4 ms·

The whole thing never made sense to me. Tesla, a supposedly forward-looking car maker, operating a taxi service, which is inherently low-margin? And the alter

by moogly 1y ago

The whole thing never made sense to me. Tesla, a supposedly forward-looking car maker, operating a taxi service, which is inherently low-margin? And the alternative scenario floated (the "appreciating asset" malarkey), that everyone would be adding their personal cars to the pool and would be making money while you sleep and/or work even more baffling. Sure, you might fool some people that they'll make money even though the wear and tear and depreciation will be much worse, and you'd need better insurance to take care of when your car seats will be knifed (a considerable risk, even before the wanton brand destruction), and someone or some thing is going to need to clean and charge the car, then charging and parking fees... And if it were that profitable on one or two cars, then why would Tesla even sell cars to you instead of operating their own fleet? So it doesn't hold up to scrutiny unless you own a fleet, and then you'd probably need employees. Which, again, you'd be competing with Tesla and every other likeminded fool? I guess somehow it's started to make a perverse kind of sense recently when Tesla sales are plummeting. Someone's going to have to use the cars they make I guess.

kevlened 1y ago
> And if it were that profitable on one or two cars, then why would Tesla even sell cars to you instead of operating their own fleet? It's a scaling strategy. The payback period is reduced to 0 if a customer pays for the vehicle. That capital can be fed back into manufacturing, lowering costs, and expanding market penetration.
Gareth321 1y ago
> and you'd need better insurance to take care of when your car seats will be knifed (a considerable risk, even before the wanton brand destruction), and someone or some thing is going to need to clean and charge the car, then charging and parking fees... Vehicle sharing companies have already solved this. The vehicle sharing company provides insurance built into their fee and vets customers. If the vehicle is vandalised (or someone makes a mess), the vehicle share company pays for everything. People wouldn't use these services if they were subject to that kind of risk. As for charging and parking, the use case here is people who already have parking space for their Tesla. So that's where the Tesla parks when and if it's not needed. In time, I imagine, charging hubs will appear where either attendants plug in the vehicle, or the plug mechanism is automated. Or the car just comes home when it hits the predefined minimum charge, and the owner plugs in later.

by moogly 1y ago

kevlened 1y ago

> And if it were that profitable on one or two cars, then why would Tesla even sell cars to you instead of operating their own fleet? It's a scaling strategy. The payback period is reduced to 0 if a customer pays for the vehicle. That capital can be fed back into manufacturing, lowering costs, and expanding market penetration.

Gareth321 1y ago

> and you'd need better insurance to take care of when your car seats will be knifed (a considerable risk, even before the wanton brand destruction), and someone or some thing is going to need to clean and charge the car, then charging and parking fees... Vehicle sharing companies have already solved this. The vehicle sharing company provides insurance built into their fee and vets customers. If the vehicle is vandalised (or someone makes a mess), the vehicle share company pays for everything. People wouldn't use these services if they were subject to that kind of risk. As for charging and parking, the use case here is people who already have parking space for their Tesla. So that's where the Tesla parks when and if it's not needed. In time, I imagine, charging hubs will appear where either attendants plug in the vehicle, or the plug mechanism is automated. Or the car just comes home when it hits the predefined minimum charge, and the owner plugs in later.