16 ms·
Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target
- jonemo 14y agoThe real headline seems to be that this is the first profitable quarter for Tesla.
- cloudwalking 14y agoEverybody is making a big deal about the battery changes, but you're right: the really important part of this announcement is profitability. This is HUGE for Tesla, as it proves their model is successful.
- twoodfin 14y agoAt least so long as a $5,000/car government subsidy continues.
- barney54 14y agoI believe its $7500 from the federal government and various states like California also have a subsidy on top of that.
- twoodfin 14y agoAt least a sizable chunk of which is going into the pockets of wealthy Google engineers, if what's to be read in this thread is true. Well, I guess they're paying the taxes in the first place...
- jonknee 14y agoIf it successfully brings electric cars into the main stream it will be the most efficient use of $7,500 the government ever paid.
- twoodfin 14y agoHow can you be sure? A bunch of rich Valley workers getting $10,000 rebates on luxury cars is the "most" efficient use of tax money? (barney54 was right: There's another $2,500 free from California.) I know you're exaggerating for effect, but when has such a scheme ever worked to bring a new technology mainstream? The government didn't need to give you a tax credit to buy a PC. I suspect it would be much more efficient to slowly, predictably ramp up gasoline or carbon taxes, offset with, say, lower payroll taxes. Effectively no cost to the government, and it lets the market decide how best to reduce emissions.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago> it would be much more efficient to ramp up gasoline or carbon taxes, offset with lower payroll taxes Maybe, but you are comparing "it would be better to do this optimal thing which hasn't actually happened and may be politically hard to make happen" to "this thing that actually did happen was worthwhile". Both can be true.
- twoodfin 14y agoNo, I'm responding to jonknee, who made the "most efficient" claim.
- cyrus_ 14y agoThose rich Valley workers, with help, are funding the core tech development and manufacturing capacity that will lead to lower prices for the rest of the world. The government didn't need to give tax credits for PCs because they directly funded much of that research via research grants and there were more immediate uses for PCs in the corporate and military world. Corporations aren't about to buy fleets of electric cars.
- glenra 14y agoOn the other hand, if the subsidy makes the subsidized industries lazy and encourages political competition - lobbying for bigger subsidies - rather than technological competition in this and other industries, leaving us stuck subsidizing inefficient dead-end technologies rather than moving on to new ideas from better smaller firms that didn't have the clout to get subsidized, then it will NOT be the most efficient use of $7,500 the government ever paid. Though it won't be the least efficient, it'll be right down there. (Subsidizing and "protecting" steelmakers and automakers in the past pretty much doomed those industries to stop being innovative or competitive on the world market.)
- kristofferR 14y ago"Also being announced today is that the small battery option for the Model S will not enter production, due to lack of demand. Only four percent of customers chose the 40 kWh battery pack, which is not enough to justify production of that version. ... The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh" Enter the range extending hacks!
- rurounijones 14y agoWhy not just stop sales of the 40kWh model, say "We are going to be nice and just upgrade them to 60kWh free of charge" and be done with it. Sure, some people who paid for the 60kWh packs will be annoyed paying "extra" for it but is that really such a concern that you have to start dicking about with what amounts to basically battery DRM? [EDIT] As someone mentioned below, if 40kWh models have already shipped then replacing them will be a PITA, but if they haven't, win-win?
- radicaldreamer 14y agoSo next time, a large number of people won't choose the lower option hoping to be "upgraded" for free and end up being unhappy with their purchase when the lower capacity option really does go into production due to demand.
- vacri 14y ago"meh, we're upgrading the 4% who didn't choose that way" isn't going to work if a ton of people 'hope' for it. "30% of people chose the lower option, so there's still demand". If you get grumpy because you try to game the system and fail, it's your own fault.
- radicaldreamer 14y agoSure, but people still get grumpy when they aren't at fault. And they irrationally blame the other party for it. It doesn't matter if it's their fault if they're your customers.
- teawithcarl 14y agoTesla is now running at $1.5 billion+ annually, and growing.
- taligent 14y agoIt is ? For 2012 they had revenue of $413 million at a loss of $396 million.
- peteforde 14y agoThe reoccurring theme in your comments amounts to: "Tesla sucks!" What's your beef? Seriously curious.
- taligent 14y agoI think Tesla is great apart from Musk's childish overreactions (which many people don't like). But I was just wondering where this nonsense 1.5 billion revenue came from ?
- makomk 14y agoHis comment is accurate: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla/financials http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla/financials It is also, for some mysterious reason, massively downvoted. Where exactly did this $1.5 billion+ figure come from, and why did taligent's reply to you asking where it came from get so heavily downvoted it's now [dead]?
- moakleaf 14y agoBecause, for the majority of 2012, Tesla didn't produce the Tesla S. They only started producing 400 cars/week late in the last quarter. So you really cannot use last year's numbers for anything, and therefore last years revenue/income is completely irrelevant. The 1.5 billion comes from estimating what this year's revenue will be based on the number of cars they currently produce/deliver (which is in the 4-500 range). It is based on about 7500$ profit/car and 20000 cars/yr, but in fairness, that is just an educated guess. Given that they are now profitable, the key questions are: How large is the profit-margin really. If demand will keep up and allow production to increase. Is there some yet to be revealed gigantic technical issue that will require Tesla to call back all cars.
- rurounijones 14y agoAccidentally found myself in a Tesla showroom in Tokyo (Didn't even know they had one here) and the sales person was talking about how they had "sold out" in Japan which is promising. Also seeing the model S in person was rather cool.
- maratd 14y agoSame experience, only I randomly bumped into their showroom in my backyard when I went to the mall (Garden State Mall in NJ). They mentioned a 6 month wait. Sitting in a Model S was very cool!
- taligent 14y agoYou know what else "sold out". Palm Pre. Microsoft Surface. Nexus Q. Blackberry Playbook. How are those doing ?
- marvin 14y agoTesla is publically traded, nothing is stopping you from shorting them. This is currently their only product. You won't be able to bet against a single product easier than this, ever.
- klinquist 14y agoHere in the Bay Area, I see no less than 2 Model Ss every single day on the road.
- jhenkens 14y agoI would love to know how many Model S have been sold within 25 miles of Palo Alto, CA. Driving around Menlo Park/Palo Alto/Atherton/Woodside, one can easily see 10 Model S within an hour - it is truly unreal. It's almost at the point where buying a Model S is no longer trend setting, but instead following a trend.
- chasingtheflow 14y agoTipping point?
- spullara 14y agoI'd say a lot of them. The reason is that we are early adopters not trend setters or followers for that matter. When we see the future we buy it and use it. Were the people waiting in line for the first iPhone setting a trend? No, they just wanted the best phone ever and the model for all future phones.
- auctiontheory 14y agoYup. I'm a whole lot more excited when I see an (original) Beetle, or a nicely-restored Karmann Ghia, or a Jaguar E Type, than yet another Model S or Fisker Karma or Ferrari/Lambo. I guess we're jaded.
- hkmurakami 14y agoThe thing is, my friend in SF says he rarely ever sees a model S. Granted SF isn't the most car-friendly city and the mental hurdle of driving from SV to SF prevents many people from driving into the city (I for one always take the bart from Daly City rather than drive in). SF is the most geographically close, high income center near SV, and yet it doesn't have many Model S's, despite the strong coolness factor that it'd get being so geographically close by. Some surreal proportion of Model S sales must be in SV...
- mercury888 14y agohttp://www.teslamotors.com/ http://www.teslamotors.com/ <-- updating website set to wow us with a funny april 1st joke... please stand by :)
- niggler 14y agoThis would be a hilarious April Fool's Day prank, but it would also be highly illegal.
- nikcub 14y ago> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago> ... and can be upgraded to the range of the 60 kWh upon request by the original or a future owner. Does anyone remember Intel's co-processor "upgrade" for turning a 486SX into a 486DX?
- kragen 14y agoYes. It was called the "487SX", and was billed as a floating-point coprocessor, but it was actually a 486DX with a lower pricetag and a different pinout. When you installed it, the motherboard disabled your 486SX and just used the "coprocessor" for everything. What's the relationship to Tesla's crippleware strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoOh, it was worse than that: the 486SXs themselves were actually 486DXs with a disabled FPU. So not only were you buying a 486DX to "upgrade" your CPU, it was basically the same CPU!
- jacquesm 14y ago'Disabled' sounds like there might have been some way to re-enable them, but iirc there was a whole bunch of traces that were zapped with a laser, making the disabling a rather permanent affair.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoRumor has it there were a few people who were good enough with a soldering iron to re-enable them.
- jaytaylor 14y agoThey've got Google employees to thank for this blessing. There are fields of Tesla Model-S vehicles at Google HQ in Mountain View.
- hkmurakami 14y agoFree charging is definitely an incentive for Googlers to jump on board :)
- jedberg 14y agoNetflix too (also has free charging).
- ptomato 14y agoJust think how many they could've sold if the mean journalist hadn't said all those bad things about them.
- revelation 14y agoNot a single car more, since they are production constrained.
- maxerickson 14y agoThey probably even managed to get rid of a few customers that would have ended up disappointed with the performance characteristics of the vehicle.
- iEricAllen 14y agoI've never believed that Tesla had a viable product. In fact, Electric vehicles make very little sense and are far less "green" than most consumers perceive them to be. It's sad that people tend to believe whatever marketers tell them... Check out this article... By far the most comprehensive analysis on "green" cars so far. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732412850457834...
- dangrossman 14y agoThat article is neither "comprehensive" nor convincing. It's an overtly-biased opinion piece by a global climate change denier.
- glenra 14y ago>It's an...opinion piece by a global climate change denier. Where by "denier" you presumably mean "person who thinks there might exist other important issues of concern in the world besides CO2 levels". Or perhaps you mean "person who believes public policy proposals ought to be able to pass a cost-benefit analysis"? Or do you mean, the sort of person who says stuff like: "Global warming is real and man-made, and it needs an effective response." ( Source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/28/not_so_hot http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/28/not_so_hot )
- dangrossman 14y agoNo, I mean the dictionary definition of the word. He called the greenhouse effect a "myth", and has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community and respectable publications.
- glenra 14y ago> [Lomborgh] called the greenhouse effect a "myth" That claim appears to itself be a "myth" promulgated by people who don't like the guy's political conclusions. The wikipedia page that made this inflammatory claim gave as its only reference a print-only newspaper article, from 1998, in Norwegian. (the ref was: Bjørn Lomborg, 'Det går bedre', newspaper article, Weekendavisen 13 March 1998) So IF that article actually exists AND the claims made about it were valid, the best you'd be able to say is presumably that he said something once, 15 years ago, which when translated to English was taken to mean he suggested the "greenhouse effect" was a "myth". But given how much he's written on the subject in English in articles and reference sources that can actually be checked, the more likely assumption is that there was some amount of exaggeration/mistranslation going on. For instance, he might have been arguing that some claim about the greenhouse effect was "a myth", if that word was even used. Near as I can tell, all the google-able articles point back to that wikipedia page as a source, which - since it's been marked "citation needed" for more than 6 months - I've just fixed.
- maxcan 14y agoapril 1.
- marshray 14y ago"but range will be software limited to 40 kWh" DRM in my car that will leave me stranded by the side of the road. Wow, this is a new low even for DRM. No thank you. Tesla, you were kinda cool.
- jlgreco 14y agoIs this so much worse than disabling cores in CPUs and selling them as cheaper models? That practice seems to be nearly universally accepted.
- marshray 14y agoYes. CPU cores are basically software, whereas battery weight is generally proportional to its capacity and would seem to have a big effect on the efficiency of an electric vehicle.
- jlgreco 14y agoI wonder how many of the actual customers are as disturbed by this as you.
- marshray 14y agoI wonder too. What I would expect is that 4% of their customers will be reminded that their car is artificially limited whenever they need to travel more than 160 miles (260 km) and have to pull over early to recharge a battery that is actually capable of 230 miles (370 km).
- prawn 14y agoIsn't that shorter range what they pre-ordered/paid for?
- ProblemFactory 14y agoIt is. While the pricing model makes sense from a rational perspective, it just doesn't fit well with most people's emotions about fairness. When you get to the end of the charge on your 40kwh model, you know that the car is capable of 50% more - but you are not allowed to because you haven't paid Tesla an extra $10k. It's similar to airline pricing. It makes rational sense to sell early seats at lower cost, and increase prices as the plane gets closer to selling out, effectively auctioning off seats. But people hate it. The guy sitting next to you is getting the exact same service as you, but might have paid 3x less.
- ck2 14y agoSo... are you legally allowed to have root on a $60k car you paid for? Can we replace "cell phones" with "cars" in this whitehouse statement? [1] The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. ps. it's ironic that a software limited battery like that is going to last a lot longer than unrestricted depletion [1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7#share-this-petition https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...
- relix 14y agoActually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road. Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...
- jotux 14y ago>It could mean you can disable safety measures How is this any different from being able to open the hood on a conventional car? Or having a screw driver and socket wrench that fit the nuts/bots/screws on a conventional car?
- lawnchair_larry 14y agoIt's funny what kind of hand wavy fearmongering rhetoric people engage in when computers are involved. Hackers are this generation's witches, and that's why we keep locking them up for trivial and harmless manipulations.
- relix 14y agoIt's not, but I'm pretty sure it's also illegal to disable your brakes and then drive your car on a public road.
- 14y ago
- codex 14y agoThis looks like a precursor to asking for more money--scale back development costs for a few quarters to achieve profitability, then go back into the red to pay for future models. I am curious to see if Tesla goes back to the public markets for more money this year.
- icambron 14y agoWhen you exceed your sales target, the thing you did was set your target incorrectly. It's great that they're selling lots of cars, but "exceeded the target" is a wholly artificial accomplishment.
- PakG1 14y agoNo, it depends on what your goal is. Here, the goal is satisfying shareholders. You want to satisfy shareholders because it's in your best interests to do so, the value of your company depends on it. The easiest way to satisfy shareholders is to underestimate (but not too drastically, just enough to be a little dramatic) your numbers, so that when you surpass your estimates, you look amazing. Underpromise and overdeliver. It happens everywhere, including with software project clients.
- icambron 14y agoRight, you sandbag and then you look like a hero. That argues it's a good idea, but if anything clarifies how artificial it is.
- PakG1 14y agoTo clarify, I wasn't replying to your statement on artificiality. I was replying to your statement that the target would have been set incorrectly in such a case. I didn't intend to comment on your statement of artificiality at all.
- michael_miller 14y agoThe target was set in a shareholder letter, so if Tesla intentionally mispredicted the target, they would likely be liable to a shareholder suit. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the target reflected all available information at the time and that Tesla sent out the press release. Therefore, the most probable event is that Tesla had an abnormally large influx of orders, which is a non-artificial accomplishment.
- illuminate 14y ago
- jimzvz 14y ago> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. >...all 60 kWh cars have been and will be built with Supercharger hardware included. Tesla is taking a slight cost risk that ultimately all customers will want to buy the Supercharger upgrade and receive unlimited, free long distance travel for life. I am assuming that the supercharger hardware will be disabled as well. This kind of thing really turns me off a company.
- tiziano88 14y agoI don't see why. Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other? I see this as a great plus, if you are not interested in a feature, do not pay for it, if you later are, you can enable it without buying an entire new car. Also if you sell it, the new owner can decide if and when to enable those features. It seems a clear win-win to me, and a very clever strategy from Tesla.
- IheartApplesDix 14y agoanti-feature is just bad engineering, no matter how marketers spin it.
- tiziano88 14y agoMaybe the other way round. I consider it good engineering (why waste an entirely separate production process to make a lower-grade version, when most of it can be shared?), but people are irrationally led to believe they are entitled to the full thing, just because it's potentially there. Proof of this is that if no one told you, you would not even suspect anything at all. If you want to "unlock" your car to get that extra 20kWh go ahead, the car is yours after all, but then do not try to ask for any form of warranty or support from the manufacturer.
- smackfu 14y agoPeople don't like to be reminded that price is decoupled from cost.
- marvin 14y agoIt's april 1st where I live. As a shareholder, I was really worried for a moment.
- ollysb 14y agoWill be interesting to see if car features become subscription based. Currently manufacturers derive the majority of their profit on the initial sale. Once the cars are on the road they don't see a penny of profit for most of them(ok, there's parts and servicing but the competition is generally cheaper). If they could derive profit throughout the lifetime of the vehicle it would encourage a decrease in the churn rate of cars. Currently, the used car market only indirectly drives profit for them (resale allows the initial buyers to attach greater value to their purchase).
- nradov 14y agoGM has been doing that for years with the OnStar subscription service. Certain features stop working if you don't renew your subscription.
- timdorr 14y agoAnd as big as this is, it's apparently not as important as whatever Elon is announcing tomorrow: To be clear, Tesla is in California, so it is not April Fool's yet! Also, some may differ, but imo the Tues news is arguably more important. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/318588682070269952 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/318588682070269952
- jusben1369 14y ago"Tesla Motors announced today that sales of its Model S vehicle exceeded the target provided in the mid-February shareholder letter" - So that means they had a great last 6 weeks of the quarter. That means sales actually went up substantially after the NY Times huff foo. That means it made tremendous sense to continually go after the NY Times as it must have been apparent sales were rising on a week over week basis since the story broke?
- moakleaf 14y agoBe careful not to mix sales with reservations and deliveries. Tesla has a backlog of about 15000 vehicles, and it will take them all of 2013 to produce those cars. You can reserve one, but the actual sale will not happen until the car has been manufactured. The backlog dates back to before the NYT article, so you cannot determine the effect of the NYT article based on the sales numbers of this press release. You may be able to see the effect of the NYT article in the number of new reservations Tesla has received this quarter (when it is disclosed), but there are also positive effects that play in; The "Car of 2012" award last year, and the "Green car of 2013" award last week. Those could affect sales positively. There are also plenty of positive reviews, so a single bad review would probably not have that significant an effect on the sales.
- jusben1369 14y agoWell you are right (after making me go back and re-read it) "vehicle deliveries (sales)" So this is really a hat tip to the production/delivery team vs a sentiment on orders and demand.
- savrajsingh 14y agoI wonder if you can upgrade to the 60kwh battery while driving. "You need to recharge now. Or click here to unlock the rest of your battery." I bet most ppl will upgrade. ;)
- songzme 14y agoCould this be an april fool's joke?
- samchang 14y agoThose who may have investigated the possibility of owning a Tesla may already know that a firmware upgrade is usually an overnight job--it takes hours to upgrade the firmware, and considering that your very life is at stake w.r.t. the integrity of that software, upgrades are not simple 5 min download-over-3G jobs.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI love how this readership is spending all of its cycles discussing whether or not the software hack which will allow Tesla to ship a car they aren't going to build. Rather than the fact that they actually surpassed their production goals and have, for the moment, proven a lot of people wrong. People who were held up as the experts in what it takes to create a new car that people will buy and what won't cut it. So they turn off the '40kWh' option in the buying screen and just give everyone 60kWh cars? That is a known amount of capital downside, one time charge, etc etc. This way they can 'credibly' say to 60kWh customers that they have prevented those people who paid 40kWh prices from getting the same benefit. Now about that profitable quarter, is that cool or what? Can you imagine how amazing it will be if they turn in a profitable year? [Disclaimer: Back when their stock was $30 I bought some because I figured Elon was going to either kill himself or push this thing out to market, and now debating on whether I should take my profits. Decisions, decisions.]
- smackfu 14y agoHacker News is more focused on the technical hacks than on the business side? Well, I never!
- ChuckMcM 14y agoTrue, but they is also interest in technology businesses that make money and people who say things the 'mainstream' doesn't believe but they believe passionately. Those latter aspects of the announcement haven't gotten a lot of air time :-)
- martin_bech 14y agoI bought it at 26$ last september. Unloaded about half today at 44$.. If I goes lower, say mid thirties, I will buy more.. We might be seeing the car company of the next decade or 2 in the makeing, and right now, its not really selling at a premium. (The stock, not the cars..)
- ganley 14y agoI see Tesla's future as a race between saturating the market for an $X car versus reducing the value of X (i.e. producing less expensive cars), thus enlarging their potential market. It'll be interesting to see which way that goes. Speaking for myself, they're still over the price I'm willing to pay for a car by about a factor of 2.