6 ms·

The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context. I'm not sure why you're so upset. 'Whether Tesla survives or not, these billions are some of the best

The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context. I'm not sure why you're so upset. 'Whether Tesla survives or not, these billions are some of the best spent money on the planet in the last 50 years. What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. What Tesla has achieved is so important in the long run for the environment, for ending the strategic dependence on oil dictatorships, and for renewing the belief in technology. And the cars are really nice too. Speculating, as some do, that the EV revolution would end with a Tesla bankruptcy is silly, not just because Google and Apple (and probably other companies) would be more than happy to take over before or after a bankruptcy, but also because consumers and the the auto industry have now been shown where to go. None of us can unlearn what Tesla has taught us. There is no way back now. Tesla has already won.'

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> I'm not sure why you're so upset. I'm not. But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters. > The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context. The context makes it even worse. "None of us can unlearn what Tesla has taught us. There is no way back now. Tesla has already won.'" I can't believe you think that the "context" makes it any less cultish. The comment is almost messianic.
- tpolischuk 9y ago
  Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable? Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    > Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable? From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?" $5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable". > Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla? Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA. What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it. Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. " to be upvoted on HN. Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.
    - tpolischuk 9y ago
      So? Why does this bother you? Why can't people be fans of a person, company or product?
      - ckastner 9y ago
        The grandparent's argument wasn't against fans, it was against cults.
        tpolischuk 9y ago
        Ya well calling it a cult is a pretty extreme exaggeration.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      > Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA. Go watch "Who killed the electric car", then you'll understand what a travesty the EV1 was. Electric cars have always been compliance cars before Tesla. Heck, Bob Lutz credits Elon Musk with why they build the Volt.
    - zamalek 9y ago
      Tesla is polarizing and, as always, both camps are making equally absurd statements: > $5-10B Losses $5-10B expenditure. Which has not yet been shown to be a profitable decision, but unless the product flops it's not a loss either. $5-10B is merely a number that we're uncomfortable with - it is likely a necessary number because Tesla is now racing to grow in the EV market before bigger players (BMW, Toyota, etc.) enter it.
  - blang 9y ago
    Isn't the parent's point that they are not profitable?
    - tpolischuk 9y ago
      Sure, maybe for Tesla, (and other similar growth at all cost technology companies) it it's not immediately profitable. Let's check back in 10 years and see if this makes Tesla and their investors any money.
      - ckastner 9y ago
        By that logic, any company not yet bankrupt could be called profitable. Profit is a reflection of past performance, not future potential.
        jblow 9y ago
        By this metric just about every single new business is a failure, including 100% of YC startups. At that point is it a useful distinction to draw?
        ckastner 9y ago
        Your conclusion is wrong. A profit is a realized financial gain. In a given period, income surpassed expenses. A business failure is a business that has failed, it has ended. A lack of profit can lead to failure, but in no way implies it.
      - mhermher 9y ago
        That doesn't jive with your original argument. So GM made the Bolt because Tesla proved (??) that they "would be profitable in 10 years"? That is what your argument amounts to.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    "Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?" No, they didn't. Nobody doubted they were viable or profitable, only desired. If TSLA accomplished anything, it was convincing people they are desired. That demand definitely did not exist before TSLA. Your comment implies all these things were already the case. That electric was "always inveitable", and tesla just proved it. That's, IMHO, quite wrong. as is this: "Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?" You understand, for example, the bolt started design in 2012, right? IE At the same time the model S did. Others in your list are similar. It's like saying success of the iPhone caused Google to release Android. I'm with the OP, every single one of these threads seems some combination of cultish love for tesla and messianic adoration of elon. As a complete outside observer, the distinct impression i get is of people who always loved electric cars, etc, who felt like the rest of the world was "wrong" about something, thinking they have now been proved "right" about something. The only practical difference between TSLA and the other auto makers I see is that the others by and large followed demand (IE they wait for people to want a thing, then build that), and TSLA was able to create some demand. That's awesome and a testament to great PR/etc. But it's pretty also pretty normal successful startup behavior,and may or may not be related to any of the "moral goodness" people see in electric vehicles.
    - AlaskaBuilding 9y ago
      You already got downvoted, but your info is pretty wrong. Let me clarify one thing. Tesla delivered the model s in 2012. I know because I got one in December then. I don't know when the bolt was designed, but starting in 2012 sounds about right. The Tesla was available for getting in line in 2011 and a little before (cause I put my money down to get in line in early 2011), but delivered in 2012. Other manuf. were not taking it as seriously as Tesla way back then. They already had experience with the roadster being on the road before then.
  - deelowe 9y ago
    Toyota may have had a part in that... The stage was set before TSLA was a household stock symbol.
  - galkk 9y ago
    If any, I think it was baby steps made by Toyota Prius. Original poster specifically pointed that profitable part of your answer isn't there for Tesla, in reality.
  - mhermher 9y ago
    The Bolt, etc. exist because of federal subsidies mostly, not because of some billion-dollar-losing company showing that the idea is viable.
- mason240 9y ago
  >But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters. Losing an argument? Better accuse the other side of being paid shills.
whatok 9y ago
Putting Tesla anywhere near a list of factors for "ending strategic dependence on oil dictatorships" is pure hyperbole at best.
- tpolischuk 9y ago
  Maybe, but what about what Musk has done as a whole? If he can drive home-battery adoption, solar, and electric vehicles, and create markets where companies like GM, Ford, and the Euro manufacturers have to chase the new market, that has to make a huge impact. Obviously it's not going to completely remove our dependence (mainly plastics and shipping) but it will absolutely hit the bottom line of the most oppressive regimes funded by oil (Saudi Arabia). Also this will help us you know stop destroying entire mountain ranges and the largest CO2 sinks in North America for tar sands mining (Boreal Forest).
  - orclev 9y ago
    On the plastics front, just look at the news from earlier this week of Lego working to replace all of the plastics used in their toys with bio-plastics (or other non-oil based polymers). A few more efforts like that and plastics won't be anywhere near the driver of oil consumption they are now. That doesn't address shipping (which is horrendously polluting), but if that's the last one standing that's still a massive improvement.
    - dotancohen 9y ago
      Commercial aviation as well will never be electric. It would require two orders of magnitude energy to weight density, and quadruple flight times.
      - tpolischuk 9y ago
        People also thought we would never get man into space :)
        9y ago

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago

> I'm not sure why you're so upset. I'm not. But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters. > The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context. The context makes it even worse. "None of us can unlearn what Tesla has taught us. There is no way back now. Tesla has already won.'" I can't believe you think that the "context" makes it any less cultish. The comment is almost messianic.

tpolischuk 9y ago
Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable? Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable? From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?" $5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable". > Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla? Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA. What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it. Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. " to be upvoted on HN. Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.
  - tpolischuk 9y ago
    So? Why does this bother you? Why can't people be fans of a person, company or product?
    - ckastner 9y ago
      The grandparent's argument wasn't against fans, it was against cults.
      - tpolischuk 9y ago
        Ya well calling it a cult is a pretty extreme exaggeration.
  - vvanders 9y ago
    > Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA. Go watch "Who killed the electric car", then you'll understand what a travesty the EV1 was. Electric cars have always been compliance cars before Tesla. Heck, Bob Lutz credits Elon Musk with why they build the Volt.
  - zamalek 9y ago
    Tesla is polarizing and, as always, both camps are making equally absurd statements: > $5-10B Losses $5-10B expenditure. Which has not yet been shown to be a profitable decision, but unless the product flops it's not a loss either. $5-10B is merely a number that we're uncomfortable with - it is likely a necessary number because Tesla is now racing to grow in the EV market before bigger players (BMW, Toyota, etc.) enter it.
- blang 9y ago
  Isn't the parent's point that they are not profitable?
  - tpolischuk 9y ago
    Sure, maybe for Tesla, (and other similar growth at all cost technology companies) it it's not immediately profitable. Let's check back in 10 years and see if this makes Tesla and their investors any money.
    - ckastner 9y ago
      By that logic, any company not yet bankrupt could be called profitable. Profit is a reflection of past performance, not future potential.
      - jblow 9y ago
        By this metric just about every single new business is a failure, including 100% of YC startups. At that point is it a useful distinction to draw?
        ckastner 9y ago
        Your conclusion is wrong. A profit is a realized financial gain. In a given period, income surpassed expenses. A business failure is a business that has failed, it has ended. A lack of profit can lead to failure, but in no way implies it.
    - mhermher 9y ago
      That doesn't jive with your original argument. So GM made the Bolt because Tesla proved (??) that they "would be profitable in 10 years"? That is what your argument amounts to.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?" No, they didn't. Nobody doubted they were viable or profitable, only desired. If TSLA accomplished anything, it was convincing people they are desired. That demand definitely did not exist before TSLA. Your comment implies all these things were already the case. That electric was "always inveitable", and tesla just proved it. That's, IMHO, quite wrong. as is this: "Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?" You understand, for example, the bolt started design in 2012, right? IE At the same time the model S did. Others in your list are similar. It's like saying success of the iPhone caused Google to release Android. I'm with the OP, every single one of these threads seems some combination of cultish love for tesla and messianic adoration of elon. As a complete outside observer, the distinct impression i get is of people who always loved electric cars, etc, who felt like the rest of the world was "wrong" about something, thinking they have now been proved "right" about something. The only practical difference between TSLA and the other auto makers I see is that the others by and large followed demand (IE they wait for people to want a thing, then build that), and TSLA was able to create some demand. That's awesome and a testament to great PR/etc. But it's pretty also pretty normal successful startup behavior,and may or may not be related to any of the "moral goodness" people see in electric vehicles.
  - AlaskaBuilding 9y ago
    You already got downvoted, but your info is pretty wrong. Let me clarify one thing. Tesla delivered the model s in 2012. I know because I got one in December then. I don't know when the bolt was designed, but starting in 2012 sounds about right. The Tesla was available for getting in line in 2011 and a little before (cause I put my money down to get in line in early 2011), but delivered in 2012. Other manuf. were not taking it as seriously as Tesla way back then. They already had experience with the roadster being on the road before then.
- deelowe 9y ago
  Toyota may have had a part in that... The stage was set before TSLA was a household stock symbol.
- galkk 9y ago
  If any, I think it was baby steps made by Toyota Prius. Original poster specifically pointed that profitable part of your answer isn't there for Tesla, in reality.
- mhermher 9y ago
  The Bolt, etc. exist because of federal subsidies mostly, not because of some billion-dollar-losing company showing that the idea is viable.
mason240 9y ago
>But it's interesting how I just got swarmed by 3 commenters. Losing an argument? Better accuse the other side of being paid shills.

whatok 9y ago

Putting Tesla anywhere near a list of factors for "ending strategic dependence on oil dictatorships" is pure hyperbole at best.

tpolischuk 9y ago
Maybe, but what about what Musk has done as a whole? If he can drive home-battery adoption, solar, and electric vehicles, and create markets where companies like GM, Ford, and the Euro manufacturers have to chase the new market, that has to make a huge impact. Obviously it's not going to completely remove our dependence (mainly plastics and shipping) but it will absolutely hit the bottom line of the most oppressive regimes funded by oil (Saudi Arabia). Also this will help us you know stop destroying entire mountain ranges and the largest CO2 sinks in North America for tar sands mining (Boreal Forest).
- orclev 9y ago
  On the plastics front, just look at the news from earlier this week of Lego working to replace all of the plastics used in their toys with bio-plastics (or other non-oil based polymers). A few more efforts like that and plastics won't be anywhere near the driver of oil consumption they are now. That doesn't address shipping (which is horrendously polluting), but if that's the last one standing that's still a massive improvement.
  - dotancohen 9y ago
    Commercial aviation as well will never be electric. It would require two orders of magnitude energy to weight density, and quadruple flight times.
    - tpolischuk 9y ago
      People also thought we would never get man into space :)
      - 9y ago