4 ms·
>there is something to be said for integrating transport and energy services in one great package. I don't know about that. Do you know why Boeing and Airbus d
by macspoofing 7y ago
>there is something to be said for integrating transport and energy services in one great package.
I don't know about that. Do you know why Boeing and Airbus don't make their own engines? Or how about why (practically) no car manufacturer makes their own tires? Because sometimes it makes no sense (or is downright detrimental) holding the entire vertical.
Tesla is in the electric car game and the Li-ion battery game - not the solar panel game. Solar is and has been a total disaster for Tesla. The Powerwall is right up their alley (and if not, it's easy enough to exit), but they should have left solar roofs and installation to partners. Let them fight it out with low-cost Chinese alternatives.
- spiderfarmer 7y agoIntegration of products and services doesn't mean you have to develop those products yourself. Tesla is already working with Panasonic and LG for their panels and batteries, so I'm not sure what you mean.
- macspoofing 7y agoI was pushing back against the statement: "there is something to be said for integrating transport and energy services in one great package." I interpreted that statement as justifying Tesla's SolarCity purchase (which was always a bad idea. Even back when the purchase was announced, almost everyone knew this was a favour for Musk because SolarCity was in a downward spiral and there was no business reason to justify it.) Like you alluded to in this response, Tesla never needed SolarCity to have a integrated solution. I agree, EV-buyers are probably the kinds of people that may want solar panels. As vehicle buyers they are also the kinds of people who want tires for their cars. In both cases, it makes far more sense for Tesla to rely on partners to supply solar panels and tires to those buyers, rather than compete in those markets directly.