 0.27 (slightly worse than the previous generation's 0.26), which compares poorly with the Model 3's 0.22.
My understanding is that the Lucid Air Pure is more efficient than Tesla’s offerings, but yes, Teslas have tended to be more efficient than compliance BEVs and a lot of other efforts from legacy automakers.
With a coefficient of 0.219, they're not even in the top 10 on that metric. China seems to be making the most aerodynamic cars now:
0.191 Dongfeng Xinghai S7
0.194 XPeng Mona M03
0.195 Xiaomi SU7 Pro
0.197 Lucid Air Pure
I'm looking forward to the Mona coming to Europe next year https://cnevpost.com/2025/09/09/xpeng-launch-mona-series-eur...
I don't know the model y is the best selling car in the world so it seems like it worked pretty well
Is it? I thought it was overtaken by the RAV4 a while back.
And if we're including the RAV4, then you probably also need to include Chevy and Ford's pickup offerings, which would also be far ahead of any Tesla.
(And yes, a quick google confirms[0] the RAV4 is ahead of any Tesla offering this year.)
[0]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g64457986/bestselling-cars...
edit: see replies, this is US-only.
Looking at your link, it seems to be US only stats?
Best selling in 2024 world wide was Model Y even including trucks? https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-worlds-best-sell...
The RAV4 outsold it in 2024: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/felipe-munoz-carindustryanaly...
The more interesting stat is that Toyota has 5 of the top 10 best selling cars.
Interesting. I can't see the source for the data in your link (it cites Statista, but that's just a graph and requires a subscription to see the source data.)
Not saying it's wrong (I have no idea, that's why I googled), but would be interesting to know.
edit: but also, you're right that I inadvertently looked at US-only data. I did say it was a quick Google. :) Edited my original comment.
Toyota has done quite well by maximizing efficiency.
I think the target audience for a Toyota or Honda (boring but reliable car) isn't very interested in the kind of quality control Tesla has. They're supposed to make up for that in other features and the unique style of the truck is part of that, in theory.
I think the current Prius PHEV looks much better than any Tesla right now. (It’s a plugin hybrid not a pure EV, of course.)
The current Prius is legitimately cool looking. Hard to believe it’s the same family that had been lampooned for its design for most of its existence.
IMHO, Toyota did an awesome job of taking the 2004 Prius funny wedge compact eco-nerd-mobile look (which might have been exactly what it needed at the time), and making it look sleek and modern and powerful.
I'm imagining a designer looking at the earlier windshield slant, and knowing they could work with that, and retain references to the iconic earlier design.
Industrial designers are like stage magicians.
Putting up with PHEV + ancient Toyota tech vs the looks takes a special person.
Toyota sold the most cars of any auto group in 2024.
They seem to understand the car market.
They also spent billions trying to destroy EVs. Don't underestimate power of oil and legacy auto's marketing and political influence.
Maybe it's more simple. Maybe Toyota just make cars people want to buy.
So you agree $2-3 billion they spend on advertising is a waste of money then?
It had little to do with oil, and a lot to do with their managements' irrational infatuation with hydrogen.
Toyota wasted a lot of time and money on that bet, and lost a lot of ground in the market.
> lost a lot of ground in the market
Toyota sells the most cars of any auto maker. What ground was lost?
It's clear Toyota has correctly assessed the market. They got it right.
As time goes on, BEVs will be a bigger percentage of the cars they sell. In the meantime they'll keep selling the cars they've got, including their current BEVs.
Given the initial success of the Prius, every Tesla you see on the road should've been a Toyota. (If not something from GM, who has even more experience in blowing an early lead in electrification.)
See also: Amazon's chances in an alternative timeline where Sears wasn't run by morons.
Tesla's own target for sales is to have sold 20 million cars in total by 2035. That figure represents a decline in annual sales for Tesla.
In 2011 Toyota sold 7.9 million cars. In 2023 Toyota sold 11.2 million. In 2024 Toyota sold 10.8 million.
Tesla's ambition is to have sold fewer cars in total in what will then be the 32 year history of the company than Toyota sold in the last two years.
Here's how 2025 is looking for Toyota:
https://www.autoblog.com/news/nearly-900000-cars-sold-toyota...
Toyota got it right.
The people I see with Model 3 and Y are the ones who came from Camrys and Rav4.
Tesla EVs have the most data to support their reliability (at least the 3/Y), and they are clearly very reliable. Plus it costs just as much as a Rav 4, but has tons more torque. And the software is much better even though it lacks Carplay.
If Elon’s antics didn’t already turn me off as a Tesla customer, lack of CarPlay support slammed the coffin shut completely.
I thought that too, and then Toyota wanted $15 per month for remote start and made it seem like they were doing me a favor when I went to buy a car, so I ended up with a Tesla. Ended up not missing Carplay, and it cost $20k less for a car that seats 5 adults and 2 kids.
I don't know why we're putting politics aside. I'm sure those political escapades didn't help in cratering their stock.
All companies are trying to cut on variety right now. Of course, a software service used daily won't be hit as hard as a mid-class car company. Heck, even the affordable car companies are charging mid tier prices these days. The results are clear if things don't change.
> I don't know why we're putting politics aside. I'm sure those political escapades didn't help in cratering their stock.
I fully agree, I just wanted to focus specifically on how their offerings are lackluster even if there weren’t other problems.
I agree and actually think it’s the overwhelming factor. People loved Tesla and Musk until he started promoting his politics. It was a stupid thing to do as a CEO, especially for a company whose customers tend toward the opposite end of the political spectrum.
People loved Tesla and Musk while he was pretending to do green and progressive politics. That was a huge boost to the brand, because the cars, the batteries, and Starlink all made sense as an ecosystem that came with attractive branding and customer identification.
Then he did a 180 and set it all on fire. It's now a top-down zeitgeist, not a bottom-up one, and the most understated thing anyone can say about that is that it's causing growing resentment.
We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss. You're either cool with it, or Tesla is completely off the table. And nobody will likely be switching camps at this point.
Can someone be cool with it but also admit that it definitely affected the market share? I can do that with Bud Weiser's trans campaign, even if I agree with it.
They had no trans campaing. There was a single short video with a single personalized can. Calling it campaign is just validating conservative lies again.
Truth is, a single trans got a can of beer with own face, made short video and rught wing decided to make it into a campaing, because trans must be destroyed. That is it.
Very expensive beer! That six pack cost them a lot of market share. But I think the wishy washy interview with the marketing person in charge of that decision did not exactly help, with the typical beer chugging target demo.
It was a single can of beer.
The brand was already declining. Americans are drinking less beer and when they do, its higher quality beer.
Imagine you are brought in to grow the business. What avenues do you have? Lower the price? Its already low end product. Move upmarket? Its difficult since the brand has been around as low priced product for decades and it would risk other higher quality brands in the parent companies portfolio.
Whats left? Expand the user base to people that typically don't drink the product.
Once things fell apart, the fact that management overrode the marketing person's decisions and tried to backpedal pissed off the potential new customer base.
Meanwhile the existing base continues to decline either way.
Maybe some items just can't grow no matter what you do. We see this with a lot of processed food junk. People are waking up to how unhealthy a lot of pre packaged food is so companies are trying all sorts of nonsense to keep people (Just look at an account like @snackolator).
> We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss
I don't agree, as we are not quantifying the emotional aspect of the purchasing process. If people "love" the brand, they are willing to overlook a lot of things. Tesla was a status symbol and is now seen as a regret purchase and a toxic brand for many (see Europe and Canada for examples). I can't see how "politics" should not be considered as it does play a critical role in how people spend money. There is a reason why a lot of companies are not open about politics and I don't think I've ever seen a CEO that was so forth coming with their beliefs as Elon Musk.
It's particularly interesting because cars are probably one of the most emotional purchases for a lot of people. Car makers know this and put a huge amount of effort into brand identity. It's also hard to think of another company of any kind where the CEO is so synonymous with the company and so public facing. Maybe Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in their heydays, but even they had a lower public profile relatively speaking. And finally, it's hard to think of another CEO of a major company who has so aggressively adopted and broadcast very polarizing political views.
Tesla is such a perfect storm that it's actually kind of amazing the stock hasn't completely tanked, which itself makes it an interesting discussion topic. They make a product where brand identity is super important, have a CEO who is unquestionably the public face of the company, and said CEO continues to go out of his way to try to alienate a significant portion of the potential customer base. I frequently see Teslas driving around with anti-Elon bumper stickers, which I've certainly never seen before for a car company. It's hard to imagine a world in which such consumer sentiment among any non-trivial percentage of your customer base isn't a death knell for the company.
They haven’t released anything decent since the Model 3, which was a massive success. It’s baffling to me that they’re now betting the company on robotics, rather than improving and extending their existing lineup of cars.
I know the Cybertruck as a "release" is stretching it, but it technically did release. Prematurely, 100%. But it's out there.
The QC on the Cybertruck pretty much shows why they lost their brand power over the years, though. Even when ignoring the politics.
I’m waiting for owners to discover water damage in the equipment under the hood liner: Cybertruck’s lack a scuttle/cowl/gutter [0] to collect and divert water from the bottom of the windshield. Basically every car ever has one, except the Cybertruck. This isn’t a QC problem — it’s just poor design.
[0] I’m not sure anyone agrees what it’s called.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they simply solved this problem a different way.
The cybertruck cleared “released”, what it failed is “decent”.
> The QC
Was never Tesla’s forte.
Tesla's focus on robotics feels like Meta's focus on AR: Waaay ahead of time.
I may be proven wrong, but until then I'll point to ~ten years of FSD promises.
They seem to be making similar mistakes in trying to build stuff from sci-fi rather than what works in the real world. I mean industrial robots have been a thing for ages and domestic roomba type ones are becoming popular but humanoid is a bit of a sci-fi thing. Similarly collaborative virtual worlds like Fortnite are a big hit ($20bn+ revenue) but not Meta's attempt to do the Snow Crash fictional thing.
There's no reason really why robots have to be humanoid, or that you have to interact with virtual worlds by strapping the screen on your face.
Musk is now reliably erratic. He's convinced his dramas are entertaining, and he's playing it all for the attention and the lulz.
None of that makes him a credible or even a competent CEO.
Considering that Tesla's P/E is the highest in the S&P 500, and is 3.5X higher than the next company in the list, it's been hinted that Tesla's valuation is coming from - cough - alternative sources and isn't a sensible estimate of potential earnings.
Mocking conventional investors seems very much the current MO, just as much as mocking customers.
So I don't care what he's betting the company on. Tesla is now a drama for the sake of drama stock, and anyone who is expecting it to produce credible products may want to reconsider that possibility.
they are not betting the company on robotics, they just needed something to keep the crazies buying stock now that full “self” driving fantasy is over :)
The Model 3 was released in 2017 (!).
The Model Y is an incredible car, way more than decent. Unfortunately Elon is a fascist traitor so I cannot upgrade it, and no one else makes anything half as good.
I love this comment. I've also been in similar conundrums with products vs my values, but I have made a rule to limit how much I'm willing to deprive myself in service of values.
The model Y is the best selling car in the world, so this statement doesn't really make sense
You already mentioned that 2 minutes ago in the same submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45176460
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please consider what your commentary adds to the discussion before posting, repetition detracts from thread quality. Thanks!
Don't see anything about what you mention being in the guidelines at all. Please point out what rule you are referring to. Thanks!
Pot calling the kettle black.
No, it’s not anymore.
I thought the Rav4 had been outpacing it for awhile now. (Plus, that's also artificially limiting total vehicle sales which are, unsurprisingly, still trucks.)
> Tesla has a variety problem. If we converge the split between midrange and premium, their lineup consists of a midsize sedan, a midsize SUV, and a niche truck
I don’t know if you have checked out other OEMs lineups lately…Ford doesn’t even make a sedan anymore. That’s right. Just SUVs and trucks. And mustang supercar. Other OEMs have similarly trimmed their lineups. You can thank CAFE er al for that.
Ford makes plenty of sedans. It doesn't sell any in Canada or its neighbour.
Don't forget that about the other 95% of the people on earth
Does it still? Used to see lots of Fords in Ireland, but my impression was that at this point Ford Europe was all but dead in the consumer market; you still see a lot of Transit vans etc, but it'd be very unusual to see a new Ford car.
Article is about US market share, so it's reasonable to infer that the GP is referring to their competition in that market.
> Ford makes plenty of sedans
Does it? Since they stopped building the Mondeo in Europe they don’t sell any sedans there or in most places I’m aware of. The only Ford sedan I’m aware of in production anywhere is the Chinese-market Ford Mondeo built in a joint venture with Changan.
But what will Mondeo Man drive??
they discontinued the Ford focus or changed it to an SUV? Shame.
Ford stopped selling all passenger vehicles besides the Mustang in the US in 2018, and 2025 will be the last model year for the Focus worldwide.
> You can thank CAFE er al for that.
Somewhat, but I'll blame business finance way, way, way more.
The US automakers are doing the exact same dumbass thing they did in the 1970s with "BIGGER!-shouted (and more profitable)-whispered" until the Japanese automakers showed up and wiped the floor with them.
Well, BYD is coming and is going to wipe the floor with them.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It’s amazing that US automakers can’t foresee the bubble of $70k SUVs and trucks and the stretched out loans those entail popping. It’s practically guaranteed to happen, and with how the economy has been probably sooner than later.
They never took back the market from the Japanese, so all that is left is BIGGER.
The six-seater Model Y L, which has already been launched in China, fills in that "SUV that's the next step up in size" gap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_Y_L
But yes, I fully agree that deprioritizing/stopping the low-cost "Model 2" was a major mistake. Particularly with tariffs keeping Chinese EVs out, Tesla could have pretty much owned the space in the US. (Although Elon's DOGE antics would still have alienated a large portion of the customer base.)
As things stand, assuming that Nissan can manage to remain afloat, that “Model 2” market segment is going to be snapped up by the 2026 Leaf, which will start at ~$25k before incentives and is just a touch bigger than the Bolt EUV was and comes with NACS, fast charging, and a properly cooled battery. There’s little in the US EV market that comes close to competing at that price range.
Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
> Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
Seeing US salaries and the strength of the US dollar (and the weakness of the yen right now!)... I wonder.
At one point I don't know how you can be competitive with factories abroad. This is where protectionism comes in I guess!
Why not produce abroad? Tesla has factories in China after all
Oh sure, yeah. My reading of GP's post was that somehow they could pull it off in the US but I must have misread.
I have no dog in this fight, I trust "normal" car companies for my car needs.
It's a 6-seater, but I don't think it fills all of that category gap because it's barely a 6-seater.
All the other 3-rows have decent headroom in that last row. The Kia and Hyundai almost 42 inches. I haven't looked into the Cadillac or Volvo, but from the outside they look about the same.
All but the shortest adults and children will be uncomfortable in the Tesla third row. I'll bet it's used more for groceries than passengers.
To compete in the 3-row market, I think Tesla's gotta build something that can accommodate adults too.
The jump between the X and Y is too big. It’s more or less a 50-100% price increase depending on how you look at it. The Y is very small for the SUV form factor, and the X is very expensive. I have to imagine that there is a market for something between the two.
The problem is that the X isn't a particularly large SUV. The X is slightly wider and about 1ft longer.
And in many ways it's inferior to the Y. Tesla's mega casting and structural pack gives the Y excellent range and a lower weight for a cheaper battery.
I think the reason Tesla hasn't done mega casting and structural packs for the other lineups (besides the equipment costs) is because it'd make them eat into the revenue of the top tier models. A model 3 cutting down several hundred pounds would be range competitive with the model S. The shorter range LFP batteries could still land you in previously long range land.
The issue is the X is still a small SUV. We have one and ended up buying a Rivian as well because it has a lot more useful space than the X.
Still the best EVs on the market in terms of range, performance and price(in the US). Chevy bolt competitor wouldn’t make sense because Chevy couldn’t even make the chevy bolt work and stopped production 2023. EV trucks don’t make sense at all, they can’t tow unless you want to recharge every 100 miles. Also range is severely reduced offroading. I don’t get why auto manufacturers keep pushing them on the public.
Tesla has image problem. Y refresh is getting praise. Edmunds says its the best car they’ve driven in 2025. It should be selling like hotcakes. I don’t think anything is fixing Tesla unless they fire musk.
The Bolt is coming back. Chevy’s reason for discontinuing it wasn’t that it didn’t sell, but that the platform was outdated. The new one is on their current platform and roughly analogous to the old EUV model.
Pricing is another question though, and no CarPlay/AA while also coming from an old guard auto manufacturer means no sale from me.
Normally when you have a popular car, you don't pull it from the market. Tesla hasn't pulled any of their products. Has a company ever done that? They sold it at a loss and now trying to make it profitable with LFP batteries and other cost cutting. I still doubt its coming out.
While it's a larger pause than normal, this actually seems to happen quite a lot when a manufacturer dumps an old EV platform; there was a gap between the Renault Zoe and 5, and between the second and third gen Leaf, say. I assume it's partially for retooling, but also "why not buy this car built on a 15 year old EV platform, btw its replacement is coming out next week" seems like a _very_ hard sell.
The bigger problem is that the Bolt would’ve been the only model on its platform, which I noted before, was outdated and not able to handle fast charging among other things.
Being a GM product, the Bolt won’t have CarPlay either.
That’s what I said.
Oops, I misread.
Whys that? I've never seen a car having only one out of android auto and carplay.
GM stopped supporting both CarPlay and Android Auto in most of their EVs, except I think for those made by Cadillac, in effort to push customers into using the onboard infotainment where they can sell subscriptions.
I’m not sure that’s going to work out for them in the long run. Last I knew, Honda’s Prologue which is a rebadged Blazer EV and supports CarPlay/AA is outselling the Blazer.
I meant CarPlay and Android Auto, as GM wants to force its customers to use its software.
It seems you don't have BYD in the US, except for buses? Here in Australia you see far more BYDs than Teslas by now. They're cheaper with a bit more range.
Nope, tarriffs. I'll admit that the 175% tarrifs on Chinese vehicles was indeed a Biden decision.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/joe-biden-china-tariff-hike...
To be precise, 100% on vehicles, 50% on solar cells, and 25% on Batteries.
This was frmom a year ago, though. Who knows if/what Trump added on top of that.
Bonus Article: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a62694325/ford-ceo-jim-far...
>Ford CEO Jim Farley admitted he has been driving a Xiaomi SU7 for six months and said he "doesn't want to give it up."
The only way I’d be interested in a Xiaomi (or any other Chinese car) is if they decided to make a Ford Panther platform lookalike that has no features dependent on phoning home to China.
For the sake of argument, why should I be more afraid of phoning home to China (a country I will probably never go to) than phoning home to the US or Canada?
If I'm making an inappropriate joke to my wife while we drive, I'd prefer the former than the later.
(Obviously, much like you I assume, I'd rather have no internet connection)
That’s by design. And people would rather put up with the allegations against Elon’s conduct over the certainty of PRC conduct.
EV trucks do make sense, because most people (in the US) want a truck and don’t tow anything.
Battery tech is rapidly improving too, which will offset the hit to range that towing involves. Best to get the designs and manufacturing figured out to be ready for the day that battery tech arrives.
> trucks don’t make sense at all, they can’t tow unless you want to recharge every 100 miles. Also range is severely reduced offroading.
Most truck drivers will never tow a thing in their lives, and they will almost certainly never offroad (unless you count the leaves on the driveway)
EV trucks make perfect sense in that context.
Lucid offers the best range of any EV. And while not really directly comparable to the Model S Plaid because it is twice the price of the Plaid—- Lucid’s Air Sapphire absolutely out performs the Plaid in every scenario. I think the days of Tesla’s dominance in the EV space are dwindling rapidly. If Lucid can get their midsized car out, at a reasonable price, I don’t see any real reason to buy a Tesla unless you just particularly fancy one. That’s not a great proposition for a company that was once considered a tech company with a huge lead over everyone else. It’s only a matter of time before the double whammy of lackluster innovation and Musk’s politics come home to roost.
Yeah, because BYD and other chinese makers are locked out.
Semi-solid state is coming for Tesla's lunch.
"Tesla has image problem." You mean the multiple nazi salutes? The "don't apologize to your past" to the AfD? Being high on something on national television? Unhinged posts on twitter? Kekius Maximus?
EVs are luxury products. You can get 90% of electification with a 50-mile-range PHEV and mitigate the charging infrastructure problem. I have a used Tesla and a PHEV, and if my PHEV only had 50 instead of the paltry 20 mile range, 100% of my daily trips would be fully electrified.
As for further examples of Musk's incompetence, there should be three different badges: Tesla, an ultra-high luxury brand that focuses on traditional cabin comfort, and a low end mass brand. They should have a minivan, station wagon, an actual large SUV, a subcompact city car, a real pickup truck, a work van, and where is the goddamn semi?
Tesla should have bought a struggling auto company for manufacturing, design, and suppliers, and used that for the low-end badge and for PHEVs. Nissan would have been perfect I would think.
Tesla should at this point have joint ventures with huge numbers of electrification avenues: construction equipment, prosumer lawn mowers, "side by sides", golf carts, ATVs, jet skis, boats, if it has an ICE motor, Tesla should be expanding into it with a good name brand.
Of course Tesla solar is moribund, the solar roof is nowhere.
And if anyone claims again that grid storage will deliver some massive sales to Tesla: any success is temporary. Grid will be won by sodium ion and other grid-specific storage chemistries that cylindrical cell manufacture won't be able to compete with.
And yet another point: Tesla's cylindrical cells were an advantage ... five years ago. It's not anymore. Sodium Ion, LFP, semi-solid state, sulfur chems, all will probably be pouch. Cylindrical is basically legacy manufacturing tech.
Musk's cozying up and inevitable fallout with Trump definitely put the EV credits in crosshairs. Probably wouldn't have survived the era of insanity, but that gravy train (1/3 of tesla's profits ... at least) is over.
Finally, let's not forget the total disaster that the dry-cathode 4680 battery cell is. Basically still vaporware, and the Chinese manufacturers have better tech already in manufacture.
AND YET, I'm sure the stock will go up based on the bad news.
[flagged]
Manufacturing is about cash flow
If they were not hurting super bad, they would have a factory tooling up for Roadster2
I assume the cyberflop is the missing revenue they needed to keep the flywheel going
With more competition I'm not sure they have the room to do things different enough to really stand out like they used to.
Tesla had a whole "this is the future" thing going on for a while and now it's the past and I'm not sure there's a lot of future to sell in that space anymore, or at least not by them.
This is very true.
Tesla sales growth was already slowing day significantly before Musk showed who he really is to the wider public. There was no way they were hitting their announced target - they were supposedly going to do +50% each year until 2030, and end up selling 20M cars / year. They dropped this prediction in 2024, before 'political issues'...
[flagged]
Not trying to justify or excuse any of that, just wanted to focus on the anemic model lineup problem which is piled on top of Tesla’s other problems.
No reason to focus on politics - if it wasn't elon musk nobody would care cared that it was two pathetic attempts at it, you start at 90 degree angle from your heart, not flat on your chest.
The whole EV market is growing and everyone is racing to buy one before incentives run out. The article is framed as a hit piece and even has political statements in it. But here is an exact quote from the article:
"Sales of new EVs jumped more than 24% month over month in July to 128,268, according to the Cox data, driven by the looming end of a $7,500 tax credit for EVs and attractive deals. Tesla saw sales rise 7% to 53,816, even as its market share fell."
If EVs in general rose 24% due to rushing to get in before the tax credit ends but Tesla—the largest seller—only saw a 7% bump, isn't that a failure? #2 GM had a 10+% bump. Ford had a 19%. Hyundai, Honda, Kia, and Toyota all rose 60+%. Volkswagen rose over 450%. Sure it's fine in a bubble, but they are doing worse than most other car makers.
No, because Tesla has a much higher baseline
I mean, they sold 3,500 more cars out of the market's 27,400 bump. GM sold 2,000 more; Ford sold 2,400 more. Even in absolute terms, they're not exactly dominant. They're not dying currently, but they're never going to be more than just another car maker.
Low baseline, more to gain.
Another POV is the measurement is meaningless, and the market seems to agree.
The auto industry is a good bet as long as you think Americans of means gravitate towards a car lifestyle, which is almost certainly true.
Tesla's revenue has been flat 3 years now. There are up and downs but it's stagnated over long term.
2022-Q3 $21.5B revenue
2025-Q2 $22.5b revenueYou can only cut costs so much before you're selling the equivalent of a $50k geo metro.
When they removed the center horn and the stalks from their cars, they officially jumped the shark. But I bet they saved at least $50 per car from their costs. I still can't believe the NHTSA hasn't issued a recall.
My new Y still has a horn and stock? And while everyone wishes their car was cheaper it was a lot nicer than a mustang Mach e, despite being cheaper
> it was a lot nicer than a mustang Mach e
Having owned both, I’m not even sure where to begin with how laughably inaccurate that is. We can start at functioning automatic wipers, 360 degree cameras, parking assist that actually works, a knob to control stereo volume, accurate marketing numbers for range, a dealership network that actually will fix the issue, insurance that isn’t insane, headlight brights that actually dim at an appropriate distance for oncoming traffic, cruise control that doesn’t phantom brake (slam on the brakes for no reason) traveling down the highway…
Need I continue? Because I can.
> parking assist that actually works
Are you sure you owned both? You're sort of exposing yourself as never having owned a Tesla at all (at least not a new one). I've never experienced phantom braking in my Y (although I have in a ford escort), and the headlight dimming is pretty good (again in the new model Y, unsure about an old one).
Niceness is subjective, so I suppose it's inappropriate to declare it as nicer, but it is a premium car. The materials and experience are much nicer than, say, a Camry, and is on par with vehicles in its class if not better.
A base Model Y costs $18,000 more than a base Camry when the price is not being artificially lowered by the government. Different price range entirely.
Correct. That’s why the Model Y is in a different class than a Camry. The Camry is my example of a modern geo metro
I loved driving my 3 cylinder convertible geo metro! It was the 'sport' version so you could actually hit 60 if you held the peddle down long enough but it rode like it was on rails because of how light it was!
I get your broader point; comparison to a Geo Metro is a bit much.
Yeah, at least the Geo Metro had an easy to use horn, turn signal stalks, and reliably functional wipers.
And turns out that a small torquey engine in a car with very little mass is actually pretty fun to drive! Even if you’d prefer not to be seen doing it.
Also has an instrument panel the driver can easily see.
I’ve driven a Model 3 and its handling and overall feel was worse than a barebones Honda Civic. I’d say a Model 3 is on par with how a low end Chrysler feels to drive.
I daily drive a Model 3 and when I rented a Honda Civic for a trip I thought it was broken with how long it took to get any speed. You're trolling regarding the Chrysler comment lol
Why are you staring at your instrument panel and not the road? The speed is just a glance at the top corner as you should be focused on driving ;)
After driving car with HUD the Tesla's approach is laughable. Especially when you need to maintain different speed limits in the city.
Reminds me cheap Peugeot 107 where tachometer is an extra option.
Wait, how do you honk on a Tesla?
There’s a capacitive button on the newer steering wheels.
Let me guess, you can pay a premium for the “old” style wheel and stalk?
No, the horn is in the middle, the capacitive horn only steering wheel existed on early builds of the model S refresh (when plaid was first released), but after ~6 months they added the normal horn back.
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-DEB259C...
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-DEB259C...
And for anyone with an S who wanted to not have that garbage? A $2k “upgrade” - only Tesla.
The X has a capacitive horn.
And whats the real growth when controlled for inflation (price increases)?
"even has political statements in it" is a wild take. It would be journalistic malpractice to not mention the political context.
If your CEO bribes voters to help elect a traitorous pedophile and then personally (and illegally) cuts aid funding directly causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and all of that hurts business, that's something you have to include for context! That's some crazy stuff!
Not to mention promoting full-on white nationalism on Twitter: https://bsky.app/profile/harikunzru.bsky.social/post/3lxrqzm...
Why are you calling this a hit piece? It's literally talking about falling market share in the title, which is absolutely accurate. Even the quote you tried to use as evidence of the hit piece says as much: "Sales rise, even as market share falls".
Wonder if the end of the subsidies against a 7% increase is sales, potentially due to end of subsidies is a canary?
You mean like the thing where Telsa magically sold a not-really-logical number of vehicles in Canada when subsidies were running out there?
If you follow up on the story, Tesla was cleared of all wrong doing after an investigation. Tesla did sell that number of vehicles, they just were very behind on filing for the incentives, but still within the program guidelines. Once the government announced that the incentives were running low, they filed all of their backlog at once.
I love to hate on Elon as much as the next person, but everything was above board.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/canada-clears-tesla-in-izev...
I think there's something else going on there, although yes, that was the statement.
> Tesla’s head of sales for Canada, emphasized in a March 28 letter that the filings followed program guidelines, which allowed post-delivery submissions despite recommendations for pre-delivery assessments.
but this alludes to something more:
> Despite the clearance, Tesla will still be excluded from future iZEV programs
Huh. Why, I wonder?
If you read the rest of the sentence you removed the second quote from you will see why.
It isn't a mystery, the PM of Canada and several premiers have openly stated that Tesla isn't going to be eligible because Musk is Musk, and Tesla is American.
Why would Tesla have a Head of Sales in a Fake Country (TM)?
Battery prices have dropped so much over the past ten years. So I don’t understand why they can’t make a cheaper vehicle.
At some point EVs should be way cheaper than ICE vehicles.
People are tripping over each other to pay $60k for suvs and trucks. There’s no incentive for smaller or cheaper cars as long as people are happy paying current premium prices.
Ford maverick has waitlists. Small and around 30k
Which is 50% more expensive than what Ford initially promised it to be in 2022, but they stopped taking orders because they couldn't (or didn't want to) actually deliver on their promises
These days often on ridiculous 108 month notes. Oof. Paying $95,000 for a $70,000 truck that depreciates to $50,000 the moment you drive it off the lot and worth maybe $10K at loan maturity?
Thats already happened in China. And when you think about it, it was inevitable after battery production was figured out and scaled up, and new battery chemistries will keep either allowing for more utility or for pushing price points down. ICEs simply won’t be seen as economical by 2035.
There are many cheap EV globally. In Germany new Dacia Spring starts from €16k.
The thing is almost no one wants to buy small cheap car in US. Expensive SUV - yes, but not small car. Especially not electric.
The US has had high tariffs on Chinese cars for a long time though. After tariffs, that car would be more expensive in the US than a Tesla Model 3.
Also, it likely doesn't meet US crash standards without modifications. And it really would not keep up with traffic on the highways here.
Funny Dacia Spring EV could meet strict EU standards and keep up with traffic on the German Autobahn but you think it's not good for USA.
Btw, it's actually Tesla cannot meet strict rules: cybertrack is not street legal in EU.
There's no need for a pissing contest here. Neither the US nor the EU has a "stricter" set of vehicle safety standards than the other. They simply have different standards.
Sometimes the differences are very minor. Sometimes it's a matter of requiring different standard equipment. Different markets around the world take different regulatory approaches in requiring active safety features versus passive safety features. Some markets focus on the safety of the occupants within the vehicle, other markets balance that safety with other road users or people outside of the vehicle. The EU tests what happens when a vehicle hits a pedestrian but the US doesn't. The US tests what happens when somebody's not wearing their seatbelt, but the EU doesn't. The EU and US crash test vehicles into different objects at different speeds and in different directions. Saying that one system is "more strict" than the other is really a gross oversimplification of the global vehicle regulatory landscape.
Heck, sometimes European manufacturers have to remove safety features from an equivalent EU-market vehicle to meet US safety standards. (e.g. Audi matrix headlights) So, just because something doesn't meet US standards doesn't mean I'm calling it bad.
Although I'm not so sure in this case... the Dacia Spring EV has a one-star Euro NCAP rating. So even the EU thinks it kind of sucks. And if you look at where it struggled, you'll see it lacked in occupant protection specifically. Which is probably not good for it being imported into the US, because US standards for occupant protection are generally more difficult to meet.
And does it really keep up with Autobahn traffic? I'm guessing it probably does fine in urban areas. But even the higher trim takes 14 seconds to get to 62mph. This is about 40% slower than the slowest car currently sold in the US. This would not be received well in the US market -- the average vehicle sold here is twice this quick. Also the top speed is 78 mph. This is slower than maximum posted highway speeds in 20% of US states. And prevailing speeds on many non-urban highways in the US are 80+.
That's not to say these are dealbreakers in usability. But nobody's gonna pay 100% tariff to import one, when you could get way better vehicle for sub ~$37,000.
>>> And prevailing speeds on many non-urban highways in the US are 80+.
I'm curious how such traffic can handle trucks at 55mph but cannot handle car with max speed of 78mph.
Nobody said roads couldn’t “handle” vehicles going slower speeds. I said people didn’t want to spend $37k of their own money on a personal car that couldn’t keep up with traffic. People don’t buy semi trucks for grocery getters, do they?
And trucks on US highways often go the speed of prevailing traffic, especially on flat ground.
Musk has said he didn't see a market or need for an affordable car, so any reduction in battery cost is just profit for them
Politics aside, Musk is lying there -- or at least telling some people what they want to hear while behaving differently elsewhere .. politics aside.
Tesla's received favorable attention for it's "claim" they are (were?) working on a $30k car.
And that techno-ideological claim that "all you need for self-driving is a camera" is a cost-savings solution. [ A robotics prof, ( I think at a university in Philadelphia ? ) cites a statistic that camera based navigation will succeed 97% of the time, max. So, 3% failures over all scenarios. ]
Politics aside, Musk is lying there
Musk hasn’t said anything that isn’t a lie since when I could dunk the basket (a loooong while ago)
What he actually thinks is that autonomous vehicles would collapse the car market. That's why he things that.
So literally he killed the affordable 'Model 2' because self driving would destroy 80% of the market and if that was true there wasn't demand.
So he decided to only focus on 'RoboTaxi'.
I feel like this is an error in his thinking.
People really want to own cars. That won’t change even if taxis are ubiquitous and cheap.
I disagree at least in the longer term, I don't think people want to own cars. Generally people are not car people, bike people or train people, most people just react to what makes the most sense.
In the 70s people in the Netherlands they were not 'bike people' but now that's what they look like.
Same in the US, most people are not car obsessed, they have simply been 'brainwashed' into a society where you 'need' a car. And therefore everybody says they want to own a car, because the idea of not having a car or not wanting a car is like hating Apple Pie and the American Way.
If you watch urbanist youtube, you will see the topic discussed, people who live their whole live in the subburbs don't even understand how people without a car get groceries. This is a common question that gets asked.
Yes, some people are 'car' people, just there are people on bikes, even when it is not very save. But that's going to be a small group of people, just as there is now for bikes in dangerous places. In a world where you don't need a car, and its cheaper to not have one, the waste majority of people will not adopt 'car' as a hobby.
That said, even optimistically if 'full self driving' happened, that would take decades. And the 'car' hobby in the US would survive a very long time, 100000000s of millions of garages and parking spot have already been built, millions of people have been educated on car repair and so on and so on. So I think even if full self driving was solved, the culture shit would take a generation.
I live in NZ. Plenty of cheap EVs. Cheapest BYD is about 24k USD. Yet Tesla is still leading by far even when it's about 30% more expensive. https://evdb.nz/sales
This is expected. Tesla enjoyed a more than a decade long position as the leader. Even now it’s a strong pick because of the extensive charging network they built. No other company comes close, and this charging network will reap recurring revenue for them.
However the cars themselves are really shitty. I mean really bad for quality and do not offer any aesthetic value either, they appear very plain and generic at this point. I can see why people are picking other cars. Of course the whole nazi turn of their founder doesn’t help.
NACS is on all the new cars, and most older cars have shipped out adapters if it was made in the past year or two. The network no longer matters.
> Even now it’s a strong pick because of the extensive charging network they built. No other company comes close, and this charging network will reap recurring revenue for them.
Didn't they fire the team behind the charging network a while ago? How has it been since then?
Firing the entire supercharger team doesn't help with the increased demand.
My brother-in-law, who has worked for both Tesla and Rivian and owned a 3, a Y, an R1T, is now on his second CT, and is just as unhappy with the second as he was with the first. Creaks, rattles, things feeling flimsy or fragile.
> is now on his second CT, and is just as unhappy with the second as he was with the first.
... Why on earth would one keep buying them?
Good question. He's a Tesla true believer, though he's also soured on Musk a bit.
Yeah absolutely trash cars. They milked the customer for a long time with that crap. About time things changed
“Tesla sales rose 7% even as market share fell”.
So they’re still selling more cars, but there’s hotter EV competition.
I thought that was the goal.
It's complicated. Tesla sales rose 7% in July, month-over-month, but the expiration of subsidies hangs over the whole thing. This factor caused total EV sales in the US to jump 24%, month-over-month, as a whole bunch of sales got pulled from future quarters to the present. But because of the expiration of subsidies, those sales that got pulled ahead into July will probably not be there in September or October. This is why outside analysts expect that for 2025 as a whole, Tesla car sales numbers will decline versus 2024 as a whole. 2024 for Tesla as a whole, incidentally, was a 1.1% sales decrease over 2023. Two consecutive years of sales decline is a big warning sign, especially for a company that is considered a growth stock.
I agree , but I still feel picking and choosing indicators is misleading. A story includes many observations . You did a better job
> > I thought that was the goal.
It was the goal to say it out loud to the press and on twitter to gain sympathy and stand tall on the moral high ground.
No i mean the goal that private companies and public policy makers are aligned to expand EV market share. Billions (almost trillions) are being blown to make that happen.
I thought the goal was to give Musk 50bln before bankrupting the company.
The article is referring to EV market share, which is a useless metric. The whole point of Tesla opening their patents and their chargers was to encourage more companies to make EV's, which would necessarily imply a drop in Tesla's EV market share.
The metric that I would like to see is Tesla's market share of the auto market in general (regardless of fuel type).
I like the new Model 3 and Model Y. It is unfortunate that they didn't do a facelift for the Model S and X. I know they've updated the motors and batteries and interior, but unless you look closely the Model X looks pretty much the same as it did in 2016.
There is a lot of discussion of the brand being hurt, but I will say that personally I just don't want a new car period and Tesla specifically in large part because of privacy concerns. My understanding it that Tesla is one of the worst offenders in a group of massively offensive (to privacy) options. Are there actually privacy preserving options left in the market at all and in the EV market specifically? If Tesla promised, and delivered, privacy (actually didn't track) it would go a long way to rehabilitating them as a brand in my eyes. It probably wouldn't be enough, but I would at least look at them again.
The Slate truck might be the only one to have less digital tracking just due to how they are skipping so many electronic bells and whistles to keep costs in the $20k range.
The HN crowd does not reflect the majority of Americans, who simply do not care about "privacy", and are far more interested in whether their car has CarPlay or Android Auto - which Teslas don't.
So if you don’t look at the Cybertruck, which basically can’t be sold outside North America, they haven’t had a new vehicle in 5 years.
If you look at the existing vehicles:
- they no longer sell Model S and X in Europe and right hand markets
- Model S has had one external visual change since it was introduced, Model X has never had one
- the refreshed Model 3 and Y don’t really have any battery or charging improvements, last time they updated those was 8 years ago
- no V2L like others
- no increased battery capacity
- no 800V on anything outside CT
- Tesla’s charging curves compared to others are laughable
- no increased creature comforts, eg massaging seats, screens for passenger, air suspension, automated frunk, 360 view, etc
- no FSD worldwide
- Autopilot hasn’t seen an update in years
- park assist is horrible compared to USS
The market has really caught up and in a lot of places outpaced Tesla - Rivian, Audi, Polestar, Volvo, Hyundai, KIA have better products
I have to agree with most of the points here (I own a Tesla Model 3). The only point where in my view they're still far ahead is infotainment: seamless experience, regular upgrades, very good security, new features every now and then. Hardware-wise the competitors caught up.
I'll add: they don't have a city/compact car (Euro A/B/C segment), their "smallest" offer starts at the D-segment Model 3, which is a big car by EU standards. I know that for US standards these look small, but for the rest of the world they represent huge chunk of cars. People don't need a Model 3 for daily driving, they need the equivalent of a Volkswagen Golf, with ~400km real range.
If instead of the CT they had released an 800V, V2L+V2G, 48V B/C-segment car, they'd have grabbed most of the market. The CT was a very expensive (and stupid in some places - exterior in non-painted steel) experiment in new tech, architecture and steer by wire that had 0 follow up so far.
Sounds like they are all in on Robotaxi huh ;)
Do you mean Robotaxi or Cybercab?
Robotaxi is just Model Ys that have a FSD version that they let on to some cities. It’s again something that’ll never make it outside the US, even though the market there is big enough for it to be sustainable.
Cybercab is never coming out. It doesn’t make sense for it to exist and be sold to people.
200 mile range 2 seater? It mostly makes sense as a literal cab and if it’s going to be profitable for whoever buys it and lets it be a Robotaxi, there’s no point for Tesla to sell it, as they can just be the ones that take in that profit on every vehicle.
Cars tend to be more akin to fashion than consumer electronics. People care about how it looks, interior (eg cup holders) or what brand it is. Tesla is behind here as the traditional car companies have more experience in this.
Additionally, Tesla has not materially lowered their prices or spent a lot on marketing.
Cybertruck was such a stupid investment from Tesla. seams like everybody kowtowed, somebody should have told him its a dumb idea.
Way over here in tiny little Sweden, I've multiple times seen Teslas with custom stickers saying "I got this before Elon went crazy" or something similar on the trunk.
The situation might be different here though since there has been a rather long-running and high-profile conflict between Tesla and the unions, on top of all the other madness.
The stock on the other hand…
Less than 10% of Tesla's value is in existing business. Tesla's revenue hasn't grown in three years
1. Car company (true)
2. energy company (eh)
3. robotaxi (next year since 2018)
4. robots ...
Tesla’s product is the stock.
Goddamn snake is eating itself again
Meme stock.
> Google, Amazon Robotics/Kiva, Hyundai/Boston Dynamics, even Nvidia are ahead of Tesla in AI+robotics.
Optimus seems to be much closer to actually being released as a product than Atlas. After over a decade, Boston Dynamics still hasn't shown anyone a live, unscripted demo of Atlas as far as I can tell (Tesla was showing those with multiple Optimus robots a year ago). And they don't appear to have any plans for actually selling it as a product anytime soon.
I'm skeptical of the humanoid robot market in general, but at the moment Tesla and Unitree appear to be the two companies ate the forefront of it.
What? One of Tesla's more recent demos of Optimus literally had a handler with a remote control "driving" it.
This is a non-sequitur. The Optimus demonstrations so far have been partially controlled (though the degree to which they were appears to be overstated). This doesn't change the fact that they've done public demonstrations with the robots while Boston Dynamics hasn't.
It's not a non-sequitur, because if the "partial control" of the robot is significant enough, it's no longer a robot.
This isn't true at all? Robots can be controlled externally, either fully or partially. ASIMO didn't stop being a robot because it was under external control for demonstrations (from what I can tell, much more external control than the Tesla robots).
I disagree, but regardless of what you call it, no one is interested in buying a super expensive remote control human analogue from Tesla.
PE of 200 and the 6 month chart looks like a cardiogram. It is a very profitable plaything for the pump and dumpers. Elon included.
The Tesla stock evaluation has little to do with what Tesla is delivering today and a lot more with what investors imagine they will be able to do in the future.
Based on their history I'm pretty optimistic that those expectations will not be met, but Tesla somehow still rises in value.
Every time I think about shorting Tesla stock, I remember the adage:
The market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent.
Every time I see people betting against Musk, I remember the adage:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results
It's the original meme stock.
Because Elon pulls off certain manoeuvres that feeds right into his "just trust me bro" supporters.
Yes. A lot of people, and obviously some "news" reporters, need to learn the difference between market share and stock price. And that as a market grows one company cannot maintain the same market share as competitors join in over time.
"Tesla is on track toward a second year of sales decline." - from the article
Consecutive years of sales declines is a situation where it does not matter if the market is growing or shrinking, it's bad for a company. The only way to grow if absolute sales go down is to raise margins on each individual unit.
"But with weakening sales and a host of competitors, Tesla has had to cut prices in recent years, squeezing its margins and worrying investors."
Hmmmm, I guess maybe the author of the article understands this better than you think?
> as a market grows one company cannot maintain the same market share as competitors join in over time.
Why not? Look at Apple's smartphone market share in the US. It's been fairly constant at 60% for the last 15 years.
I would say the smartphone market would be more stable in terms of market share by its nature. The only way that it would shift significantly is if there were a mass exodus of users from one platform to the other. But the vast majority of people are perfectly happy staying with whatever they have. Likewise, many new smartphone users who aren't locked into a platform yet get locked into whatever platform people around them are using.
In the vehicle market, there's a lot more competition space than just two or three brands. And just because someone is around, say, Ford drivers. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go out and buy a Ford for themselves. Rather, they're going to buy whatever they find appealing.
Taken to the extreme for example, say Apple had 100% of the market. If a competitor entered the market and gained 1% share,then Apple's market share will have decreased.
In Tesla's case, a number of competitors have entered the market. It would be impossible to maintain whatever market share they had no matter how good the product is or how well their stock price is doing.
Technically, I respect what Tesla has achieved, especially in terms of progress with autonomous driving. But honestly, every time I come across another report of a safety incident, it makes me hesitate. Even if it's a statistical issue, when it happens to you, it's 100%.
Text-only, no Datadome Javascript:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1M6lm4...
Is it because the creepy breeding kink, drug addict CEO playing a neo nazi edgelord who supports far-right extremist parties all over the world? Or is it the noncompetitive products that were oversold for decades? FSD scam? Humanoid robot scam? Cyberanything fail?
pretty sure they pivoted to robots anyhow.
Man I should have shorted Tesla stock, but when these bubble pop is hard to predict
I wanted to short the stock 8 years ago and boy was I wrong!
Very very risky (I'm still doing it though). Some very skilled short sellers lost a ton of money on Tesla - for example Jim Chanos - a guy who predicted the fall of Enron and shorted quite a lot of stocks that turned out trash - Beyond Meat, Wirecard, Hertz.
But he closed his fund late 2023, in big part because of his short position on Tesla. He's still a very vocal advocate of Teslaq. Feel really bad for the guy - Tesla will end up crashing, but it will take way way longer that anybody could anticipated.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
TSLQ
Note that you would have lost 91% of your money over the last year with this. Gambling on the precise timing of a stock crash is really hard to make profitable.
Plus buying an inverse ETF has higher fees than actually shorting it and you can't make a pair trade or earn interest on the money.
Ugh, it's just a FUD article. I was all set to watch the stock crash and buy as much as possible but this wont move it.
[flagged]
[flagged]
As usual, articles against Tesla miss the picture. Of course their share would drop as other auto makers ramp up EV efforts. People here calling Tesla cars boring and bad are missing the point.
Company value is dependent on expected future profit/revenue/etc. not market share per se.
If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
While the U.S. market share has declined, Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017 to over $97 billion in 2024, though it saw a slight decline in revenue for the 12 months ending June 30, 2025.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/revenue
> If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up, and Tesla was going to be doing laps around the competition with all of their additional business lines that grew out of their class-leading EV business.
If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
> Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017
2017 was forever ago in technology and economic terms. The most important problem right now is that their revenue isn’t growing while everyone else is getting better at EVs.
> The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up
This story never made sense. They sold about 1.8 million cars in 2024 (and also in 2023), VAG sold 9 million. Tesla is no where close to winning the car market. Until recently, Ford regularly sold more F-Series than Tesla sold cars.
Sure, for quite some time, Tesla was selling a lot more EVs than anyone else. But, building EVs is supposed to be easier than building ICE cars, and some of the old guard auto manufacturers have been building cars for hundreds of years... Once they decide to build EVs and figure out the logistics of batteries, they're going to have no trouble building EVs or selling them, and then Tesla is left with the moat of the Musk Reality Distortion Field which seems to be weaker now than ever.
When nobody else was making competent EVs, Telsa's market value was clear. Now, I don't know. There are so many to choose from, but what does a Tesla give you that some other EV doesn't?
> If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
Long-term growth is pinned on success in AI, robotics, robotaxis, and autonomous services.
Most of the issue is that their competitors are selling at a big loss. Ford admitted so recently and are starting to make fewer cars. Rivian and lucid are also hemmoraging money.
Without the tax credit these companies may cease to exist or stop making evs in the case of Ford.
It's likely they will have fewer competitors soon
As the link you provided shows Tesla's revenues have been flat almost 3 years now.
> As the link you provided shows Tesla's revenues have been flat almost 3 years now.
2024: $97.69 B, i.e. +0.95% vs. 2023
2023: $96.77 B, i.e. +18.8% vs. 2022
2022: $81.46 B, i.e. +51.35% vs. 2021
So flat for 1 year (going into 2024) and we don't yet know 2025 numbers, which is less pessimistic than your "almost 3 years flat".
2025 is half done, and Tesla is down about $3B/quarter compared to last year already. If that trend keeps up, then 2025 will come in around $85B or so. (Although analyst expectations seem to be that Q3 and Q4 will jump back to 2024 levels, which... really defies all the available evidence.)
Anything happen in 2022?
If you adjust for inflation, the 2022-2023 rise is going to look fairly anaemic (and 23-24 is a drop, of course).
Trailing 3 years meaning last 12 quaters (3×4)
2022-Q3 $21.5B revenue
2025-Q2 $22.5b revenueMarketshare is how revenue is determined. If the market as whole grows but Tesla's share of it does not at least stay static, it means it is losing revenue.
That's not how revenue is determined. Revenue is determined by, well, revenue.
You can lose market share and increase revenue if the market is growing fast enough.
If you measure market share by units moved (as many markets are measured), you can raise prices and increase revenue despite lower unit sales and lost market share.
If the total sales of a market = 100 and Tesla has 20% share then it has 20 in revenue.
Basic math dude.
There’s such a thing as a top down vs bottom up approach.
You could technically guess it that way, in an incredibly simplified market if you didn’t have the actual number available to you. The car market isn’t incredibly simplified, and we do have the revenue number.
The numbers cited in the article are units sold. Tesla has 38% of 128k cars sold. Now tell me what the Tesla revenue was using your method?
See why serious people just look at what revenue was to determine what revenue was? It’s not a “bottom up” approach, it’s a “look at that reported and audited number and tell me what it is” approach.
Did you figure out what the revenue is yet, I'm super curious about how close the "top down" approach is going to be to reality. Don't forget that Tesla has revenue from non car products!
> If the total sales of a market = 100 and Tesla has 20% share then it has 20 in revenue.
Okay. And if the total sales of a market = 1000 and Tesla has 10% share then it has 100 in revenue. That's how percentages work.
Losing market share as a percentage is expected in a growing market as new players enter.