6 ms·

Yeah, that was a lot of the criticism of Tesla as well, as they raised a lot of money before getting into volume production. Its to be expected, though, as the

by jsight 5y ago

Yeah, that was a lot of the criticism of Tesla as well, as they raised a lot of money before getting into volume production. Its to be expected, though, as the car business requires a lot of capital.

maverick-iceman 5y ago
> as the car business requires a lot of capital And thus it's a bad business by definition, which doesn't merit billions of capital investments. Even if the investment thesis is that the whole world is rooting for them, and government will turn lots of blind eyes because of the "green mission", and they'd be first in line ESG funds allocation of capital... Still all those elements don't propel you to SaaS type margins such as Google or Microsoft or Facebook. Frothy valuations for companies which are building stuff in the real world are driven by the promotional power of said stuff and the CEO marketing ability, in fact people are fascinated by cars, it looks cool and it's out there in front of you.
- jsight 5y ago
  IMO, you really aren't wrong about it being a bad business. There's a reason that so few have been successful. I can count on one finger the number of American companies that have been founded and made it past 100k units in my lifetime. One hand for those that made it to even the first few thousand units. Its not an investment that I'd want to make. I'm glad that folks are trying anyway, though. I love cars and love the products, but I can't rationalize it as a great business to invest in.
sesuximo 5y ago
Really? I thought the roadster came out really quickly after Tesla was founded Edit: founded in 2003-4, roadster came out in 2008
- akiselev 5y ago
  The Roadster used a Lotus chassis. It was more like an EV conversion than a new production model.
  - elcomet 5y ago
    That's the point. They managed to get a product out quickly. Rivian did not.
- project2501a 5y ago
  Dude, what you should take away is that there is money to throw around. A lot of fucking money. Which is not going into our pockets as employees. Remember that, next time you ask for a raise.
  - spiderice 5y ago
    It is going in to the pocket of employees. The employees at Rivian and the employees at all of Rivian's suppliers.
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    I thought all Tesla employees get stock, is that not right?
- jsight 5y ago
  That's true, but it was heavily hand assembled with a pretty terrible design that doesn't seem like it could have been sustainable. They only built about 2,500 units over 4 years and cancelled it when they finally got their first sedan into production. I'm not sure that this was actually better than the Rivian scenario, since Rivian actually has a van, truck, and a large SUV in the early stages of production during their first year. Its a pretty ambitious move, tbh. Of course, Rivian has the advantage of being a second mover. Tesla had to work a lot harder to get the batteries sorted out back in 2007.

by jsight 5y ago

Yeah, that was a lot of the criticism of Tesla as well, as they raised a lot of money before getting into volume production. Its to be expected, though, as the car business requires a lot of capital.

maverick-iceman 5y ago

> as the car business requires a lot of capital And thus it's a bad business by definition, which doesn't merit billions of capital investments. Even if the investment thesis is that the whole world is rooting for them, and government will turn lots of blind eyes because of the "green mission", and they'd be first in line ESG funds allocation of capital... Still all those elements don't propel you to SaaS type margins such as Google or Microsoft or Facebook. Frothy valuations for companies which are building stuff in the real world are driven by the promotional power of said stuff and the CEO marketing ability, in fact people are fascinated by cars, it looks cool and it's out there in front of you.

jsight 5y ago
IMO, you really aren't wrong about it being a bad business. There's a reason that so few have been successful. I can count on one finger the number of American companies that have been founded and made it past 100k units in my lifetime. One hand for those that made it to even the first few thousand units. Its not an investment that I'd want to make. I'm glad that folks are trying anyway, though. I love cars and love the products, but I can't rationalize it as a great business to invest in.

sesuximo 5y ago

Really? I thought the roadster came out really quickly after Tesla was founded Edit: founded in 2003-4, roadster came out in 2008

akiselev 5y ago
The Roadster used a Lotus chassis. It was more like an EV conversion than a new production model.
- elcomet 5y ago
  That's the point. They managed to get a product out quickly. Rivian did not.
project2501a 5y ago
Dude, what you should take away is that there is money to throw around. A lot of fucking money. Which is not going into our pockets as employees. Remember that, next time you ask for a raise.
- spiderice 5y ago
  It is going in to the pocket of employees. The employees at Rivian and the employees at all of Rivian's suppliers.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  I thought all Tesla employees get stock, is that not right?
jsight 5y ago
That's true, but it was heavily hand assembled with a pretty terrible design that doesn't seem like it could have been sustainable. They only built about 2,500 units over 4 years and cancelled it when they finally got their first sedan into production. I'm not sure that this was actually better than the Rivian scenario, since Rivian actually has a van, truck, and a large SUV in the early stages of production during their first year. Its a pretty ambitious move, tbh. Of course, Rivian has the advantage of being a second mover. Tesla had to work a lot harder to get the batteries sorted out back in 2007.