5 ms·
You both absolved car makers of their strategic incompetence and stretched the idea of "anti-competitive" beyond breaking point. I get why car makers don't wan
by kjksf 4y ago
You both absolved car makers of their strategic incompetence and stretched the idea of "anti-competitive" beyond breaking point.
I get why car makers don't want to do charging - it takes capital, it takes away focus and historically it's not what they do.
But customers do not car what's easy of convenient for the business.
Tesla saw the chicken and egg problem and solved. It was risky (especially for a company that, at the time, was loosing money) and costly but they saw the obvious truth: without wide spread, convenient network of chargers people will not buy EV cars.
They also publicly declared that if any other car makers wants access, all they have to do is to chip in some of the cost.
That was more than fair and consistent with their goal of accelerating transition to sustainable energy. They were not hoarding the superchargers, just looking for a fair deal.
No car maker took them up on the offer, despite that being the right thing to do for their customers and to grow EV market overall.
I don't see why competitors should now benefit from the hard work and billions of dollars that Tesla invested into their supercharger network.
The feds are giving companies free money so it's fair that they require open access and it's the deal Tesla always thought would be fair, which is why they took it.
- vel0city 4y ago> They also publicly declared that if any other car makers wants access, all they have to do is to chip in some of the cost. No, Tesla continues their patent licensing deal. If you agree to never sue Tesla or any other company which uses Tesla's IP for infringing on your IP, they'll agree to never sue you for using their IP. So say GM wants to use the Tesla connector on the Bolt. They have to agree to let Tesla use all of their IP. But not only that, they have to also agree to not sue any other company that also uses Tesla's IP if they infringe on GM's IP. So say Ford also uses the Tesla connector, and then copies many of GM's designs. GM cannot enforce any of their IP against Ford without being in violation of Tesla's licensing deal, which opens them up to getting sued by Tesla for having the Tesla connector. This isn't just the car makers though, this is anyone wanting to use Tesla's IP. So say Delta (a manufacturer of EV charging equipment) wants to offer Tesla connectors on their DC fast chargers. They have to follow the same thing, and allow Tesla to then copy any of their IP. But not just Tesla, they have to let Sema also copy any of their IP if Sema also starts to use Tesla connectors. Tesla's licensing deal was a Trojan horse trying to nullify intellectual property rights in the automotive industry, and pretty much none of the bigger players wanted to give up all their IP.
- danans 4y ago> You both absolved car makers of their strategic incompetence and stretched the idea of "anti-competitive" beyond breaking point. Both can simultaneously be true. The carmakers have sat on their hands, and Tesla is arguably anti-competitive with it's charging network.