3 ms·

I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures. 4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the o

I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures. 4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery. It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave away all 190 software upgrades for free.

batgaijin 14y ago
Uh... I don't really get this. Why not lower the price for everyone and get a better rep among customers? I mean if Tesla wants to have lifelong customers that's where you start. But then again they seem to be going into the marketing of their tech so maybe not.
- eru 14y ago
  Wouldn't that be way more expensive?
- qb45 14y ago
  Because this is the price required to make the profit they wanted to make on the 60kWh option. The fact that some cheap low performance version turned out to be infeasible because customers prefer expensive high performance version doesn't mean that you should (or could) reduce price of the expensive version. Furthermore, some owners of crippled 60kWh units will probably end up paying for "upgrade" to 60kWh. In the end these units will sell for full 60kWh price even though the buyers initially wanted 45kWh version.
  - makomk 14y ago
    To be honest, I've always suspected that the 40 kWh was more about marketing than about actually releasing a commercially viable option - they wanted to hit the price point Elon Musk had announced on his roadmap several years earlier, but they couldn't produce a product the market actually wanted at such a low price. It might even be a slight loss leader.
peterjancelis 14y ago
The big ROI is of course in not pissing of their 60Kwh customer base.
- caf 14y ago
  It seems entirely irrational for those customers to change their opinion based on what some other customers are or aren't getting.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    It is, but humans are not entirely rational.
    - MarkMc 14y ago
      Not just humans. See this clip for a hilarious study into fairness done on monkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b_Lm49XVkGQ#t=751s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
      - notdrunkatall 14y ago
        Haha, that was great, thanks for posting!
  - lobster_johnson 14y ago
    That's not irrational, assuming I'm interpreting the parent comment correctly: If 40 kWh car is really a "locked" 60 kWh that allows modders to unlock the remaining 20 kWh, then it's entirely reasonable to be pissed off if one bought the more expensive model. After all, one could saved a lot of money by buying the much cheaper 40 kWh model and unlocked it.
    - caf 14y ago
      From the point of view of the 60KWh customers, they're still getting the same product for the same price that they agreed - so if the product was worth it to them at that price before, it should still be, regardless if some other customers are getting a greater surplus. Other people getting a good deal doesn't affect your utility. This is so even if they were just shipping the 60KWh model as-is to those lucky 40KWh customers.

batgaijin 14y ago

Uh... I don't really get this. Why not lower the price for everyone and get a better rep among customers? I mean if Tesla wants to have lifelong customers that's where you start. But then again they seem to be going into the marketing of their tech so maybe not.

eru 14y ago
Wouldn't that be way more expensive?
qb45 14y ago
Because this is the price required to make the profit they wanted to make on the 60kWh option. The fact that some cheap low performance version turned out to be infeasible because customers prefer expensive high performance version doesn't mean that you should (or could) reduce price of the expensive version. Furthermore, some owners of crippled 60kWh units will probably end up paying for "upgrade" to 60kWh. In the end these units will sell for full 60kWh price even though the buyers initially wanted 45kWh version.
- makomk 14y ago
  To be honest, I've always suspected that the 40 kWh was more about marketing than about actually releasing a commercially viable option - they wanted to hit the price point Elon Musk had announced on his roadmap several years earlier, but they couldn't produce a product the market actually wanted at such a low price. It might even be a slight loss leader.

peterjancelis 14y ago

The big ROI is of course in not pissing of their 60Kwh customer base.

caf 14y ago
It seems entirely irrational for those customers to change their opinion based on what some other customers are or aren't getting.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  It is, but humans are not entirely rational.
  - MarkMc 14y ago
    Not just humans. See this clip for a hilarious study into fairness done on monkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b_Lm49XVkGQ#t=751s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      Haha, that was great, thanks for posting!
- lobster_johnson 14y ago
  That's not irrational, assuming I'm interpreting the parent comment correctly: If 40 kWh car is really a "locked" 60 kWh that allows modders to unlock the remaining 20 kWh, then it's entirely reasonable to be pissed off if one bought the more expensive model. After all, one could saved a lot of money by buying the much cheaper 40 kWh model and unlocked it.
  - caf 14y ago
    From the point of view of the 60KWh customers, they're still getting the same product for the same price that they agreed - so if the product was worth it to them at that price before, it should still be, regardless if some other customers are getting a greater surplus. Other people getting a good deal doesn't affect your utility. This is so even if they were just shipping the 60KWh model as-is to those lucky 40KWh customers.