3 ms·

> And now apparently even paying $100,000 will not be enough to give full ownership rights to a car. I think that's a good thing because it allows Tesla to rec

by MarkMc 10y ago

> And now apparently even paying $100,000 will not be enough to give full ownership rights to a car. I think that's a good thing because it allows Tesla to receive an income that is closer to the value they have created. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to watch at home is about $15. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to play in a movie theatre is much higher. It's great that the movie studio can place restrictions on how you use the Blu-ray because it means the studio receives an income closer to the total value they have created. If there were no such restrictions the movie industry would be smaller and would make fewer movies. The value of an autonomous Tesla car bought for private use is about $60,000. The value of an autonomous Tesla car bought for ride-sharing is much higher. It's great that Tesla can place restrictions on how you use the car because it means they receive an income closer to the total value they have created. If there were no such restrictions the car industry would be smaller and would make fewer autonomous cars. If you feel it's wrong to place restrictions on the use of a Blu-ray, what is the benefit that outweighs having a smaller movie industry and fewer movies available to consumers? If you feel it's OK to place restrictions on the use of a Blu-ray but not on an autonomous Tesla, what's the difference?

imgabe 10y ago
By your logic car companies should have been charging more for cars used as taxis or other commercial purposes all along. The value of a Ford Crown Vic used by the police to stop a bank robbery is clearly higher than value of a Ford Crown Vic used to drive an 80-year-old between the retirement home and the golf course, right? Oh, except that value was created by the person using the car not the car itself, which just sits there until someone does something. That person does all the work and assumes all the risk, so why should Ford be rewarded for their effort? Do you want to go to Home Depot and pay different prices for nails based on the value of the building you're going to build with them? This rabbit hole goes a long way down.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  Well I'm still in favour of competition, so if Ford tries to charge the police more for using their cars the police are free to switch to Toyotas. Same for taxi and courier companies. And so the general rule commodity products would be that the price would not rise much above the cost of production. But if Ford was to develop something better than any other car company - say, a car with the greatest acceleration - I would like them to be able to charge different price depending on whether the purchaser is the police force or a car racing team. Nails are very much a commodity product, so once again competition would prohibit the supplier from charging much more than the cost of production. But let's say that a chemical company developed a superior adhesive such that a carpenter could save an hour on some types of construction jobs. The value of a carpenter's time is much more in the United States than in Indonesia, so I would like the chemical company to be able to charge much more for the same adhesive in the US compared to Indonesia.
pjc50 10y ago
closer to the value they have created This isn't really how free markets work, though; either it's a competitive market in which the profit margin tends to zero, or (especially for SV unicorns) it's a monopoly or market-dominating company that gets to charge monopoly prices. The market valuation for Uber isn't based on today's profits, it's the expected value of a string of future profits which can only be realised without strong competition. Likewise Tesla. Only one of them can win. (The argument that DRM on blu-rays enlarge the movie industry really needs substantiating and accounting for the increased cost of blu-rays and players. This is separate from the copyright rules on public performance of recordings.)

by MarkMc 10y ago

imgabe 10y ago

By your logic car companies should have been charging more for cars used as taxis or other commercial purposes all along. The value of a Ford Crown Vic used by the police to stop a bank robbery is clearly higher than value of a Ford Crown Vic used to drive an 80-year-old between the retirement home and the golf course, right? Oh, except that value was created by the person using the car not the car itself, which just sits there until someone does something. That person does all the work and assumes all the risk, so why should Ford be rewarded for their effort? Do you want to go to Home Depot and pay different prices for nails based on the value of the building you're going to build with them? This rabbit hole goes a long way down.

MarkMc 10y ago
Well I'm still in favour of competition, so if Ford tries to charge the police more for using their cars the police are free to switch to Toyotas. Same for taxi and courier companies. And so the general rule commodity products would be that the price would not rise much above the cost of production. But if Ford was to develop something better than any other car company - say, a car with the greatest acceleration - I would like them to be able to charge different price depending on whether the purchaser is the police force or a car racing team. Nails are very much a commodity product, so once again competition would prohibit the supplier from charging much more than the cost of production. But let's say that a chemical company developed a superior adhesive such that a carpenter could save an hour on some types of construction jobs. The value of a carpenter's time is much more in the United States than in Indonesia, so I would like the chemical company to be able to charge much more for the same adhesive in the US compared to Indonesia.

pjc50 10y ago

closer to the value they have created This isn't really how free markets work, though; either it's a competitive market in which the profit margin tends to zero, or (especially for SV unicorns) it's a monopoly or market-dominating company that gets to charge monopoly prices. The market valuation for Uber isn't based on today's profits, it's the expected value of a string of future profits which can only be realised without strong competition. Likewise Tesla. Only one of them can win. (The argument that DRM on blu-rays enlarge the movie industry really needs substantiating and accounting for the increased cost of blu-rays and players. This is separate from the copyright rules on public performance of recordings.)