Back

Tesla ending Models S and X production

495 points1 daycnbc.com
sgjohnson13 hours ago

Tesla will become a case study on how to completely waste the first-mover advantage.

For many people, the very term EV itself is still ubiquitous to Tesla.

And somehow Tesla is still worth more than every other non-Chinese automaker combined. $1.5T.

GM? $80B. Stellantis? $40B. Toyota? $280B. Mercedes-Benz? $60B. BMW? $55B. Volkswagen Group? Also $55B.

I’m sure I’ve missed plenty of others, but I could miss some 18 $50B automakers, and Tesla would still be worth more than all of them combined.

If Tesla was valued fairly, it would probably be at the tune of $5B. But I’ll never bet against it, because the markets can remain irrational for longer than I can remain solvent. And for some unbeknownst to me reason, the markets value Tesla as a hot tech company, not a 3rd rate automaker, which is what it actually is.

And to add insult to injury, even GM Super Cruise is widely renowned as better and safer than Tesla’s current “FSD”.

gwbas1c9 hours ago

> And to add insult to injury, even GM Super Cruise is widely renowned as better and safer than Tesla’s current “FSD”.

My Huyndai's Autopilot equivalent (I don't even know what they call it) is better than the enhanced Autopilot in the Model 3 that I traded in. It actually changes lanes when I put on the blinker, instead of only changing lanes 70% of the time, and the other time just sitting with the blinker on and a clear lane.

not_ai8 hours ago

I did not know this and explains why I see so many teslas with their blinkers on and not maneuvering despite having ample room and time. Ultimately this behavior makes them unsafe for their occupants as well as others around them.

Cars only work because we can predict driver behavior, if they break that prediction that’s when bad things are likely to happen…

Lately I’ve started to ignore Tesla blinker.

smotched8 hours ago

Autopilot doesnt turn on the turn signal or change lanes, what you are dealing with is humans.

gwbas1c7 hours ago

Enchanced autopilot and self-driving do.

gkfasdfasdf6 hours ago

Tesla FSD will change lanes when you use the blinker. It will also accelerate and remain engaged if you press the pedal, e.g. if you want to coax it forward at an intersection.

noboostforyou6 hours ago

Kia Telluride here but I assume it's the same underlying system as Hyundai - I can attest that it's very good (and doesn't cost anything extra like Tesla charges lol) which makes sense considering they have the majority stake in Boston Dynamics since a few years ago.

philistine8 hours ago

Most probably because it has a radar that the Tesla lacks. That means your car has two sources of truth and can very efficiently and quickly make an informed decision about whether or not there's anything in the way.

hbarka7 hours ago

My Model 3 has radar. It’s no longer functional and just a useless appendage. Until 2020-21 all Tesla had radar but Musk directed Tesla to disable the radar from the software stack, nerfing this hardware on tens of thousands of cars. Why? Because he staked on camera-only and to find out there’s still radar fusion would be against that. The real truth is probably they were derisking the part cost (during Covid) and the development timeline to improve the radar integration (after dangerous false braking incidents). It was wonderful when it worked, especially the time-of-flight ability to sense a decelerating car ahead of the car ahead of the one in front of you. When it didn’t work the Navy Seal guy driving and watching a video was the first statistic.

The real Tesla engineers must be in all kinds of frustrations getting whipsawed by their chief engineer-designer-physicist-scientist-government economist-savant but probably the stock options assuage that.

Lastly Tesla still doesn’t have real birds-eye view / 360 surround view for parking. It’s year 2026 and even cheaper cars have this.

gwbas1c6 hours ago

I don't think my 2018 Model 3 with enhanced autopilot ever used it radar for lane changes. As I noted above, it would just drive with the blinker on and a clear lane.

+1
groos7 hours ago
vladms8 hours ago

> If Tesla was valued fairly

I think it's a wrong mental model to think of stock market value as "fair" or "unfair" (or maybe it's just me thinking of "unfair" when I see the word "fair").

My impression is that if Tesla would be valued based on quantifiable things it would be much much lower (production costs, competition, revenues, potential, etc.). Of course, you shouldn't value something only based on quantifiable things, but in Tesla the "wishful thinking" part seems to be much larger than for others.

johnmaguire8 hours ago

I assume OP meant something closer to "fair market value" than "fair vs. unfair." Tesla is not priced according to its underlying assets or technical analysis (e.g. P/E ratio), but solely based on hype/sentiment.

Interestingly, retail investors and company insiders collectively own more of Tesla than institutional investors.

marcusverus7 hours ago

Fair market value: the price at which a thing would change hands between a willing and informed buyer and seller.

A company's market cap is, by definition, its fair market value.

> Tesla is not priced according to its underlying assets or technical analysis (e.g. P/E ratio), but solely based on hype/sentiment.

You're right that it's not priced according to underlying assets, but it doesn't follow that it is priced on vibes. Its price is based on potential future earnings; the expectation that Elon can pull off his plans for a robotaxi fleet or building an Optimus robot that might unlock the massive demand for household and/or general use commercial robots. Both offer the prospect of being the first mover into markets which could be worth trillions. It's speculation, sure, but not mere "vibes". The company is also led by a man who has made and delivered on massive, seemingly impossible promises, which adds credibility to the idea that Tesla might actually bring these markets into existence.

therealdkz6 hours ago

[dead]

gkfasdfasdf8 hours ago

> And to add insult to injury, even GM Super Cruise is widely renowned as better and safer than Tesla’s current “FSD”.

Do you have any sources for that claim? I can attest that current iteration of FSD is very, very good, and very likely is a safer driver than I am. At least one major insurance company agrees [0]. I don't have any experience with Super Cruise though.

[0] - https://www.lemonade.com/fsd

root_axis8 hours ago

> Do you have any sources for that claim? I can attest that current iteration of FSD is very, very good, and very likely is a safer driver than I am.

That's a damning statement about your driving skills, and probably not true or you'd have had your license revoked by now. I've had FSD for five years, and even today it regularly makes dangerous mistakes. For example, left turns and roundabouts are the equivalent of Russian roulette, but just last week my FSD started driving through a red light because it interpreted a green left-arrow as a sign that it could proceed forward.

If you need to do 50 miles on the interstate it's pretty solid though.

SOLAR_FIELDS7 hours ago

> If you need to do 50 miles on the interstate it's pretty solid though.

So L2 is great, the issue is calling L2 "Full Self Driving"

IncreasePosts7 hours ago

If your Tesla is 5 years old aren't you getting a degraded FSD model due to weak hardware?

+1
root_axis7 hours ago
pibaker6 hours ago

"The computer is not beefy enough" is not an acceptable excuse for blowing a red. If your model cannot comply with the most basic law of traffic, it should not be sold to consumers as "full self driving."

memish7 hours ago

Do you think your anecdote is more likely to be true than an insurance company putting its money where its mouth is?

"Tesla Full Self-Driving is twice as safe, so Lemonade takes 50% off every mile driven with FSD."

root_axis6 hours ago

I don't know anything about Lemonade, so I can't comment on the logic behind that business strategy, but by definition all the dangerous behavior of FSD is excluded from the analysis since you have to shut it off to avoid the danger.

Beyond that, the effect size of my anecdotes assures me that it is not safer than a human driver. It's just obvious.

enragedcacti7 hours ago

Lemonade doesn't support your claim that FSD is a safer driver than you are. It just says that, most charitably, they believe FSD and a human operator are safer than just a human operator (The co-founder said exactly this to Reuters [0]). Further, the program has only been around for a week and their marketing copy specifically cites "Tesla's data" as the source for the 50% reduction rather than any sort of independent analysis.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lemona...

digiown6 hours ago

They are putting their money behind their words, unless there is some backroom deal we don't know about. If a human operator + FSD is twice safer than human operator alone, then FSD is still a large safety improvement. Considering how human operators behave with these systems, I'd also wager having the human operator (many don't even look at the road!) makes only a small difference.

enragedcacti5 hours ago

> They are putting their money behind their words, unless there is some backroom deal we don't know about.

Their product is dynamically priced and individualized, and there is no guarantee of what the base rate will be. I don't see any reason they can't keep offering the 50% discount and then adjust the base rates to reverse engineer a sustainable price regardless of FSDs real safety.

> Considering how human operators behave with these systems, I'd also wager having the human operator (many don't even look at the road!) makes only a small difference.

Lemonade will likely be getting driver monitoring telemetry and calculating rates accordingly, but in either case I'm convinced that we are still on the left hand side of the Valley of Degraded Supervision [0]. Operators may not pay full attention at all times but they likely still have pretty good heuristics for what situations are difficult for FSD and adjust their monitoring behavior accordingly.

Tesla could of course release detailed crash and disengagement data to prove FSD safety. That they do not is itself a form of evidence, and in lieu of that we have to rely on crowdsourced data which says FSD 14.x still has a very long way to go to be safer than the average driver [1].

[0] https://www.eetimes.com/disengagements-wrong-metric-for-av-t...

[1] https://teslafsdtracker.com/Main

sjsdaiuasgdia7 hours ago

> At least one major insurance company agrees

You mean the insurance company that has only existed for 10 years and I never heard of before this Tesla tie-in marketing gimmick?

Traster13 hours ago

I think you're totally wrong on this. Tesla didn't waste the first mover advantage. They benefitted from it whilst it existed, but Electric vehicles turned into a commodity, which was entirely expected and there's no moat.

You've explained yourself why it would be untenable for Musk to pursue becoming the biggest car manufacturer in the world - if he succeeded in that goal... he would have succeded in shrinking the value of the company significantly.

It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.

jordanb8 hours ago

Tesla's original "secret plan" (published on their website) was to become a commodity car manufacturer faster than electric cars became a commodity. Such that the other manufacturers would find them selling obsolete vehicles and Tesla just becomes the new General Motors.

This was the justification for their stock price for quite a few years: "It's logical that Tesla is worth more than all other automakers combined because it will soon be the only automaker."

Then in 2022 Elon basically admitted that they couldn't win on production and had to continue to win on technology and they'd do that with self driving. [https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-worth-basica...]

But now Tesla is way behind on self driving (which was oversold by the whole industry tbh). So what's their new plan? Now they're no longer a car company and will make robots!

Deklomalo6 hours ago

[dead]

sgjohnson11 hours ago

> It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.

But it's make-believe. Tesla is a car manufacturer. They haven't shipped anything else other than cars. And they even suck at making cars these days. Tesla Semi? All but dead. The new roadster? Also dead. Full Self Driving? Doesn't exist. Robotaxis? Even if they got them to work, at this point the brand is too toxic for widespread adoption of those.

They could have persisted at being a disruptive car manufacturer and still held a several hundred billion dollar valuation. Now they are a very mediocre car manufacturer, with their only actual success being conning everyone into believing that they are a bleeding-edge tech company so their $1.5Bn valuation seems justified.

usaphp8 hours ago

> And they even suck at making cars these days

Aren’t model Y and model 3 considered the best cars in their class by most motor journalists?

Arainach7 hours ago

No, not by a long shot, unless you define "class" so tightly as to only include those vehicles and no competitors.

dannyfritz078 hours ago

A quick search verified they also manufactured batteries, solar modules, and solar shingles.

gamerdonkey6 hours ago

Ford Motor Company manufactured charcoal, but in the end it stayed a car company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsford_(charcoal)#History

testing223218 hours ago

I know it’s popular to hate on Elon and therefore Tesla, but you need to be accurate when doing so. They’re still chipping away.

> Tesla Semi?All but dead.

They’ve been running a pilot all this time, and the factory in Nevada to mass produce them is on schedule. Production ramp is second half of this year. The factory is ginormous.

> The new roadster? Also dead.

Elon said yesterday the unveil is in April “hopefully”

> Full Self Driving? Doesn't exist. Robotaxis?

Cars are driving passengers around Austin now with nobody in either front seat.

It takes automakers almost a decade to bring a new vehicle online, Elon just does it all publicly while everyone else doesn’t take the wraps off until the final 6 months.

Obviously everything is way behind elons hype timelines, but I do still think it’s all coming.

SR2Z7 hours ago

> Cars are driving passengers around Austin now with nobody in either front seat.

This is a good example of Tesla being sketchy: https://electrek.co/2026/01/28/teslas-unsupervised-robotaxis...

Musk made the announcement before earnings, put a few cars on the road, and now has pulled them all back because the earnings report is out.

This is a little more than doing it publicly - remember, Musk has been saying FSD will be functional every year for more than a decade.

kjs38 hours ago

They’ve been running a pilot all this time

So did Nikola.

Elon said yesterday the unveil is in April “hopefully”

Who could possibly argue with that.

Obviously everything is way behind elons hype timelines, but I do still think it’s all coming.

At least you've identified it for what it is.

alistairSH7 hours ago

Cars are driving passengers around Austin now with nobody in either front seat.

Unless the reporting was wrong, they've moved the supervisor to a chase car. The hobo-taxi still isn't operating on its own.

Deklomalo6 hours ago

[dead]

breve12 hours ago

Why is making humanoid robots a moat? Other companies have been making robots for longer, humanoid and otherwise, and doing it better.

Has Optimus signed up for any sports yet: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/02/china/china-humanoid-robo...

Is Optimus close to what Boston Dynamics is doing with Atlas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIhzUnvi7Fw

dstroot6 hours ago

Anyone who owns a tesla vehicle with "full self driving" is probably chuckling to themselves about Tesla ever making useful general purpose robots any time soon. Disclaimer, I own two tesla's with FSD and it's far from "full" or "self". I am very sceptical of robotaxis unless they have the appropriate sensors & SW (e.g. Waymo) which Elon has not done.

Finally, I know lots of people who own cars, but none who own robots. Many friends will not have Alexa in their homes due to privacy concerns. How many people will trust Elon to have a robot in their homes and assume he's being benign and safe with your personal data?

SideburnsOfDoom7 hours ago

> Why is making humanoid robots a moat?

It really isn't. (1)

Also, what's the first billion dollar market for humanoid robots? Industry? "lights-out manufacturing" exists already, and doesn't require humanoid robots.

Hyundai and BYD (among others) say they're going to put humanoid robots in their factories (2). They won't be Tesla robots. Is this really such a huge use?

1)https://www.topgear.com/car-news/tech/here-are-nine-humanoid...

2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgjm5x54ldo

edmundsauto7 hours ago

I want my laundry robot!

arbor_day6 hours ago

It's not that EVs are a commodity. Competition and speculative production capacity buildouts combined with lower than expected consumer demand made the market less profitable.

sosomoxie9 hours ago

Pure logic would dictate that Tesla has a market cap of around $5B. It's actually fraudulent that it's not, and for some reason the SEC allows Musk to lie on every earnings call without repercussion.

FuriouslyAdrift7 hours ago

Seems low on a company that is profitable and consistantly has around a $100B a year in revenue with only $13B in debt...

dmbche7 hours ago

more like 12b in 2022 and less every years since down 30% in 2025

elzbardico8 hours ago

Welcome to 2026:

Companies routinely, exaggerate, obfuscate and mystify investors. Most of investors don't care. The SEC is a joke.

jcranmer8 hours ago

Brand value is definitely a moat. Not the deepest of moats, but it is a moat nonetheless.

> It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.

Tesla is valued as if it is a tech company with a car business as a side gig. Its balance sheet is a car business, and I'm not even sure it spends enough on tech to have tech qualify as a side gig. And the other tech avenues it has been pursuing (autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots) are areas that other people have been doing for better and longer. Hell, Honda had autonomous (not tele-operated) humanoid robots working 20 years ago.

To be honest, at this point, I mostly consider the other bets that Tesla is pursing are just passion projects to keep the stock price artificially high. Were Tesla more realistically valued, it would lose probably 90% or more of its value, and Musk would be a much poorer man.

freakynit11 hours ago

Everything tends toward commodification in a hyper-competitive, hyper-connected world. The only variable is time... and this "time" keeps shrinking.

As commodification accelerates, consolidation follows. In the current landscape, where private capital and state power are deeply entangled under the banner of national security, this consolidation no longer stays economic. It becomes geopolitical.

The end result... it translates to not just corporate monopolies, but geo-monopolies... enforced not by markets alone, but by coercion, conflict, and control over resources.

JumpinJack_Cash11 hours ago

> > It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.

You can pursue everything with words, even you can pursue Sydney Sweeney but then you have to show the receipts.

The receipts of Tesla (Factories, lines of production, expertise of people hired, 25 years of history...) are one of car company.

But of course, it's all narrative so people will keep outbidding each other to own a piece of this company.

The financialization of hope, that's what it is.

outside12348 hours ago

Tesla's moat is constantly moving to the next thing and claiming it has a moat before moving on to the next thing.

Elon's business model is moving from one government subsidized thing to the next (see SpaceX now bribing for tax dollars to go to Mars).

Deklomalo7 hours ago

[dead]

epolanski12 hours ago

Bingo.

asah8 hours ago

SpaceX will acquire Tesla and save the shareholders, just like Tesla acquired SolarCity.

extraduder_ire8 hours ago

Can they afford to do that? I would assume it would be the other way around unless the valuation of either/both changes drastically.

XAI acquiring twitter is probably a better recent example than solarcity.

Multiplayer7 hours ago

GM Supercruise on my 2024 Silverado RST is a joke compared to Tesla FSD. It's not even remotely comparable. Supercruise only works on freeways/highways, does not understand ANY navigation. It's a better cruise control, that's about it. I own 2 Tesla model S of different vintages and FSD is a completely different animal. My 2017 model s can navigate from my house to, well, anywhere, with no intervention. I have been very disappointed in how long it took Tesla to get here based on the promises they made 10(!) years ago, but they are there now. Even a year ago FSD used to scare me frequently and cause me to disengage but that never happens now.

dstroot8 hours ago

And Elon canceled the S and X models but not the Cybertruck? C’mon…

memish7 hours ago

1. Tesla has $40B in cash and is profitable. To say it's worth $5B is beyond absurd.

2. The market determines what is a fair value, not rando haters on the internet. Even professional Wall Street consensus is that it's fair value at approximately $1.2T market cap.

rkagerer6 hours ago

$40B in cash/equivalents, minus some $13-20B in debt (depending what source you pick).

jmyeet8 hours ago

> Tesla will become a case study on how to completely waste the first-mover advantage.

It's a study in many things.

Tesla only exists because of the transfer of wealth from the government. DOE loans, EV tax credits and other incentives are the difference between existing and not existing.

That's not necessarily bad. The problem is the government really gets nothing for their money. Look at how China incubates their businesses.

As an example, imagine where we'd be if the government had insisted on standardized charging infrastructure instead of Tesla's originally proprietary Supercharger network.

> If Tesla was valued fairly, it would probably be at the tune of $5B.

I could see it as high as $100B but not $1.5T. Not even close.

And I, too, would never bet against it. Nothing fundamental is behind Tesla's valuation. It's just gambling.

alex11389 hours ago

That valuation is sure interesting considering the people killed in crashes from Tesla's self-driving thing

Edit: I love making legitimate points and instantly accruing downvotes from 'Valley VC types. Look yourself in the mirror.

jlongr8 hours ago

Oh their self-driving thing...Full* "Self" Driving (supervised)(see notes)(not liable for anything)

alex11387 hours ago

Sorry, I didn't remember what it was called. FSD, I think

outside12348 hours ago

We are in a time when people are in cults. Trump is a cult. Elon is a cult. Tesla is a cult.

Cults do not operate on logic, but almost always result in a mass casualty event of some sort.

notabee7 hours ago

It's baked into the foundations of the U.S. While perhaps not a cult as we describe it today, even the first puritans that settled here were considered extremists not welcome in their home countries. For such a young country, we have always had a burgeoning industry in upstart cults, grifts, and religions (but I repeat myself).

jacquesm9 hours ago

Tesla benefited from tax payer subsidies.

WarmWash8 hours ago

Trust me, I hate Tesla and Elon as much as the next naysayer

But just to keep the story straight

Tesla received ~$3 billion in subsidies.

When Elon exercised his Tesla options in 2021, he paid $11 billion in taxes on it.

By all accounts those subsidies were an incredibly good use of taxpayer money, and similar subsidies should keep being handed out, even if the byproduct is another big troll on twitter.

jordanb8 hours ago

Dunno where that $3 billion comes from; tesla made 11 billion in regulatory credits alone: https://insideevs.com/news/767939/tesla-regulatory-credit-11...

+1
everfrustrated8 hours ago
+1
WarmWash8 hours ago
dpkirchner7 hours ago

How should we calculate the enormous subsidy they received through high tariffs against their competitors?

terminalbraid8 hours ago

> Trust me, I hate Tesla and Elon as much as the next naysayer

But then you go to defend them as if it were something you're obligated to do. I think you demonstrably do not hate Tesla and Elon as much as the next naysayer.

WarmWash8 hours ago

No I hate disinformation that makes people on my side look uninformed and stupid.

On a deeper level, I hate bandwagons because they are invariably full of idiotic parrots.

Elon has done a enough demonstrably stupid and bad shit that we don't need to play deception to drum up resistance. Especially when that deception plays on "government subsides in the green sector have been a colossal waste of money".

+1
IncreasePosts7 hours ago
andruby8 hours ago

That's true for a lot of (most?) car manufacturers?

I fully agree that TSLA is madly overpriced as a car company, and too hyped as any other type of company.

ben_w9 hours ago

An important question is therefore: why didn't anyone else?

relaxing8 hours ago

Of course they did.

vannevar23 hours ago

The next shoe to drop will be shifting Model Y production from Fremont to Austin. Fremont will make Model 3s. Austin will make Model Ys and Robotaxis/2s. Cybertruck will be canceled. None of the Tesla plants will be making robots at any scale for many years.

riffraff16 hours ago

Do you expect the demand for Tesla's robotaxis to be high? I don't see it.

lacker16 hours ago

If they actually worked right now, the demand would be high. Demand is certainly high for Waymos. Even if they worked worse than a Waymo I think the demand would still be very high. But it's hard to tell if (or when) it will work well enough to actually be a real product.

LandoCalrissian7 hours ago

Probably not a great strategy to piss off every blue voter in the country and then try to setup a business in cities.

Deklomalo12 hours ago

The question is what 'high' means in context of revenue.

Uber, the globally available taxi company, is valued 8 times less than tesla. If you are now able to kill all the costs for the taxi driving and reduce the cost for the car also, how much revenue is left?

Robotaxi has to be cheaper than a normal taxi to kill taxis. The margin of that company can't be that much more than a company like uber.

And uber itself will also invest in this, as every other car company. XPeng and co everyone who is building or working on this, will not just idly looking and waiting for tesla to just take 'whatever this cake' will look like.

For me it becomes a complet game changer if it becomes so reliable so extrem reliable, that i can order a car at night, a fresh bed / couch is then in the car and i can lie down while it drives me a few hundred kilometers away.

+2
mustyoshi9 hours ago
vdm8 hours ago

> has to be cheaper than a normal taxi

... plus 24/7 shifts of human drivers

riffraff16 hours ago

that's why I said "Tesla's robotaxis".

They have not proven they are waymo level or near it, or that they will ever be there given the lack of lidar.

MetaWhirledPeas7 hours ago

> Even if they worked worse than a Waymo I think the demand would still be very high.

They may already work better than a Waymo. It's hard to tell. It's certainly there using the public version of FSD. There's awkwardness, but the same can be said of Waymo. What I don't know is how many mandatory edge cases remain to be handled before they can set it free.

Cthulhu_15 hours ago

I don't see the demand for their robots to be high either tbh, but they're betting on them. It's not going to work.

mustyoshi9 hours ago

Hyundai is partnering with Boston Dynamics to deploy 30k robots a year.

Amazon is looking to replace 600k employees over the next decade.

Why do you believe demand for humanoids isn't high?

+1
boogrpants9 hours ago
JasonBorne16 hours ago

Of course it will be high. Transit is a huge market. They would just need a small share of Uber, lyft, regular taxis, public transit.

Deklomalo11 hours ago

Tesla is already valued 9x higher than uber.

Uber makes money on every ride.

Teslas Robotaxi has to be cheaper than a taxi with a human and i don't think they will be able to have a lot higher revenue per ride than uber. Not 9x

And if Tesla starts to deliver a robotaxi, all of this revenue has to be shared between taxis, uber, Tesla, Waimo, Zoox, Rimac, Cruise, Baidu, WeRide, ...

So how huge is the market for Tesla to be valuated 9x higher than Uber?

We can even combine a big car company, a robotics company, a solar roof company, battery storage company, ETruck and a robotaxi company and STILL don't get to the same valuation than Tesla currently has.

Teslas share price is math for stupid people.

+1
sib8 hours ago
CursedSilicon16 hours ago

Private taxis don't compete with public transit. They operate in completely different spheres

+1
dddgghhbbfblk16 hours ago
lisdexan12 hours ago

>Uber, lyft, regular taxis

Waymo is already there, just needs to scale and they are already cooperating with Uber.

>public transit

Unless Musk develops the shrink ray it will never compete with actual high throughput public transit, for the same reason if jets flew themselves we wouldn't commute by air. The cost of drivers per fare is less than in a private car, so the benefits for a bus are lesser. Modern metros are already autonomous.

zeryx10 hours ago

Also the US is essentially the only country with failed public transit, outside of Africa. If he thinks he can expand his robo taxi fleet to China or Europe or hell even Russia he's got screws loose

panick21_9 hours ago

It would be high if it worked, but it doesn't.

trhway16 hours ago

demand for any robotaxis will be high. Just look at the number of Uber drivers whom the robotaxis will replace. Plus leased robotaxis or personal/reserved ones - whatever shape it'd take replacing at least some percentage of personal cars.

There is only a "small" issue - to make those robotaxis, i.e. the self-driving system for them. Almost 20 years in, Google/Waymo is way ahead of everybody and is still not there yet (i believe we will get there anyday now - which maybe next year or in 10 years - especially giving all the avalanche of investment in AI. Though i'd have expected that 4+ years in we'd see a lot of autonomous platforms/weapons in Ukraine, yet it hasn't happen too yet)

bandrami16 hours ago

That means a lot more capex though (as it is drivers bring their own cars) and I'm not sure how much enthusiasm there is for more of that right now

trhway16 hours ago

Nothing prevents the drivers to long-term lease a robocar like a personal vehicle and send it to work for Uber during the time when they don't need it.

Currently an Uber driver can drive at any given moment only one car for Uber. With robocars, a driver can invest in 2, 3 or more robocars and send them to work for Uber. Similar to how people buy multiple properties to rent out on AirBnB.

groundzeros20159 hours ago

Why would cybertruck be cancelled?

palmotea8 hours ago

> Why would cybertruck be cancelled?

IIRC, the fully-electric F150 Lighting was canceled due to poor sales, and its sales were better than the Cybertruck's.

WillPostForFood7 hours ago

It isn't just about sales, it is about margin. F150 Lightning was losing money on each unit produced - they cost about 40% more to product than they sold for. Cybertruck has a positive gross margin, so even though sales are terrible, they don't have have a pressing financial need to cancel it.

malshe7 hours ago

Tesla doesn't disclose the gross margin on Cybertruck. They may say it is positive but if nobody knows what constituted those gross margins or what they amounted to, it's pretty much meaningless.

trgn9 hours ago

it's one of their models i would like for them to succeed the most. americans love trucks (especially where i live), and the impact of electric truck replacing ice ones on the gestalt of the neighborhood is significant, no noise, no fumes. people tend to drive their electric cars/trucks more gently too. my neighbor bought one, and it's night and day.

and oddly enough, while i kneejerk hated it at first, the design has grown on me, something genuinely different, playful. much rather see a parked cybertruck than yet another oversized bloated "regular" truck.

horsawlarway8 hours ago

While I also don't mind manufacturers trying a new look, and I like the vague "halo warthog" look of the thing, the Cybertruck seems to have ended up a very bad spot.

It's just not a good truck.

It's also suffered from being insanely overhyped, and then underdelivering on basically every front.

---

Part of my problem with modern Tesla is that they seem to have really jumped the shark on delivering products that are functional. Across the board - from autonomous driving, solar roofs, power walls, Cybertruck, Semi, etc... Even the mass manufactured lines like the Y get staggeringly bad reliability ratings and reviews.

Good form is great! Good form at the expense of good function is not.

JKCalhoun8 hours ago

I have bemoaned the sameness of car design these days. To the Cybertruck I say, thank you for trying something different!

But not like that.

(Also, the problem is "Americans love trucks"—the Cybertruck doesn't solve that. It's still just a lethal grocery-getter in suburbia where the Cybertruck was only going to sell anyway. I'd sooner get behind the new golf-cart craze in suburbia—let them drive their golf carts to Costco.)

cyrialize7 hours ago

If you drive a truck because you like trucks, then a Cybertruck works.

If you drive a truck because you need a truck, then Cybertrucks don't really work.

That being said, I think a lot of people are in the first category.

The second category people have things that can be fit in a normal truck, but not a Cybertruck.

AlexandrB9 hours ago

In what world is the Cybertruck not "oversized" and "bloated". It has roughly the same footprint as an F150.

burnte8 hours ago

Modern F150s are also bloated and oversized.

trgn7 hours ago

it's its own design, doesn't look like a fat truck, more something new and big

jefftk8 hours ago

> people tend to drive their electric cars/trucks more gently too

Really? I tend to see much more aggressive acceleration from people in electric cars (including myself when I'm driving, though I try not to). I've been putting it down to people being used to how gas cars seem to be working harder when you ask them to accelerate heavily, while electric just goes with no complaints.

trgn7 hours ago

i guess it's not accompanied with the noise which makes the difference for me

geoffeg9 hours ago
groundzeros20158 hours ago

I don’t agree with that external analysis (cnbc is saying it’s lower than their expectations). This is a gen 1 product for super fans that they want to evolve into a mainstream one.

AlexandrB9 hours ago
sampton19 hours ago

I can't remember when was the last S/X refresh. It's nuts they just let it go stale and shut the factory down.

trhway16 hours ago

The refresh would need large investment. And it seems that S/X weren't selling that well to warrant such an investment. Just looking around - SV, a key market for Tesla - everybody buys 3 and Y, not S and X. In some sense it seems that 3/Y cannibalized S/X.

AlexandrB8 hours ago

I don't know if it's genius or madness, but all of Tesla's cars look the same. When I see a Tesla, I can't tell if it's a 3, S, X, or Y unless I get close. The most distinct one is the X with its fancy doors.

So when I hear they're cancelling the S and X I can't even picture which cars we're talking about.

Cthulhu_14 hours ago

While that's true, S/X were considered luxury vehicles, 3/Y mainstream and they far, FAR outsold the S/X. In most cases, volume trumps individual prices.

Of course, that doesn't mean they had to discontinue those lines.

dybber7 hours ago

As luxury vehicles they were also competing in a different market, where competitors have caught up.

the_mitsuhiko8 hours ago

How can legacy auto refresh models every two years and Tesla cannot?

panick21_9 hours ago

The problem is just there is no concept of a car company where they only sell their standard mass market vehicles. Somewhat more expensive higher margin vehicles are in the lineup for almost all the other companies. Its kind of strange to suggest its not worth it when it is seemingly worth it for most other companies.

Maybe the wisdom of having a 'full lineup' is wrong and has to do with making dealers happy.

On the other hand, having 99% of your sales be 2 very similar vehicles seems questionable strategy.

toomuchtodo19 hours ago

Tesla got the job done, which was empower Musk, not manufacture EVs at scale. The stock is the product.

misiek0816 hours ago

Maybe I’m just naive enough, because I love cars and progress, but I think you agree that he really showed our whole small world that EV can exist and work. Everyone laughed, no one believed it will work and here he still is rich and we have Teslas everywhere. Driving, not killing more people than other brands.

+1
longitudinal9316 hours ago
Cthulhu_14 hours ago

While you're correct on the one hand, Tesla made EVs feasible and mainstream, did the investments and caused a rolling effect of worldwide investments in e.g. batteries and EVs, and government subsidies that also made investing in EVs more attractive to competitors.

Besides EVs, Tesla's long term revenue could very well be in the supercharger network, too. It's not as exciting as self driving cars, but the oil companies have been the most valuable companies / stocks worldwide without being exciting like that. I mean I don't think EV charging will be anywhere near as big as oil because it doesn't involve nearly as much infrastructure or international trade, but it's still big, especially if governments refocus on replacing ICEs with EVs.

(the focus has been let go because the subsidies were too popular and expensive)

DennisP7 hours ago

I agreed on the supercharger network, which made it pretty surprising when Musk fired the entire supercharger team.

jopsen16 hours ago

> The stock is the product.

Musk reeks of scam. But for a stock pump and dumb scheme there sure are a lot of teslas on the road.

+2
tw0416 hours ago
totetsu19 hours ago

Has it all really been just one giant grift to steal every Americans social security number.

+2
WalterBright19 hours ago
laughing_man18 hours ago

Musk's goal all along was to get away from boutique production. He wants to sell millions of cheaper cars, not thousands of cars for wealthy people.

Not sure it's going to work out. Without some big jumps in battery tech, EVs are going to be difficult to sell without subsidies.

Cthulhu_14 hours ago

> Without some big jumps in battery tech, EVs are going to be difficult to sell without subsidies.

The actual sales figures show otherwise, but sure, there's still a lot of uncertainty with regards to batteries / range, I can imagine even moreso in the US. Traveled to Austria a while ago in an EV (~1000 kilometers), we had to stop 3x on the way, but the battery was good for another 2.5 hours of driving after a coffee. I keep hearing that "solid state batteries are around the corner" and they will solve all problems with capacity and safety / fire risk, apparently. I'll just sit and wait patiently, it'll take years before their production capacity is on par with current battery tech.

+1
WarmWash8 hours ago
Retric18 hours ago

Musk would love to be selling several billion dollars per year of model S/X sales, the issue is they aren’t that competitive with other cars in the luxury segment thus the falling sales numbers.

Tesla’s doesn’t really have a complex strategy at this point, they are getting squeezed out of the high end by legacy automakers where their lower cost batteries don’t matter as much. They are absolutely fucked on the low end as soon as Chinese cars enter the picture.

So self driving is really the only option to sell any long term upside to keep the stock from tanking. It’s not a very convincing argument, but you play the hand your dealt.

runako17 hours ago

> getting squeezed out of the high end by legacy automakers where their lower cost batteries don’t matter as much. They are absolutely fucked on the low end as soon as Chinese cars enter the picture.

The deep irony here is that after ~15 years of trying ti differentiate from the legacy American automakers, they land in a very similar competitive position. Chinese EVs are in the process of running the table outside the protectionist markets of the EU + US/Canada.

Eventually those protective barriers will fall as they protect a relatively small number of citizens by taxing the majority. It remains to be seen whether the US and European domestic producers will survive.

ted_dunning15 hours ago

You may have to play the hand you have, but Musk was the dealer and he is still losing.

+3
loeg16 hours ago
defrost18 hours ago

And yet Chinese EV's are flying out of their factories, well, a few are - most are self driving out to the shipping yards.

This despite the 2025 support by the Chinese state for the Chines EV industry now being almost nothing.

  By contrast, defenders of China could point out that the data show that subsidies as a percentage of total sales have declined substantially, from over 40% in the early years to only 11.5% in 2023, which reflects a pattern in line with heavier support for infant industries, then a gradual reduction as they mature.

    In addition, they could note that the average support per vehicle has fallen from $13,860 in 2018 to just under $4,600 in 2023, which is less than the $7,500 credit that goes to buyers of qualifying vehicles as part of the U.S.’s Inflation Reduction Act.
Old source: https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil...

but the arc of less subsidies is clear.

+2
thesmtsolver216 hours ago
+1
0110001118 hours ago
littlestymaar16 hours ago

> He wants to sell millions of cheaper cars, not thousands of cars for wealthy people.

Why hasn't the cheap car been designed yet then?

+1
laughing_man16 hours ago
seattle_spring17 hours ago

> Musk's goal all along was to get away from boutique production. He wants to sell millions of cheaper cars, not thousands of cars for wealthy people.

So the literal opposite of the Cybertruck, which was released less than a year ago.

nehal3m16 hours ago

According to the Wikipedia article the first one rolled off the line in November 2023. That’s a good two years.

+1
longitudinal9316 hours ago
tempestn23 hours ago

Agreed, let alone 1M units a year!

tombert18 hours ago

My dad found it extremely amusing that Elon said "we just have to solve the 'AI problem' and we'll have robots doing shopping for us", or something like that. I can't remember the exact verbiage, but that was the gist.

The word "just" is doing a lot of work there. Going by that logic: We "just" need to figure out cold fusion to have effectively infinite energy. We "just" need to develop warp drives to travel across the galaxy. We "just" need to figure out the chemo problem to cure cancer.

arw0n17 hours ago

It is like me at the climbing gym: "This problem is too hard for me, let's work on a harder one instead, then I at least look cool while failing."

"Since we failed on self-driving since 2016, robotaxis since 2020 (1 million on the road), and ASI since 2023, we might as well start on failing on robots now".

+1
autarch17 hours ago
anonzzzies17 hours ago

I find it amusing listening to his Q1 earnings calls; every year the same exact blabber of robots everywhere 'end of the year', self driving tesla's everywhere after the summer, mars next year etc. Every Bloody Year. The real clever thing of this guy, no matter how smart/not/nazi/whatever he is, is the fact that investors KEEP throwing money in even though the major ones are on those earning calls every year for a decade already and of course that these stocks are not cratering.

But I recommend listening to those calls, start 5 years back; because on reddit but also here, you get wide eyed awestruck people who say 'ow optimus is december this year! ow self driving everything in september!'.

everdrive11 hours ago

And why would we even need or want robots shopping for us? I mean, most of us. For some disabled individuals it could be a benefit. For everyone else, it seems like the height of laziness and absurdity.

vel0city10 hours ago

Tons of people hire people to do their shopping. Curbside pickup and grocery delivery has existed for a while.

A large amount of the people I see in grocery store around me are working as pickers filling online orders.

yokoprime14 hours ago

Its classic Elon over-promising. Problem with robots is that they are useless without AI, while cars can be driven by a human, so as long as controls work and range is good they are viable

mraniki17 hours ago

Interview in Davos. The “right” has the same touch than the “just” here:

> MUSK: Yeah. But I think self-driving cars is essentially a solved problem at this point, right? And Tesla’s rolled out a sort of robo-taxi service in a few cities, and will be very, very widespread by the end of this year within the U.S. And then we hope to get supervised full self-driving approval in Europe, hopefully next month.

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgifEgm1-e0

+1
tombert17 hours ago
Animats16 hours ago

MUSK: Yeah. But I think self-driving cars is essentially a solved problem at this point, right? And Tesla’s rolled out a sort of robo-taxi service in a few cities, and will be very, very widespread by the end of this year within the U.S.

He said that would happen in 2025. And probably earlier, too.

tonyhart717 hours ago

I am also certain given time this problem is achievable but the problem is what we expect after that ????? mass unemployment or we just convert all human into robot repairer ???? what the end goal there

tw0416 hours ago

Basically yes. The robots take care of the rich, and poor people with their need to have a cut of the resources just go away.

They do believe in a post capitalism utopia, they just think only about a thousand people need to enjoy it.

jcgrillo17 hours ago

We "just" need to figure out the terraforming problem then we can all move to Mars and be interplanetary explorers. Imagine how cool it would be to have corporate leaders who had vision--environmentally friendly automobiles, cheap space travel, etc.--without the clammy snake oil grifter bullshit. Reality is cool AF. The things that are actually achievable are amazing. We don't need to spout nonsense to do great things. We don't need "AGI" (whatever that might be) to do neat things with machine learning. The Jetsons is a cartoon. Trying to make it real is dumb.

+6
disillusioned16 hours ago
tonyhart717 hours ago

we need AGI and robot so people can leave chore in house to a robot

phendrenad223 hours ago

Yeah I don't buy this announcement. Converting their huge Fremont facility to just making humanoid robots? Do they have some large buyer or something? I'm skeptical.

laughing_man18 hours ago

I suspect it's going dormant for a couple years and then he'll say "Hey, this robot thing isn't working out, so we're closing the facility." He doesn't have any desire to stay in California.

Animats18 hours ago

A reasonable guess.

As far as I can tell, the number of humanoid robots doing anything productive is zero. It's all demos.

This is far harder than self-driving. As a guy from Waymo once said in a talk, "the output is only two numbers" (speed and steering angle).

Also, there are at least 18 humanoid robots good enough to have a Youtube video. Tesla is not the leader.

Remember the "cobot" boom of about five years ago? Easy to train and use industrial robots safe around humans? Anybody?

I'm not saying this is impossible, but that it's too early for volume production. This will probably take as long as it took to get to real robotaxis.

TOMDM15 hours ago

> Also, there are at least 18 humanoid robots good enough to have a Youtube video.

Agreed, thing is the robot hardware isn't the hard part anymore, the top ten robots are all sufficient to be transformative if they had good enough AI.

My bet is on Google/Gemini being the first to market from what I've seen so far.

Boston dynamics is a leader in getting robots to do useful niche work in well bounded environments, but that's yesterday's news.

heisenbit15 hours ago

The story needs only to hold up until car production has shut down.

jsight18 hours ago

S and X were a small fraction of Fremont already. The plant can do >500k units per year, but S/X were closer to 20k.

It sounds like this would be giving ~5% of the factory space to Optimus production, which seems reasonable.

bdangubic22 hours ago

they have a large buyer - all of the silly people investing money in the company

phs318u20 hours ago

[flagged]

epicwynn20 hours ago

We can kill robots without remorse, and they're likely going to be worse than a human agent at most things for a few years. Not a bad timeline for them to waste their time on.

poink19 hours ago

As insane as American politics is "I can blast robots on my property" has exactly the right amount of crank appeal to be possibly the final 90/10 issue

moogly20 hours ago

What if they're private property though? Historically, the state has always valued private property over human lives, so the response could be even more brutal.

jayd1619 hours ago

Except we're the ones that pay for robots, and the cleanup and the settlements.

testing2232119 hours ago

IF they work (and that is a massive, massive if), every factory on earth will replace every human with them.

It’s inevitable, the only question is how many years until it happens: 2, 5, 10, 50?

Place your bets!

adastra2218 hours ago

Do think factories are still mostly humans on assembly lines?

tonyhart716 hours ago

"Do think factories are still mostly humans on assembly lines?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBdcNA_FsI

china dark factory

+1
oblio18 hours ago
+1
testing2232118 hours ago
cs70210 hours ago

Five years ago, during the 2021 Q1 earnings call, Musk was asked about Models S and X. He responded:

> I mean, they’re very expensive, made in low volume. To be totally frank, we’re continuing to make them more for sentimental reasons than anything else. They’re really of minor importance to the future.

bhouston23 hours ago

Tesla is a meme stock in a similar manner to GME. You cannot bet against them even if they have incredibly unsure future prospectives because there are too many believers who will buy any dips.

al_borland22 hours ago

That might be a little extreme. Tesla is making electric cars and robots. These are very much things of the future.

GameStop is buying and selling used games, which is becoming impossible as consoles keep pushing for digital games.

GameStop requires a major shift in their business model to stay relevant, while Tesla just needs to hope the public doesn’t reject the idea of electrics cars out of stubbornness or politics.

While there is a lot of hype baked into both stocks, it seems like hype with Tesla is founded in more reality than the GameStop hype.

MBCook20 hours ago

Didn’t they just announce their profits dropped like 45% year over a year?

https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/28/tesla-earnings-profit-q4-2...

They’ve been overvalued for a very very long time. And then the head of the company decided to alienate as many people as possible. All while pouring a ton of resources into a product that very few people want instead of saner things.

guywithahat7 hours ago

Sure but they also beat earnings and revenue targets, and the stock price rose. I think it was expected for EV profits to drop when the tax credit left

adastra2218 hours ago

Electric cars, maybe. Tesla is valued much larger than the rest of the auto industry combined though.

Humanoid robots? Ain’t nobody made the business case for that. It is pure vibes.

johnfn18 hours ago

Are you seriously saying there is no business case for humanoid robots?

jasondigitized7 hours ago

Robots yes. Humanoid ones? Why? So people can be amazed? Purpose built robots are the future. The human form is sub optimal for most enterprise use cases.

+3
epolanski12 hours ago
thefounder16 hours ago

I think the technology is just not there to make the business case for humanoid robots. It’s like the VR. Everyone would like to use VR but the tech is just not good enough. Same with FSD. The robots may be 10-20 years away from actual being good enough. If Elon can trick people for 20 years like he did with FSD then he may have a business case for humanoid robots

+2
sethrin18 hours ago
wasfgwp16 hours ago

Maybe there is. But isn’t Tesla way, way behind Hyundai at this? It’s not even close? Yet Hyundai’s stock is still very cheap..

+1
adastra2218 hours ago
csomar18 hours ago

If you think our current tech stack is anywhere close to making humanoid robots viable, then you might as well buy Tesla stock.

UltraSane10 hours ago

Not for what they currently cost and are capable of.

seattle_spring17 hours ago

There's a huge business case! There's also a major business case for teleportation, which seems about as likely to happen under a Musk-led company.

bigyabai18 hours ago

There was a "business case" for $25,000 EVs before China did it, and Tesla conveniently pivoted. It's 2026, anyone who's watching the game knows the score.

+1
oblio18 hours ago
parineum18 hours ago

Tesla is valued at more than the auto industry because they are doing more than the entire auto industry.

Honda is going to come out with a new Civic next year. It's going to look like the old Civic.

Tesla is trying to create self driving taxis to make the rest of the auto industry obsolete.

If you think that can happen, they should be worth more than the rest of the industry.

+2
mywittyname17 hours ago
aloha243618 hours ago

> Tesla is trying to create self driving taxis to make the rest of the auto industry obsolete.

They are one of many organisations trying to do that and they are not the most successful at it.

ndngmfksk17 hours ago

Honda have been making humanoid robots since the 1980s.

thefounder17 hours ago

Well, check Hyundai as well. They do more than cars as well including robots(Boston Dynamics). Tesla is not doing anything special. It was the only EV someone could use but it’s no longer the case. Now it tries to go the robots way but it’s not the same as the EV was. There are tones of humanoid robot companies, some more advanced than whatever Tesla is cooking

wasfgwp16 hours ago

It can happen. Its unlikely Tesla will catch up to Waymo any time soon though. Yet valuation for Tesla (relative to how much money they are making) is massively higher than Google’s. Which would make very little sense following this logic?

hakfoo17 hours ago

We're missing a part of the case though: why do you need to be a car-maker to be the vanguard for self-driving taxis?

The best case scenario for a self-driving company would be to target software and sensor solution packages that they can sell or license to other manufacturers. Such a vendor can focus on the self-driving problem and not have to bother with things like "we found a surprisingly big market niche for a 11-passenger minibus, but no platform for it" or "to sell it in the EU we need the headlights to be 5cm lower". I'd expect the margins are also a hell of a lot higher if they don't have to include two tonnes of steel with each auto-driver license they sell.

Maybe they build a small number of test mules, or just chop-shop a few off-the-shelf cars as a R&D fleet, but they hardly need to be a seven-figures-per-year manufacturer to be supplying those needs.

That's even assuming they come out green in the competition to deliver robotaxis. Right now the leading player in the US market is a company who is neither Tesla nor a legacy vehicle manufacturer. It's an adtech who started gluing the contents of a Radio Shack onto the worst cars you could possibly think of (Chrysler Pacificas and Jaguar i-Paces? Really?) and turned it into something that's an everyday thing in several major cities.

Tesla FSD story reminds me of the fracas that was early OS/2. IBM sold people 286 hardware on the promise of it running OS/2, so they had to waste a lot of effort building a 286-capable OS/2 that was clunky and almost immediately obsolete. No matter how talented Tesla's R&D team are, they're walled in by design choices made on existing vehicles (i. e. relying on cameras instead of lidar). I wonder if they'd be better off being ran as an arm's length startup to address the problem more generically, and then they can sell it to other firms if it turns out that the best solution won't work on existing Tesla hardware.

itzprime15 hours ago

They are actually behind in a lot of their self driving to other car companies

themafia14 hours ago

> These are very much things of the future.

I thought it was hyperloop. I thought it was suboribital taxis. I thought it was underground taxis. I thought it was self-driving semi trucks. Or was it solar roofs? Or powerwall? Wait weren't we supposed to be on the moon again right now?

He's a bullshitter. Yea, he picks good targets, but he is entirely full of shit. The market just does not reflect this. He should have been golden parachuted onto a yacht years ago.

karel-3d8 hours ago

To his credit he also delivers, sometimes.

X kind of works. XAi kind of works. You can say it is all kind of broken but it works. People predicted X will collapse just a few months ago!

StarLink is really popular now, and it didn't exist few months ago.

He can still do things. People are betting on that.

Now if you ask me, Tesla is still his biggest moneymaker and collapse of Tesla sales will be catastrophic for his empire.

bhouston6 hours ago

> X kind of works.

It is less popular and makes less money than when he acquired it, and that is ignoring the fact that it is a cesspool of racism now.

jeltz21 hours ago

Tesla's sales are standing still in a growing market. Are they GameStop? Maybe not, but they still require a major shift or their competitors will leave them behind in the dirt.

coffeebeqn12 hours ago

They are making things but the case for them being worth an order or magnitude more than a normal EV company is getting weaker by the day

julianeon17 hours ago

This was true when Tesla was primarily in the market of making electric cars. It is not true if their business is humanoid robots: that's squarely meme stock territory.

jojobas19 hours ago

Tesla's valuation is not related to their production of cars or robots.

bdangubic19 hours ago

refrigirators then? some other household appliances? what exactly is “thing de jour” tesla is today?!

jojobas18 hours ago

BYD made 35% more electric cars than Tesla and its market cap is about 1/10th.

Tesla's valuation has no grounding in any physical goods it manufactures.

+1
linkregister18 hours ago
gcr20 hours ago

The current administration is “rejecting the idea of electric cars out of stubbornness or politics.” See: Trump moving to withhold funding for EV chargers, terminating EV mandates and government support, etc. I don’t know what Musk is thinking by supporting this administration so steadfastly as they work hard to undermine his own efforts and initiatives.

aaronbrethorst19 hours ago

I'm not making any specific assertions about what's in Musk's heart. I can draw some conclusions from his behaviors, actions, and words, but that's neither here nor there.

I will say, though, that there is a longstanding tradition, certainly in the United States, of an in group hurting their own material interests to deprive an out group of that same thing. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2021/02/15/public-pools-us...

dylan60419 hours ago

Musk got what he needed at the expense of losing some tax incentives for his customer base. He was able to shut down government investigations into him/his companies. That alone should have been worth quite a salary bump.

csomar18 hours ago

It's pure politics: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/genera...

The people behind the Diesel won and now are moving the money flows their way. See GM stock.

pm9013 hours ago

tesla is not making robots.

ulfw14 hours ago

They are making no robots.

What robots are they making?

Where can you buy one? What does it do?

jmyeet19 hours ago

The only thing keeping Tesla afloat currently is tariffs and restrictions on far cheaper and far better foreign alternatives. That's not a solid foundation. It's certainly not a trillion dollar company.

The dam is breaking. We have Canada lowering tariffs and agreeing to allow the import of Chinese EVs (limited, at least to start with) and the US administration goes off on Canada for doing it because they know what it means: crumbling American influence.

South America, Africa and Asia are likely forever lost to Tesla. And European sales are tumbling.

The supercharger network will maintain some inertia for some time but only for so long.

You can see this in Tesla announcements about attempts to diversify. AI robots? I'll believe it when I see it. Robotaxis? Well you're reliant on FSD for that and you have stiff competition in Waymo and who knows what China is cooking up there.

The GP was correct: it's a meme stock. It's no longer an investment in a business. It's an investment in Elon and, more generally, an investment in the administration. There's no fundamental way to predict how that goes and on what time scale. If you want to gamble, gamble. But gamgling is what it is. And, just like Twitter, I guarantee you the people at the top won't be left holding the bag.

direwolf2020 hours ago

BYD makes electric cars. Not sure if Trump will let you import them.

nancyminusone19 hours ago

Nor will any American president. Detroit would collapse overnight (again).

sschueller18 hours ago

You can on the betting market bet against Tesla reaching their ever moving goal posts. Those same meme stock holders are so sure that FSD will come by March that they are taking the bets.

Grimblewald14 hours ago

All fun and games until people game the system. Polymarket for example will frequently just bend/ignore the truth to make specific unlikely/not real outcomes happen.

ghtbircshotbe8 hours ago

Game stop used its irrationally high stock price to raise money. Tesla instead has been giving away stock to make Musk richer.

shevy-java18 hours ago

> You cannot bet against them

I am not sure. I think buyers or potential buyers shifted their assessment of Tesla in the last, say, 1-2 years a lot.

epolanski12 hours ago

Did they? It keeps going up despite no reasons for it.

AndreyK198417 hours ago

I was exactly going to shot Tesla. Is Tesla more like Elon meme ?

raincole16 hours ago

There is no such thing as "meme stock." It's literally just how stock market is since forever. But every generation thinks they are so special that they have to coin new terms for the oldest things.

wasfgwp16 hours ago

Historically bubbles like this hardly ever lasted this long, though

adammarples14 hours ago

That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a meme stock, that means there have always been meme stocks and we now have a consice name for it

CamperBob218 hours ago

GME is a joke that got out of hand. TSLA is a cult that went too far.

sixQuarks19 hours ago

The Elon hate is really creating a blind spot for many people here.

You can’t just compare Tesla to a meme stock when the founder’s side gig is launching and landing orbital rockets - a feat that even the most technologically advanced nation states have failed to accomplish.

Come on people, use a little critical thinking skills.

anonymars18 hours ago

Critical thinking might ask how the valuation of company A has any relationship to the activity of a completely separate company B (planning for its own IPO)

But I will concede the founder's other side gigs would appear to have significantly affected its sales

linkregister17 hours ago

Multiple things can be true:

1. SpaceX was an exceptionally well-executed good idea, and continues to be a leader in innovation.

2. Tesla brought EVs to the mass consumer market and proved the profitability of EVs.

3. Elon Musk was essential to the success of SpaceX and Tesla.

4. Tesla now has fierce competition in the category it defined: EVs.

5. Tesla has undergone revenue and profit reduction.

6. While it experiences promise in alternate product lines, Tesla is not a market leader in robotics (Unitree, Boston Dynamics) or self-driving cars (Baidu, Waymo). Tesla reported profit growth in residential solar and residential power storage, but the revenues from these verticals are dwarfed by other segments.

7. The trend over the past decades is Elon Musk being successful at innovating in underserved parts of the market.

8. Elon Musk is not currently pursuing any underserved parts of the market.

bccdee8 hours ago

And man behind the cybertruck has not earned the presumption that he has a secret plan. If it looks like things are going poorly, they probably are.

karel-3d8 hours ago

But Tesla and SpaceX are different companies

rswail16 hours ago

So he milked Tesla for another $2B to subsidize xAI, has dropped the models to 2 (3 and Y), revenue is down, growth is negative, BYD is eating Tesla for lunch, followed by the other CN and KR vehicle companies.

He doesn't have FSD, camera only navigation without sensor fusion with LIDAR will fail, the only thing keeping Tesla where it is is the bullshit dispersal field that surrounds Musk.

jjav13 hours ago

> He doesn't have FSD, camera only navigation without sensor fusion with LIDAR will fail, the only thing keeping Tesla where it is is the bullshit dispersal field that surrounds Musk.

So if I hear what you're saying, the stock will be up another 50% this year!

uyzstvqs13 hours ago

[flagged]

InsideOutSanta12 hours ago

Tesla has become a meme stock. The stock's performance is disconnected from the company's performance.

I agree that Tesla has clear strengths, like the vast amount of data they've collected from their cars, and their charging network, but it's also obvious that something is going very, very wrong with that company. The stock value is not reflecting that.

+1
moralestapia11 hours ago
p_l12 hours ago

Fun fact - recently it was declared that both Tesla and CCP EVs are to be treated as completely untrusted and not accepted in any semi-secure facilities in Poland (so including pretty much any military location)

happymellon12 hours ago

> like nobody trusts Huawei or Xiaomi phones.

Loads of people trusted Huawei, even after all the hyperbole about backdoors for the government. It needed regulators banning Huawei to knock their share of the market and protect the homegrown spyware.

+2
thephyber11 hours ago
+1
KomoD12 hours ago
lisdexan12 hours ago

>Tesla is leading and succeeding. People have faith in Musk as a leader. Nobody trusts CCP EVs, just like nobody trusts Huawei or Xiaomi phones.

That sounds literally like a religious mantra. Do rational investors have 'faith' in the Costco CEO? Do they even know his name on top of their head?

ThatMedicIsASpy11 hours ago

Faith and trust is something nobody uses to describe Musk. Maybe you should pop your own bubble you seem to live in? Using faith and trust while completely ignoring twitter?

thephyber11 hours ago

Tesla investor meetings are just lots of investor bros who have faith in Musk. They trust that Musk can continue to deliver the mindshare that he previously did to get the stock price to where it is.

I think he has tremendous downside risk, but there are a ridiculous number of people who still have “faith and trust” in him despite all of his downside risk.

epolanski12 hours ago

Most of the world is buying chinese EVs and likes them.

Also, fun fact, I do own a Xiaomi 13T and I'm absolutely happy with my phone.

lnsru16 hours ago

The gamble with Cybertruck failed. It’s common sense, that such a vehicle will fail. The successful cars are made for masses and not for niche buyers. Common sense product could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe and this car would eat Chinese for lunch. Expensive experiment failed, it’s time for consequences. Does Tesla have resources for another car experiment? Will it stay a car company?.. Or it will be now a manufacturer of robot soldiers?..

shalmanese15 hours ago

> Common sense product could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe and this car would eat Chinese for lunch.

Yeah, that would be the Model 2, which Musk cancelled, then denied he cancelled, then has made no effort to review whatsoever so it exists in a limbo state of zero people working on it but it not being officially cancelled. Either way, it didn't come out in 2025 as planned.

https://www.cbtnews.com/tesla-execs-raise-red-flags-after-mu...

For a normal company, this would be disastrous. For a meme stock, this makes total sense since anyone claiming the Model 2 is dead can be shouted at by fans saying Musk himself disputed it was dead.

angled13 hours ago

The completed original line up was

S 3 X Y

The C didn’t fit that, nor would a 2. Unless he’s aiming for a lineup of products that has you seeing someone next Tuesday.

vardump11 hours ago

I thought it was

S 3 X Y C A R S

Cybertruck, ATV (?), Roadster, Semi

00deadbeef11 hours ago

They could have expanded the lineup to 2 S 3 X Y 4 U

+1
dambon13 hours ago
operation_moose13 hours ago

And he couldn't get E (the original intended name) because Ford had it trademarked.

smitelli10 hours ago

CyberS3XY was what I always figured he was going for.

rob7411 hours ago

Why? I think a lineup with a 2 could have been S3XY 2!

westmeal13 hours ago

Lol I didn't even connect the dots together until this comment. For a dickhead rich memelord this one is at least somewhat clever.

InsideOutSanta12 hours ago

> smaller than Model 3 for Europe

A few years ago, perhaps. But the brand has become tainted to the point where the exact people who would buy such a car are now avoiding Teslas. Instead, European manufacturers are filling that niche with cars like the Renault 5.

londons_explore11 hours ago

> the exact people who would buy such a car are now avoiding Teslas

The traditional fix for this is to license the technology and do manufacturing for another carmaker to brand.

It's super common for brand X of car to actually be a rebadged Y with slightly different shaped body panels.

However, it only works if your product is good and you have decent margins. That means you have to compete with china cars, since the obvious thing for a western brand to do is to rebadge a chinese designed car and split the margins with the chinese designer/manufacturer.

rob7411 hours ago

> the obvious thing for a western brand to do is to rebadge a chinese designed car and split the margins with the chinese designer/manufacturer

Actually this is already happening with the Dacia Spring/Renault City: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongfeng_Motor_Corporation#eGT...

jermaustin110 hours ago

> However, it only works if your product is good and you have decent margins.

Not sure if the product has to be good. Look at the lineage of my wife's car The 2019 Chevy Trax, based on the Buick Encore, based on the Opel/Vauxhall Mokka. It isn't a good car under any of the badges, but it does run, and is small, but the crazy thing is my Ford Ranger gets roughly the same milage as it. Note: the gas milage is probably an American issue, because it runs a naturally aspirated i4 gas engine instead of a more efficient turbo diesel.

arethuza14 hours ago

Why would a small Tesla "eat Chinese for lunch" - the brand is tainted (to put it mildly) and the Teslas I've been in didn't seem to have great design or build quality?

lnsru12 hours ago

There are people like me who still buy teslas. Buddy picked up his new Model Y couple weeks ago. The price and the whole package is fine. Zero interest financing is absolutely nice. Elon showed his real face during children rescue drama in Asia. With this defamation story it was well known who he is for years. Political involvement was the visible tip of an iceberg for everyone.

Now if you ask me if the German car managers are better I doubt it. Gassing apes by Volkswagen in US is on the same level as Elon. Mercedes guy was complaining about lazy workers too much. Only BMW guy was able to keep acceptable silence. Overall German equivalent of model Y is at least 20000€ more expensive than Elon‘s car.

Personally I don’t buy anything from China if I can. I am not brave and as the Ayways story showed clearly, that great Chinese car can quickly be without any service. Maybe it’s ok to lease such car for couple years, but I don’t want to have car after small accident for what no replacement parts are available.

pbronez10 hours ago

Several years ago I wanted to buy an electric car. I didn’t like Musk, so my plan was “anything but Tesla.” Chevy Bolt was unavailable due to the fire problem. Cadillac Lyriq and Hyundai Ioniq 5 weren’t out yet.

I drove everything available to buy in my area. My real options were the Mustang Mach-e, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Hyundai Kona, Polestar 2. I decided to test drive a Model Y for completeness.

And CRAP.

The Model Y was obviously the best car. So much more refined than the other options. Way better charging network. 7 seat option. The only real downside was the zany CEO.

Fine, I thought. I’ll live with it.

I bought a Model Y and love it.

But.

I’ll never buy another Tesla. I have a bumper sticker disavowing the CEO. I paid off its loan so nobody would make money from me owning a Tesla. I honk support at the No Kings protestors outside the local Tesla facility.

I think the only thing that can save Tesla is a crash/buyout/relaunch. Get Musk out of the picture. Reset the stock price to something sane. Ditch the distractions. Release a Model 2. Keep expanding the SuperCharger network.

That’s a long hard road. Nobody involved makes money in that scenario. It’ll only happen when there are no other options.

As for me, I’m driving my Model Y until the wheels fall off. With the bumper sticker.

+1
martin_a10 hours ago
tedggh10 hours ago

I spent a month in Spain driving a BYD daily and it was fine. I just don’t like the tackiness of the interior and not in love with the exterior either. The handling is also ok, nothing exciting. There’s something still very Chinese about these cars. Not saying that matters if you just want an affordable and reliable EV that takes you from point A to B. BYD can do that perfectly fine. I personally like the design of the Model Y (own one) very much, it also feels much more “alive” particularly the dual motor. There’s no comparison with the BYD I drove. Also never had any issues with build quality other than the charging port malfunctioning, and it was fixed outside my house, all I had to do was touch a button in the app to call service. FSD is pretty damn amazing. The tech is great and the updates do make the car better in many ways. I hope Tesla finds its way because apart from all the controversy they can make good cars.

kakacik10 hours ago

Regardless, owner is a nazi and utter POS to be polite, basically same material as trump. Nothing in the world is going to change that, not now not in 40 years. He keeps insulting whole Europe (meaning all of fucking us living here) and our leaders almost daily, looking down on us very publicly.

Why the heck would I buy such car, even if it costed 1 euro? Have some self-respect and morality ffs, do you also go to restaurant where you know they will spit on you and insult you, just because they have cca same stuff as all other places, often worse while more expensive? [1]

[1] https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tuev-report-2026-tesla-mo...

krzyk12 hours ago

> Teslas I've been in didn't seem to have great design or build quality

Design is subjective (I like it), and build quality. Not sure, I don't have issues with mine except one where after 2 years frunk latch started failing. It was replaced in an hour when I went to service center.

Teslas are the cheapest EV for the features offered in Europe. I would gladly buy another car, but they are either more pricey, or lack features. (I did market research 2 years ago when I was buying Model Y, the closest one was ICE - RAV4 for similar price, but I didn't want ICE).

eldaisfish9 hours ago

not having door handles in an obvious location is such a subjective "feature" that people have been killed in fires because of the door handle placement.

I've lost count of the number of times i've seen tesla drivers "defrosting" their door handles. You may live in a sunny desert but many people do not.

d4lt411 hours ago

[dead]

msh13 hours ago

Today probably not but there was a time where Tesla doing a rush to electric car market dominance was not totally far fetched. This would have required them to have cars filling the important segments.

antonkochubey14 hours ago

because there is still 2012-era belief hanging around many people that Tesla's EV tech is superior to anything else

MPSimmons9 hours ago

yeah, they legitimately used to be but the rest of the world has definitely improved and Teslas weirdly haven't that much. They're cruising on name brand and a really decent charging network, but even that moat is being breached.

phoronixrly13 hours ago

Even without Musk's public persona, the Tesla build quality is infamous. I would never.

thephyber10 hours ago

The entire car is a surveillance machine and the company is happy after a crash to taint the driver in the public’s eye if it will improve the image of their AutoPilot. It’s bad enough having to deal with car insurance after a crash without your car’s manufacturer blaming you in public, sending the recipients to news outlets.

Tesla has a monopoly on their car repairs, which reduces the number of mechanics qualified to work on it, increasing the cost and the wait time.

Teslas are a very expensive platform to service being largely an aluminum frame. Difficult+expensive to repair and replacements are expensive compared to cheaper cars which usually have more plastic. This means insurance is also expensive.

And this doesn’t even begin to get into the weirdness of their reputation for hiring private eyes to stalk employees and call the police to in an attempt to get an employee killed. Having an exec who has a ketamine problem and mania issues doesn’t lend itself to long term stability.

fuzzy212 hours ago

What I've seen so far from Chinese car makers (BYD and MG, to be precise) is, to put it bluntly, the bare minimum. Build quality so-so, design is… unconventional and software is just bad. It drives, but only just.

Maybe the more recent models, like the Xiaomi thing, are better. But at the moment, Tesla is at least on par, if not better. The brand being tainted is very relevant though.

+1
Acinyx12 hours ago
rswail16 hours ago

BYD already have the Atto 1 (sub AUD30K here) as do other EV manufacturers (eg Nissan Leaf).

Tesla could stop spending money on bullshit like the Cybertruck and spend it on vehicles that people actually need/want.

hashtag-til14 hours ago

Don't forget Renault 5!

beAbU14 hours ago

And the Renault 4, the Hyundai Inster, and the Dacia Spring, and the Citroën C3, Fiat 500e, Kia EV3, Leapmotor T03.

There are heaps of small/subcompact EVs on the European market now, all with very competitive prices. The newer ones seem to be getting cheaper and cheaper.

Honestly I reckon a Tesla M2 will have a hard time succeeding in this market.

raphaelj12 hours ago

Interestingly, the Renault 5 Turbo 3E is more Cyberpunk than anything Tesla is making!

+1
poulpy12311 hours ago
hnlmorg14 hours ago

All the big European car manufacturers also have EV cars too.

Plus there are plenty of popular options for high-end EVs that are far more glamorous as well as practical than the Cybertruck.

raincole14 hours ago

> The successful cars are made for masses and not for niche buyers.

When Tesla got started, full EVs were extremely niche. They were known for their short range and nothing else. Tesla defeated common sense. This is what supports their anti-common-sense stock price.

3D3049742014 hours ago

Is there any indication that they're going to "defeat common sense" again? They're cancelling products, making marginal improvements to old models, alienating their customers, etc.

Tesla as a car company seems dead-set on a continuous downward spiral.

Maybe the switch to robots will pay off and you'll be right. Somehow, I'm skeptical.

+1
raincole14 hours ago
mattmanser14 hours ago

Everyone knew that was the future and that the big auto manufacturers were deliberately dragging.

No-one (serious) thought there was a market for the cybertruck.

The stock price is pure madness, it's like it's priced in robotaxis, but that's clearly not going to happen for Tesla. And if it did, it would be a small-ish market, their brand has become toxic in so many big markets.

ben_w11 hours ago

> No-one (serious) thought there was a market for the cybertruck.

If they'd hit the price and performance of the launch announcements they might have. $40k base for what he initially talked about is a vastly better proposal than $61k base for what he actually delivered.

+3
philipallstar13 hours ago
speed_spread11 hours ago

What I could see happening is Alphabet getting an exclusive lock on Tesla (probably not buying because the stock is too high) and then quasi-merging it with Waymo for a fully integrated, functional robo taxi company. A bit like when they bought Motorola phone division.

epolanski12 hours ago

> Common sense product could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe and this car would eat Chinese for lunch

The Chinese EVs selling in Europe are mostly bigger cars.

And the only reason they don't sell more is because we tariff the hell out of them.

rob7411 hours ago

It will be a manufacturer of vaporware if you look at how much they announced over the last years and how much of that has actually materialized...

But yeah, I guess Tesla lives by its CEO (and his grand promises that keep the stock price up) and dies by its CEO (who alienated Tesla buyers by, amongst other things, throwing his lot in with a regressive fossil fuel supporting administration and by personally supervising the dismantling of agencies such as USAID).

cucumber373284212 hours ago

The Cybertruck was very clearly designed to be a low production model to figure out teething issues in manufacturing and design. Think Plymouth Prowler. Like seriously, nobody makes a body out of heavy gauge sheet metal with simple shapes if they're planning on volume, it doesn't pencil out vs more die complexity and thinner material. But the future growth to justify that never seems to have materialized....

poulpy12311 hours ago

Elon Musk said he estimated 250k to 500k yearly sales

mekdoonggi9 hours ago

So he's off by, what Elon might say is an "order of magnitude"

cucumber37328427 hours ago

I write that off as marketing BS. They very clearly didn't design it based on those expectations though.

jfyi13 hours ago

To be fair, robot soldiers are the only robotics and ai problems that need to be solved to pretty much eliminate labor problems across the board.

I suspect China is going to beat him to the punch on this one too.

butler1412 hours ago

Cybertruck was /the/ sign that things with Elon had... changed, IMO!

epolanski12 hours ago

Idk, his twitter account was enough to sort out he had lost control over himself.

jasondigitized7 hours ago

Eat BYD for lunch?

torginus12 hours ago

It didn't fail imo - it was intended a low-volume product for next-gen Tesla tech - Ethernet based fieldbus, 48V systems, area controllers etc. The philosophy is the same like other high-end cars - you field test your latest experimental tech first in a car with lower sales but high margins - if your fancy stuff has a 1% failure rate, in a 100k production run, that's 1000 vehicles - high but manageable.

If you sell millions and its your main product, your company is over. This is the same playbook German manufacturers followed since forever. I bet the next gen Model 3 and robotaxi will get the cybertruck tech.

brk11 hours ago

It failed based on the sales projections that Tesla set. Also, several reviews have not exactly been kind, along with lots of comments from owners about annoying issues and malfunctions.

If Tesla needed beta testers for things they hadn't figured out yet there would have been better ways to go about that.

vardump10 hours ago

I think the real issue was that Cybertruck required way more structural parts (body) than Tesla originally thought. It was originally supposed to have a load bearing exoskeleton.

jordanb8 hours ago

> it was intended a low-volume product for next-gen Tesla tech

If this is true that's not what Musk was saying beforehand.

skywhopper12 hours ago

That is the opposite story that Musk told when hyping the Cybertruck, though.

InsideOutSanta12 hours ago

Musk projected that the Cybertruck would sell 250k annually. It's selling around 20k. Even for Musk, that isn't normal exaggeration; that's a huge difference.

avhception15 hours ago

... but they aren't canceling the Cybertruck?

Re: Robots bla bla: yeah, of course. FSD bla bla. Meh.

Cthulhu_15 hours ago

That's weird too, maybe they just have some preorders they need to fulfill. They did stop its production for a while last year and reduced the number of models available.

alfiedotwtf14 hours ago

> could be something smaller than Model 3 for Europe

Lol... not with those tariffs. In fact, I'd be willing to bet we see higher growth of Tata than Telsa in Europe over the next 10 years.

panick21_13 hours ago

Tesla has a factor in Germany.

ben_w11 hours ago

Yes but the factory seems to be struggling to find staff, and the job adverts I see around Berlin suggest the hiring team is out of touch with what appeals to the German job market:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46710328

thinkingtoilet9 hours ago

Any discussion of Tesla without mentioning Musk's actions is missing the most important piece. I heard someone on this site use the term "mind share", as in before Musk decided to alienate his main customer base, Tesla had the biggest "mind share" of any company in the world. I looked forward to buying a Tesla one day. Now, with Musk licking Trumps boots and actively doing very real damage with his work in DOGE and other things, I will literally never buy anything from that company ever again. It doesn't matter what Chinese car companies are doing. It matters that he stands for everything I don't so I will not give him my money.

panick21_13 hours ago

Cybertruck was supposed to be for the masses. The just weren't able to hit the price point required because of overly optimistic engineering assessments. I think the whole stainless steel construction concept didn't work as first designed.

And of course, Cybertruck design might not have been mass compatible buy being ugly. But that is subjective, if it was cheap and functional and without the political connotations it might have been different.

But it was certainty a risky bet.

alterom11 hours ago

To be "for the masses", it would need to:

- be smaller

- have an actually usuable truck bed

- be painted (so rust isn't an issue)

- have a body that's not literally duck taped together in some places and can easily snap in others

- use steel (which bends) for body construction

- be suitable for towing hauls

- not be ridiculously overpowered (...to the extent where engine can overpower the breaks)

- have good visibility with a windshield that isn't at a sharp angle to the ground and body geometry which doesn't maximize blind spots

- not have sharp corners that the cut you or doors that can decapitate your dog

- have door handles that make doors openable in case of emergencies/no power situations/electric shorts

- not have bulletproof glass (WTF, "for the masses"?) which makes makes it harder to rescue people when accidents happen

- be easily repairable, or at least amenable to repairs in local non-Tesla shops, with customers being confident it their warranty won't go poof (as the law requires)

- be easily customizeable for different applications (particularly when it comes to the bed)

- not look so different from other trucks without any reason other than "Elon Musk wants to be edgy": ugly is subjective, being a billionaire's fashion statement isn't

...to start. That's off the top of my head.

And, of course, being priced for the masses, which doesn't just happen. It's a design requirement.

As it stands, the Cybertruck is, and has always been, a rich boy's luxury toy — and it was designed as one.

It really seems like something got to Musk's head that he thought the world has so many edgy rich boys.

You want to see a modern truck "for the masses"? That's Toyota IMV 0, aka Hilux Champ [1]. Ticks all the above boxes.

And hits the $10,000 price point [2]. A literal order of magnitude cheaper than the Cybertruck.

Speaking of which: a car "for the masses" isn't a truck. It's a minivan (gets the entire family from one place to another), it's a small sedan/hatchback (commuter vehicle), a crossover/small SUV to throw things, kids, and dogs into without having to play 3D Tetris in hard mode.

But not a pickup truck, which is a specialized work vehicle.

The masses aren't farmers and construction workers (most people live in the cities, and only a small number needs such a work vehicle).

The popularity of The Truck in the US is, in a large part, a byproduct of regulation which gives certain exemptions to specialized work vehicles.[3]

That's not even getting to the infrastructure part: trucks shine in remote, rural areas. And while one can always have a canister of gas in the truck bed, power stations can be hard to find in the middle of the field or a remote desert highway.

But again, it's not impossible to make a truck for the masses (at least for certain markets). That's the $10K Hilux Champ.

For all the luxury aspects of the Tesla sedan, it's been one of the most (if not the most) practical electric vehicles on account of range alone. It also looked like a normal car at a time when EVs screamed "look at me, I'm so greeeeeen!" from a mile away (remember 1st gen Nissan Leaf or BMW i3?). It was conformal and utilitarian, while also being futuristic and luxurious enough for the high price point was fair for what was offered.

The public image of having a Tesla was good: you are affluent, future-forward, and caring for the environment.

The Cybertruck went back on everything that made Tesla a success: it's conspicuous, impractical, overpriced, and currently having publicity rivaling that of the recent Melania documentary.

It was not a risky bet. It was an a-priori losing bet. The world simply never needed as many edgy toys as Musk wanted to sell.

And driving a car shaped as an "I'm a Musk fanboy" banner really lost its appeal after a few Roman salutes and the dear leader's DOGE stint.

Overly optimistic engineering assessments? Perhaps, but they are much further down on the list of reasons of Cybertruck's failure.

[1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a45752401/toyotas-10000...

[2] https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-...

[3] https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculo...

assimpleaspossi12 hours ago

>>The gamble with Cybertruck failed.

Has it? I really don't know but I see these every day in my major city and there was a closed mall parking lot filled with cybertrucks the local dealer used to park there which were quickly turned over.

+1
assimpleaspossi9 hours ago
sbaildon11 hours ago

The linked article is clear as to why the S and X don’t need to be in Tesla’s product line

> Tesla’s far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company’s 1.59 million deliveries last year

bearjaws9 hours ago

Why are they still making the cybertruck then?

I see way more Model S and X than Cybertruck.

groundzeros20159 hours ago

Probably because it’s a segment they think they can grow and is a new vehicle type, rather than redundant.

dmix9 hours ago

Regardless, it's probably better to have one flashy car that doesn't sell big numbers than 3. They might treat it as their high end test car or something or plan to figure out a new top tier model.

assimpleaspossi8 hours ago

Probably the same reason Ford makes one, too.

quest888 hours ago
haspok16 hours ago

That's all good, don't worry, the stock is doing quite well, near its record high. A man jumping around in spandex is all they need.

piva0015 hours ago

It's actually bizarre how seemingly nothing impacts $TSLA: profits down 46%, revenue down 3%, cutting successful product lines that used to sell quite a bit, a massively failed product in the Cybertruck, FSD promises still unfulfilled, and on top of all that US$ 2 billion siphoned away to another unrelated company.

With all of that, the stock closed upwards on the after market hours. Perhaps only Musk's death could cause it to tank, would have never expected to see a cult of personality being run on the top of S&P 500 market caps, what a strange world...

Balinares11 hours ago

I think it was the FT that observed about a year ago that even as institutional investors were pulling away from US equities, retail investors (redditors, if you will) were filling in the gap quite enthusiastically. (You know, "Buy the dip!! " and brethren.)

I don't know to what extent that's still the case. But someone always ends up with the hot potato no matter what.

ActorNightly10 hours ago

Its not bizzare. Retail investors can no longer compete with big banks, who pretty much set the stock price. Elon solidified this with DOGE by removing oversight of such things.

At this point, investing is exacly like playing slots at casino.

2muchcoffeeman13 hours ago

It’s being valued on the hope that they will crack full self driving. People still believe they will crack it.

+1
cedws12 hours ago
+1
brightball13 hours ago
+2
johnthewise13 hours ago
KptMarchewa11 hours ago

Once they actually start bleeding money they will go down.

HWR_1411 hours ago

> would have never expected to see a cult of personality being run on the top of S&P 500 market caps,

Steve Jobs had a cult of personality as well. Of course Apple had financial reasons to support its valuation when he was leading it in the 2000s

piva009 hours ago

But Apple under Steve Jobs had all the financial numbers to support it, it wasn't valued solely on Steve Jobs' personality, the products were there, and being loved by consumers. Revenue wasn't dipping while the stock was going up, revenue, market share, profits were consistently on the rise.

sekai10 hours ago

The most successful meme stock in history, all driven by - "coming soon"

brightball13 hours ago

I assume the S and X are being cancelled because 3 and Y are cannibalizing them with a very close product for a much better price point. Both have premium trim options. There’s very little difference in interior space. Aside from the doors on the X there’s just not much differentiation.

FeloniousHam10 hours ago

I own the Y and drove the S as a loaner. The S is a noticeably better car. Also has 1000hp.

brightball7 hours ago

I've got a 2025 Model 3 and was blown away by what a great vehicle it is for the price point. I'd be curious how much of a difference there is between and S and a Model 3 Performance.

maelito14 hours ago

Also in Europe, an old state company called Renault is beating Tesla with the R5.

3D3049742014 hours ago

I just saw an R5 on the street in the bright green. Super cool looking car. There are a whole bunch of promising small EVs coming out in the EU. Hyundai Inster, VW ID.1, Kia EV2, etc.

philjohn14 hours ago

Took one for a test drive - it was fun. The only downside is compared to some other compact/city EV's the legroom in the back is REALLY bad (and I'm not exactly tall).

The legroom in my son's VW e-Up! is markedly better, despite it being a smaller car.

conradfr11 hours ago

And it's not even cheap (actually its success kind of baffles me but great I guess).

brightball13 hours ago

Wasn’t Renault an F1 competitor for many years?

LunaSea10 hours ago

3rd place for most F1 wins as a car motor builder.

epolanski12 hours ago

It still is, albeit they use the Alpine branding.

conradfr11 hours ago

And not developing their own motor since this year :(

rkomorn13 hours ago

It was but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Also not sure what the point of the "old state" part of the parent comment was. Renault is just another big carmaker.

+1
kgwgk13 hours ago
torginus13 hours ago

I have an opinion on EVs that basically the only models that make sense are the ones shaped like the 3 and Y.

I feel like EVs are a checkbox product - you either make things 'good enough' for the customer - range, driving dynamics, power, charge speed, smart features, autonomous stuff or don't.

To get range right you need a big battery and low drag and efficiency - the only way you can make the first 2 things in the same vehicle is to create an aerodynamic shape.

This is a packaging problem, you need to make the car low, and long - so you stretch it out, so the battery can be thinner and no longer pushes up the rest of the vehicle. You also have a lot of place in the front for crash structures, and aero shaping. Finally since your car is big (D segment), you can charge more money as per conventions of the market.

If you make a C or B segment car, you either reduce the battery size to save money, which makes it impractical for general use or pack in all that stuff into a smaller volume, and you get a car thats more expensive to make than a Model 3, while having worse drag and range, while the market expects you to charge less for it.

These small cars only make sense with a small battery, but you wouldn't want one for yourself as a second car - hence the robotaxi.

So no, your hypothetical Model 2 would not be cheaper if you didn't compromise it in some major way, which they dont wanna do.

Upwards differentiation is also hard for Tesla - base models are already powerful enough, have all the smart features, they wont compromise on autonomous stuff etc.

This is not only my opinion but the market's - S and X sold like 2 orders of magnitude less cars than the 3 and Y.

ben_w12 hours ago

I think the S and X (and Roadster) sold less because they were expensive early models trying to create a "premium" halo-effect (if so, they succeeded).

For range, how much range is sufficient? This may be one area where the EU and US need fundamentally different vehicles, as per the saying "in America 100 years is a long time, in Europe 100 miles is a long way". Certainly the EU market supports B-segment with 44kWh @ 320 km / 199 miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_C3#Europe_(2024)

SecretDreams11 hours ago

> This is not only my opinion but the market's - S and X sold like 2 orders of magnitude less cars than the 3 and Y.

They sold less because they're far more expensive and have to compete against much more well put together products. Meanwhile, their platforms are 10 years old and there are now other offerings in an overall niche field.

You're right about aero to an extent, but aero is only felt on long highway drives and it can be mitigated somewhat with a couple more cells. Some consumers will choose style for a cost premium. Others will choose something more expensive simply because they don't want to support Musk.

torginus9 hours ago

I think range only really matters in the context of highway drives, I kinda dislike these composite estimates like WLTP (as you can never be sure of what exactly they measure)

darksaints16 hours ago

Forgot that the cybertruck was a sales flop and quality joke, and that the Tesla Semi is now the elephant in the room.

andix13 hours ago

The Tesla Semi was groundbreaking when they revealed it nearly 10 years ago. But now there are dozens of electric truck models, and they get delivered in substantial quantities for over a year now. At least in Europe.

qingcharles16 hours ago

But... the Roadster!

epolanski12 hours ago

"How I feel about Tesla? I wouldn't buy it and I wouldn't short it". Charles Munger.

groundzeros20159 hours ago

He’s been dead for more than a year. Is this his 2018 take?

londons_explore11 hours ago

> camera only navigation without sensor fusion with LIDAR will fail

I'm not so sure on this one. I think we'll see it this year. It will have embarrassing bugs (ie. running over cats which are hiding under the car) and we'll see lots of issues to begin with (ie. the car stops in the middle of a freeway because a camera got splattered with mud).

But I think they'll achieve the goal of something that can be deployed fairly widespread without public outrage causing it to be banned without lidar.

brk11 hours ago

It's been "coming this year" for almost a decade now. The bugs you describe are not embarrassing, they are critical issues that prevent it from being called FSD.

londons_explore9 hours ago

This is the first year that I personally think that it will come this year...

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that a 'cybercab' production line is firing up this year is also a strong indicator - the fact they didn't do that 5 years ago means tesla leadership didn't think it was going to work back then. 'cybercab' wouldn't sell well as a 2 seater if it couldn't self drive. (although the actual mass production will be delayed till next year is my guess, but we'll see model 3 or y being used for a taxi service in the meantime)

brk9 hours ago

It will be interesting to see. At this point, I think much of what is coming out of Tesla in both words and actions is stock price theater. They "fired up" a Cybertruck production line and we all see how that went.

vimda9 hours ago

How are those "bugs" not immediately disqualifying? "Move fast and break things" is not an acceptable strategy for controlling 2 tonne bricks hurtling down the freeway

hnlmorg14 hours ago

> the only thing keeping Tesla where it is is the bullshit dispersal field that surrounds Musk.

I'm not 100% what you mean by "dispersal field", but outside of America, Elon's image in recent years has done more harm to Tesla than good.

Slartie13 hours ago

I think he meant "keeping TSLA where it is".

Tesla's sales have suffered, yes, and Elon's image is a significant contributor to that, besides all the reasons directly related to the cars themselves.

But Tesla's stock price is still stuck in irrational heights, not even remotely justifiable by the company's performance.

It just seems that people reconsider purchasing a physical object way quicker than they reconsider a stock investment. Maybe because the stock investment, especially in TSLA, is considered more like a gamble - "as long as others also think that this stock will skyrocket, even just because they think that others like me think it will skyrocket - as long as that's the case, I'm good with buying shares".

a2tech13 hours ago

Tesla is a meme stock. Its being buoyed up by retail investors (Elon Musk fanbois) and, its been said, by Saudis and others who were trying to curry favor with him (possibly to try and get Trumps ear or other greasy bullshit). The stock is completely divorced from reality, which also attracts further investment--as long as its disconnected from the fundamentals of being a company that has to make a profit, you can argue its worth 100 million billion dollars or a googel, both are just as valid.

vcanales12 hours ago

On top of that, the factory is getting converted to make robots...

ACCount3711 hours ago

This LIDAR wank annoys me.

If you can train a policy that drives well on cameras, you can get self-driving. If you can't, you're fucked, and no amount of extra sensors will save you.

Self-driving isn't a sensor problem. It always was, is, and always will be an AI problem.

No amount of LIDAR engineering will ever get you a LIDAR that outputs ground truth steering commands. The best you'll ever get is noisy depth estimate speckles that you'll have to massage with, guess what, AI, to get them to do anything of use.

Sensor suite choice is an aside. Camera only 360 coverage? Good enough to move on. The rest of the problem lies with AI.

lateforwork11 hours ago

Even the best AI can't drive without good sensors. Cameras have to guess distance and they fail when there is insufficient contrast, direct sunlight and so on. LiDARs don't have to guess distance.

slfnflctd9 hours ago

Cameras also fail when weather conditions cake your car in snow and/or mud while you're driving. Actually, from what I just looked up, this is an issue with LiDAR as well. So it seems to me like we don't even have the sensors we need to do this properly yet, unless we can somehow make them all self-cleaning.

It always goes back to my long standing belief that we need dedicated lanes with roadside RFID tags to really make this self driving thing work well enough.

+1
ACCount378 hours ago
jasondigitized7 hours ago

Just don't drive up north in the snow and your good.

ActorNightly10 hours ago

You are correct, but the problem is nobody at Tesla or any other self driving company for that matter knows what they are doing when it comes to AI

If you are doing end to end driving policy (i.e the wrong way of doing it), having lidar is important as a correction factor to the cameras.

ACCount379 hours ago

So far, end to end seems to be the only way to train complex AI systems that actually works.

Every time you pit the sheer violent force of end to end backpropagation against compartmentalization and lines drawn by humans, at a sufficient scale, backpropagation gets its win.

top_sigrid10 hours ago

> If you can train a policy that drives well on cameras, you can get self-driving. If you can't, you're fucked, and no amount of extra sensors will save you.

Source: trust me, bro? This statement has no factual basis. Calling the most common approach of all other self-driving developers except Tesla a wank also is no argument but hate only.

ACCount3710 hours ago

[flagged]

ultrattronic10 hours ago

Yes that’s why having both makes sense.

+1
top_sigrid10 hours ago
mrexcess10 hours ago

>Self-driving isn't a sensor problem. It always was, is, and always will be an AI problem.

AI + cameras have relevant limitations that LIDAR augmented suites don't. You can paint a photorealistic roadway onto a brick wall and AI + cameras will try to drive right through it, dubbed the "Wile E. Coyote" problem.

sejje9 hours ago

Will humans?

ako15 hours ago

Even though tesla has only 2 models, i would still consider it for a new car, if not for Elon Musk. I have an Y, and it does everything i want it to do. Drives nicely, lots of (cargo) space, no friction charging when driving in Europe. Just plug it in a supercharger and it loads fast. No hassle with subscriptions and cards. Very reliable.

With the 3 and the Y they're already catering for a large part of the market demand, but a smaller model, and a stationwagon might help get it up to 80%+ of all demand.

backscratches15 hours ago

Up until recently teslas were regularly ranked around the world as the least reliable car brand. https://www.topspeed.com/germany-declares-tesla-model-y-is-l... and https://electrek.co/2025/12/11/tesla-ranks-dead-last-used-ca...

arpinum13 hours ago

TUV inspection failures are not a good indication of reliability. The lack of Tesla dealers and no need for yearly servicing means issues get caught at the inspection step for Tesla where for others they are caught at the pre-inspection step.

Also, you need a breakdown of the failures as wear and consumables (washer fluid low, splits in wipers, headlight alignment, mobile phone holder in wrong location) can be a failure but would not be a good indicator for lack of quality.

ralfd14 hours ago

That is bad. One issue seems to be that brakes of electric cars can get issues over time as they are not used enough (because instead of true braking the regenerative recuperation is used).

Good though: If you are in an accident Teslas are the safest car one can buy

https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/media-releases/22...

> The Tesla Model Y achieved the highest overall weighted score of any vehicle assessed by ANCAP in 2025, recording strong performance across all areas of occupant protection and active safety technology.

amarcheschi13 hours ago

They still are, the Danish statistics report ~45% of tesla having issues compared to ~7% of the whole plethora of electric vehicles, that's a lot

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/nearly-half-of-tesla-mo...

"Most of the issues involve critical components like brakes, lights, and suspension. Many cars fail because of play in the steering or faulty axles. These are problems rarely seen at the same level in competitors like Volkswagen or Hyundai."

brightball13 hours ago

That’s my thought as well. The X isn’t much bigger than the Y and the price point is much higher. Same with the S and 3.

The markets the have been missing to this point are the big passenger / cargo carriers like a minivan or full size SUV.

korp10 hours ago

Sounds like you get your news from Reddit.

ForHackernews12 hours ago

SpaceX is going to go public so he doesn't need Tesla any more.

BenFranklin10016 hours ago

That about sums it up.

bluescrn14 hours ago

Yet he's still doing less damage than others chasing the AI bubble, as competition is growing in the EV market.

Meanwhile, RIP Windows, Google Search, and maybe the entire games industry, maybe even then end of affordable home computing and being forced to rent computing power from 'the cloud'.

jfyi13 hours ago

Google search? They already have an AI assistant at the top of every search result.

Google is winning the AI race. They did with self driving and they are doing it with LLMs. They are sitting back quietly not making noise and then massively rocking the status quo regularly.

I suspect they are going to do similar in the field of quantum computing.

mathw12 hours ago

Less damage... with his CSAM-making bot. Yeah. Less damage.

cschmatzler16 hours ago

I agree that this decision is insane and the whole Optimus/xAI bullshit is tiring, especially with the shareholders actually voting against the xAI investment, but you should try today's FSD. It's genuinely good and shouldn't be discarded wholesale because the guy sucks.

rswail16 hours ago

The problem is not how well Tesla's FSD works, compared to other FSD from other manufacturers.

The problem is that Musk has been promising it for almost 10 years and it is still not sufficiently stable to be rolled out and relied upon by car owners.

FSD is only actually "ready" in terms of the whole "don't need to own a car for personal transport" when there can be passengers and no driver.

When Mom can dispatch the family car to pick up the kids from school.

sejje9 hours ago

> When Mom can dispatch the family car to pick up the kids from school.

Tech level, I agree--that's FSD.

But even if we had that tech today, Mom ain't sending the car without getting a police visit.

You can't even let your kids go to the local playground alone anymore. They're not going to be captain and first mate alone in a vehicle if the Karens have anything to say about it.

dubeye14 hours ago

the main metric is fsd subs, the other stuff you mention is not as important

ben_w15 hours ago

If Tesla's FSD existed in isolation, it would be a fantastic breakthrough that signposted the future.

If.

It doesn't exist in isolation. The competition isn't just from the American firms, but also European and Chinese, and it isn't really possible to overlook Musk himself given both his long history of Musk over-promising and under-delivering, deflecting blame.

Even the current release isn't what Musk was talking hopefully about a decade ago, e.g.:

  Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we'll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let's say dropping you off in Times Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year. Without the need for a single touch, including the charger.
- Oct 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

Likewise, based on a video I saw recently from someone reproducing Tesla's 2016 "Paint It Black" drive, Tesla's AI is only now around the performance level that they faked in 2016.

Don't get me wrong, that level was impressive… just, the world isn't isolated developments.

lnenad13 hours ago

But it is still (unfortunately) the most competent publicly available ADAS.

tonyedgecombe16 hours ago

I'm not sure it is a bad decision given:

"Tesla’s far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company’s 1.59 million deliveries last year."

rightbyte14 hours ago

That just indicates that the other models were allready being wound down.

ulfw15 hours ago

Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) is officially classified as a Level 2 advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS). Despite its advanced capabilities, it requires the human driver to remain fully attentive, monitor the environment, and be ready to take control immediately.

So it's literally nothing special compared to other manufacturers. I am happy to argue that's it's a better Level 2 than most others, sure. But it's still just that. No magic, no bullshitty "by 2017 the car will drive itself from New York to Los Angeles". No it hasn't and no it won't.

vardump10 hours ago

ADAS levels are not only about technical capability, but also about who takes responsibility.

dizhn15 hours ago

> BYD is eating Tesla for lunch

For some reason my Youtube echo chamber is trying to convince me that BYD makes so many cars but cannot sell them. It's really bizarre. Other things it's trying to convince me of "Don't get an electric car. Period", "Ukraine won. Done deal", "Trump is devastated" about something else every day. Yes I do want the latter two to be true and it's playing on that but I don't get the BYD thing.

yorwba13 hours ago

BYD is selling a lot of cars, but they're also making a lot more cars than they can sell at sticker price in China, as does every other Chinese car company. This oversupply leads to all kinds of distortions, like dealerships registering cars as "sold" to make their sales targets and then selling those brand-new cars as "used" at a discount. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/local-...

Maybe your YouTube echo chamber additionally thinks that this will cause BYD to collapse, but I doubt that. There are about a hundred Chinese EV manufacturers in worse financial shape, who're likely to go bankrupt first, which should reduce oversupply enough for BYD to survive.

maxglute7 hours ago

There's not really NEV oversupply, the EV adoption curve will keep shooting up from 50% to 100%, many PRC EV companies will die from competition/pricewar consolidation not broader oversupply, since EV industrial base is still undersupply relative to 100% adoption curve.

Oversupply is in legacy ICE displacement due to rapid domestic EV penetration. "Zero-milage used car" accounting trick is primarily to export excess capacity of gasoline cars (now that EV has taken over) that aren't moving domestically anymore. MOST of PRC exports are ICE, IIRC 60-80%, there's plenty of global demand for ICE still. Pushing domestic sku new car with crushed domestic demand as "used" exports where there's plenty of demand = meet sales target, but less through discounts but import fees engineering - used cars circumvent import duties, certifications, warranty requirements etc. It's a lifehack to unload domestic ICE inventory, not EV. This also likely transient effect because NEV transition in PRC happened so fast ICE manufacturer that target domestic market caught flat footed. They need a few years to either retool to EV or shift primarily to target export markets that still has appetite for affordable gasoline cars.

dizhn9 hours ago

Right. I can imagine seeing lots full of unsold cars might be interpreted as "there is no demand", especially if they are trying to push a particular narrative.

ouchhhlib10 hours ago
FL33TW00D15 hours ago

How can you say camera only navigation won’t work with such finality when humans manage just fine every day! You literally have an existence proof of it working.

kleton15 hours ago

It would be possible to build an ornithopter, evidenced by the existence of avians, but it turned out the easiest ways to make flying machines were otherwise.

FL33TW00D15 hours ago

I like the comparison, but with aviation on a fundamental level we made it simpler (removing actuation), not added more (senses we dont need)

adrian_b14 hours ago

What counts is the overall complexity, not the complexity of a single subsystem.

Using more senses allows simpler processing of the sensor data, especially when there is a requirement for high reliability, and at least until now this has demonstrated a simpler complete system.

+1
jkrejcha8 hours ago
+1
jeremysalwen14 hours ago
+1
javawizard14 hours ago
lisdexan12 hours ago

I would posit that the human brain is complex, and adding senses is simpler than replicating an aspect of the mind more accurately.

fooker15 hours ago

> easiest

This is the keyword here, just because the other approach is harder does not mean it is impossible.

It's a decent gamble to try and do things the hard way if it is possible to be deployed on cheaper/smaller hardware (eg: no lidars, just cameras).

+2
fancyfredbot15 hours ago
rswail15 hours ago

Because FSD driving not navigation is going to be held (rightly) to a much higher standard than human driving.

Humans are fallible and we have other sensors, like hearing, or touch (through feedback on the steering wheel) that are also involved in driving.

We already have other sensors that are not vision that work with us when driving like ABS and electronic stability.

The other reason it's dumb is that adding LIDAR and proper sensor fusion makes things better and the cost of LIDAR is rapidly dropping as its installed across new fleets in CN and elsewhere.

backscratches15 hours ago

Yeah and we should replace the wheels with legs. every other company disagrees with musk, putting alternate sensors on even low end cars.

plomme15 hours ago

Both the vision and cognition hardware in humans are vastly superior, and don't get me started on the software.

I never understood why they would choose to fight with "one hand behind your back". More sensors = more better

hobofan14 hours ago

~1.2 million global deaths per year due to motor vehicle accidents say otherwise.

sejje9 hours ago

Actually, that's the standard we're all talking about. Nearly everyone is totally fine with human-caused traffic deaths. Nobody wants to ban human drivers at that rate of death.

But if FSD had the same rate, people would be losing it.

vjvjvjvjghv14 hours ago

The safety record of humans is not so great. They tend to fail in snow, ice, fog, rain and at night. We should be aiming a little higher.

I don’t think it makes sense to limit yourself while you are still figuring out what really works. You should go with a maximum of sensors and once it works, you can see what can be left out.

sejje9 hours ago

Yeah, but even if the safety level was 10% better, let's say--nobody would accept that rate. It wouldn't get adopted, we wouldn't be happy to save those lives. People would be outraged.

I think it's got something to do with an innate belief to self-determination. It's fine if I make a mistake to kill myself, and it's not fine if someone else does. It's super not fine if someone dies at the hands of a rich person's technology. Outrage, lawsuits, "justice."

WA14 hours ago

Eyes have higher dynamic range and eyes don't freeze below 0°C. You can also put on sunglasses for even more weather-related adjustments.

brk10 hours ago

While I am in the camp that believes camera-only FSD won't succeed, your comment isn't entirely accurate.

CCD and CMOS sensors can easily work in sub-freezing temperatures with various kinds of heating. There are 10's of millions of surveillance cameras installed outdoors in sub-freezing climates that work fine.

Cameras also have moveable IR cut filters, which is analogous to your sunglasses example.

Human eyes do have greater dynamic range in the visible light spectrum, but solid state sensors can commonly interpret light above 1000nm, and of course you can do thermal/IR imagers to provide optical sensing of wavelengths outside of what a human can see.

Sensor technology relative to the human eye isn't what is holding FSD back.

SPICLK214 hours ago

Technology can't compete with how easy it is to make more human-based navigation devices ;-)

p_j_w9 hours ago

We don’t drive with just our eyes, we also drive with our brains.

lateforwork10 hours ago

Humans have cameras (eyes) + AGI. Cars have to compensate with LiDARs and other sensors that humans don't.

sonofhans14 hours ago

This is commonly said but trivially falsifiable — a blind human crosses the street better than a Tesla.

Eyesight isn’t the thing. Humans have a persistent mental model of the world, and of the physics that drive it. Our eyes only check in every now and then to keep our model up to date.

Our ears and sense of touch do a lot of work in walking and driving, too. Trying to narrow it all down to vision is silly.

sejje9 hours ago

Deaf people drive.

I knew a guy with no arms who drove with his prosthetic hooks. Of course he can feel vibrations and things through his ass, but so could the car if they wanted. Do they use accelerometer data? (I don't know the answer to that) Do they have ABS sensors that can detect wheel lockup/speed status? Because I don't.

I believe I can drive a car to the legal standard, remotely, with a good enough camera array.

poulpy12311 hours ago

Because we can't install lidars on our heads

dgxyz15 hours ago

I fall on my butt all the time.

tjpnz15 hours ago

Because I want better?

CursedSilicon16 hours ago

Careful now. You'll get branded as a "Tesla hater" for stating facts like that. Or you'll get unflattering ad-homs comparing you to the Electrek guy

yazantapuz12 hours ago

Relevant part: "Tesla's far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company's 1.59 million deliveries last year."

harshaw23 hours ago

I am confused about what Tesla is doing. They have effectively two automobile products now with one failed product (cybertruck). reading various articles about this doesn't make it more clear. Do they not want to be a car company?

vannevar23 hours ago

The problem with being a car company is that they'd have to compete with China. It's possible, but they'd have to make additional capital investments to keep up. They've just wasted a ton of money on a failed Musk vanity project (Cybertruck) and squandered a ton of goodwill in their home market via the DOGE fiasco. Cash flow is not what it once was, and if they're going to make a big capital investment, they're probably right in looking at robots. But that strategy puts them back where they were 20 years ago, just getting started in EVs, and their cash flow will depend on cars for many years to come.

hrunt21 hours ago

If the problem with being a car company is that they'd have to compete with China, then I have some bad news about being a robot company. China is already farther ahead in both technology and volume of humanoid robots.[0][1][2][3]

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/cnbc-china-connection-newsle...

[1]https://www.unitree.com/g1

[2] https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/limx-humanoid...

[3] https://www.bgr.com/2083491/china-agibot-humanoid-robot-us-c...

overfeed15 hours ago

If you think of Musk companies as vehicles to extract money from state and federal governments, then everything falls into focus. Carbon credits, government launches and the Quixotic quest for Mars, and soon Tesla robots sold to the DoD and DHS. I'm only half-joking.

vannevar20 hours ago

Fair point. It's hard to support Tesla's valuation as a car company, it may be even harder to support as a robot company. You have to wonder what might have been if they'd spent that Cybertruck money on battery research.

direwolf2020 hours ago

Is there anything China isn't far ahead in? Maybe capitalism was a failure.

+1
sgentle18 hours ago
barbazoo19 hours ago

Or in a more charitable light maybe capitalism just isn’t the only system that’s capable of reaching certain technological development.

+3
throwawaypath19 hours ago
chvid18 hours ago

Marketing, sales, finance.

+1
octoberfranklin19 hours ago
Der_Einzige19 hours ago

LLMs...

+1
tonyhart717 hours ago
+2
ruszki17 hours ago
SR2Z22 hours ago

It doesn't help that Musk supported a guy who turned around and gutted the incentives that were helping Tesla turn a profit.

nishanseal20 hours ago

It seems counterintuitive, but this helped Tesla which is why Musk championed it. Basically when that tax credit came out, a bunch of Tesla owners had their cars underwater - loans were more than new cars were selling for and depreciation thru the roof. Plus the tax credit helped their competitors. Now that the credit is gone, Tesla owners are closer to being in the black on their cars and it also caused Ford and GM to cut EV production by I believe 100%. Win win for Tesla.

asa40019 hours ago

> It seems counterintuitive, but this helped Tesla which is why Musk championed it. Basically when that tax credit came out, a bunch of Tesla owners had their cars underwater - loans were more than new cars were selling for and depreciation thru the roof. Plus the tax credit helped their competitors.

This makes sense if your business strategy is to get existing Tesla owners to trade their current Teslas to buy new Teslas, rather than to convert non-Tesla owners to buy new Teslas. The latter market is WAY bigger and the tax credit was a huge carrot enticing them to look at a brand they'd never try otherwise in a market where ICE vehicle prices were skyrocketing.

As it stands, there are a ton of Tesla owners who bought their cars with the tax refund, are underwater on them, bitter about it and/or dislike Elon personally, and will never buy a Tesla again. This is churn and brand destruction without a corresponding top of funnel increase.

In contrast, the supercharger network was significant not just for the convenience factor for Tesla owners, but also for the fact that it was a social signal that Tesla was serious about growing the addressable market of EV owners generally by not just making a decent car but making the "EV lifestyle" seem possible to non-EV owners.

If Tesla actually is happy that the tax credit is going away, that seems like they're acknowledging that they're satisfied taking shrinking share of a shrinking market, which is their prerogative, but it's a bad business.

+1
candiddevmike20 hours ago
+2
SR2Z19 hours ago
batshit_beaver19 hours ago

This seems bizarre. Only reason my family bought a Tesla is thanks to the ev tax credit. Without it there are far better options.

gcr20 hours ago

won’t killing the EV market hurt Tesla in the long run?

markets are healthiest when there are many healthy competitors

jeltz23 hours ago

Right now they struggle to compete with European car manufacturers, there is no way they can compete with China.

bamboozled18 hours ago

The problem with being a car company is that they'd have to compete with China.

As if China cannot produce kick ass robots ? What special sauce does Musk have here that a country with a massive pool of highly trained and educated engineers and decades of manufacturing expertise don't have?

Ekaros11 hours ago

I would bet that as soon as someone "solves" robots. China will relatively shortly, that is months or few years produce something that surpasses them. They have all the pieces and all the capabilities. Just look at drones for example. It just requires correct solution and China might even be first to provided that.

vannevar18 hours ago

I'm sure China can. But nobody is producing consumer humanoid robots at any scale yet, so Tesla can at least make the argument that they'll make better robots when people actually start buying robots. People are buying cars at scale right now, and existing Tesla models have fallen behind their Chinese competitors.

+1
linkregister17 hours ago
burnt-resistor19 hours ago

Tesla "competed" by corruptly getting BYD banned from the US and hurting US consumers.

saimiam19 hours ago

Looks like they took Peter Thiel’s animosity towards competition too literally by blocking BYD from the US market. Without competition, they had no incentive to innovate since they were selling into the wealthiest market in the world for their product, the US.

No innovation made them stagnate. Being blocked from the US made BYD innovate.

laughing_man18 hours ago

He generated a lot of goodwill with "that DOGE fiasco", too. It just depends on where you fall politically.

linkregister17 hours ago

Elon generated goodwill with DOGE among a group of people. He then alienated them during a public spat with the president. This is also a president who has decided to make EVs synonymous with the opposition political party.

danny_codes17 hours ago

Which is interesting because it seems DOGE failed to do anything useful. Patrick Boyle’s video suggested it actually cost $100B.

Which would be par the course for Ketamine Elon

vannevar18 hours ago

The people he generated goodwill with don't buy a lot of EVs, apparently.

+1
laughing_man15 hours ago
qingcharles15 hours ago

Elon's a strange hero for MAGA. All the hardcore rural MAGAs I know hate Elon. They consider him a rich dickhead nerd (and group him with Gates) and they hate EVs with a passion, since they are quiet and produce no black smoke.

rchaud22 hours ago

Automotive stocks are subject to the rules of gravity, aka "boring", while tech stocks are not. Automakers operate on low margins and high volume, and must compete on price, reliability or luxury brand status. Most automakers have multiple brands to sell to all market segments.

Tesla's value proposition was that it was going to be an iPod in a world of identikit MP3 players, and charge a premium for it. One brand to rule them all, no pesky dealerships, with futuristic EV tech and a touchscreen dash that made gas-powered, tactile button-laden cars obsolete.

That was twenty years ago. Tesla went from leading the pack to struggling to achieve scale, with its limelight-seeking leader increasingly holding it back. The leader wants headlines for pioneering "cool shit" and pushing hype to pump the stock price. Buyers on the other hand want affordable and timely repairs (impossible with their resistance to third party body shops and unit cost of replacement parts). As a mature company, it is completely un-equipped to compete with the incumbents whose leaders, not by coincidence, are all largely unknown to the public.

tchalla23 hours ago

> Tesla's far more popular models are the 3 and Y, which accounted for 97% of the company's 1.59 million deliveries last year. The Model 3 now starts at about $37,000, and the Model Y is around $40,000. Tesla debuted more affordable versions of the vehicles late last year.

I’m confused as to what’s not clear from the article for you?

Neywiny23 hours ago

Agreed. I also thought it was a very dumb move until I saw that. That said, 3% but it costs 2.5x as much, maybe people option them higher idk, that could be a 10% revenue hit. But maybe that's worth it for them

MBCook20 hours ago

If they just canceled the S and X I don’t think people would be making quite as much fun.

Saying they’re dropping two products that aren’t profitable so they can make a new product that most people seem to think is a complete joke is the problem.

nunez20 hours ago

Apparently Tesla dropped 4680 battery production for the CT by 99%, so the CT isn't long for this world either.

But that's okay! They have the Cybercab that will 100% drive itself For Real This Time, $99/mo Autopilot/FSD subscriptions and robots that will theoretically wash your dishes in an age where most people have an adversarial relationship with anything AI, so.

droopyEyelids19 hours ago

I'm not disagreeing with your overall take, but Tesla and other EV manufacturers have released the same model of vehicle with different battery technologies at different times. Only saying that dropping 4680 production isn't conclusive proof itself.

nunez16 hours ago

It's the 4680 cell that is only used by CT at the moment: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-on-its-w...

annexrichmond18 hours ago

How do you suppose Cybertruck is a failure? I see just as many of them as Rivians, while releasing over 5 years later.

stetrain9 hours ago

They built production capacity for 125,000-250,000 units per year. They are selling around 20,000 units per year.

It was supposed to cost $39k at the low end and have 500 miles of range at the high end. This drove the hype and high reservation numbers.

In reality it costs $79k and offers up to 325 miles of range. Doubling the price is going to significantly limit the reach of the product.

jsight18 hours ago

It was estimated at >200k/year, but in reality is well under 50k/year. I'd say that is a failure compared to their guidance.

haspok15 hours ago

They are so proud of the Cybertruck sales that they don't eevn dare to disclose sales figures. That's the sign of a market success.

Slothrop9917 hours ago

Ignoring who makes it, this kind of gimmickmobile usually sells well for about a year, and then everyone who wants one has one. It was never going to be a tentpole.

NewJazz17 hours ago

Rivian is not making money on those trucks either... I wouldn't count that as a win.

qingcharles15 hours ago

I regularly see Rivians. I've never once seen a Cybertruck in real life. (Midwest USA)

adastra2218 hours ago

The meme stock run up made Tesla more valuable than the rest of the auto industry combined. They HAVE to find something bigger.

I don’t think they have. Humanoid robots are a bad joke. But that’s why they are pivoting.

CamperBob218 hours ago

Humanoid robots make sense in only one context I can think of, and I definitely wouldn't put it past Musk to enter that market. It will be a big one. He may just be waiting for material science to catch up with his product vision. Much like Steve Jobs waited by the river until capacitive multitouch came floating by, and then pounced on it.

Meantime, as others have pointed out, the Model S and X are not selling enough to justify keeping the factory running. I don't see them going into Optimus production immediately, since as you suggest it's a solution looking for a problem.

adastra2217 hours ago

If you’re beating around the same bush, I think the material science is already there. It’s more the power draw and the societal blowback that are issues. It is an underrated market, but not a >1T$ market (I hope).

seanmcdirmid20 hours ago

The X and S were always very low volume niche products unlike the much more mainstream Y and 3. I wouldn’t read much into it.

rossjudson19 hours ago

I would. Someone in the market for a presumably profitable BMW 5 or 7 series isn't going to stay with BMW and drive a 3 series.

Yearly sales of model X have been comparable to the 5 series, at least until last year when musk's political activities took the shine off the brand.

High end cars are more profitable. There are millions of 3 and Y owners with positive experiences who would stay with the brand if it had something to move up to.

My 23 MX is the best car I've ever owned. I wouldn't buy the current iterations of 3 and Y.

Most refresh X owners think it's pretty great (not perfect). There are no alternatives at the moment, mostly because other manufacturers are terrible at software development...and that's not good for software defined vehicles.

It's sad to see Tesla walk away from the luxury segment so they can focus on robots, go karts, and robots pretending to drive go karts.

Slothrop9918 hours ago

S you can understand, because sedans are dead. But every other US auto company is making big profits with large SUVs, so I don't get dropping X.

Agree with other posters who say whatever you think of Musk, Tesla styling has gotten very stale.

qingcharles15 hours ago

Tesla have always said the design of the X was a mistake of over-engineering. I'm guessing there was no money to be made from it, especially as the sales dwindled.

sidcool9 hours ago

The two flagship as best selling cars in the world. S and X were low volume cars to get started.

SilverElfin22 hours ago

Check out videos of Chinese car company factories. They are far more automated and futuristic than Tesla’s. Most of the new ones have almost no humans in them at all. They have great supply chains and partners for everything that is an input into these factories, and they’re often just up the street from the car factories. The costs are rock bottom and the competition between car companies in China is absolutely bananas.

jsight18 hours ago

They are almost exclusively focused on autonomous cars, humanoid robots, and energy (batteries now, maybe more solar manufacturing later).

As much as I dislike it, I can't disagree with the business case here. They already have >300k monthly subscribers at about $100/month. That business will grow rapidly from here as well as the robotaxi business itself.

Within 2 years, this business will look radically different just because of these two changes.

NewJazz17 hours ago

Lol keep dreaming. Those 300k monthly subscribers could churn. Robotaxi isn't two years away. Not even close.

foxglacier19 hours ago

About a decade ago, Musk said he wanted to kickstart the electric car industry, make electric cars cool by showing they can be high performance and promising not to enforce Tesla's patents against competitors. Remember how electric cars used to be perceived? The Simpsons put it as "people will think you're gay". I'd say he completely succeeded in that goal and the whole "make piles of money for investors" is just because investors decided to try doing that.

fmlpp22 hours ago

Tesla and musk were living off of monstrous subsidies to the tune of 20B or more

rossjudson18 hours ago

Sure. And selling the most popular car on the planet is a failure?

Didn't the US government put ~$80b into rescuing GM etc, years ago?

Subsidies bootstrapped the EV industry. Stupid policies mean walking away from the investment, ceding the market to foreign competitors, and doubling down on legacy ICE crap the rest of the world no longer wants...and Americans will be less and less able to afford.

wavefunction18 hours ago

>the most popular car on the planet

That's the Toyota Corolla. I find this inaccurate glazing of musk to be relatively common but it always strikes me as profoundly weird.

manuelmoreale17 hours ago

To be charitable, according to at least some reports, the Model Y was the best selling car of 2024.

I was googling the data for 2025 and it seems that it’s number 2 now (behind the RAV4 to my surprise) with the Corolla at 3.

No idea how accurate these are, finding global numbers was harder than I thought.

+1
kccoder18 hours ago
RickJWagner23 hours ago

EVs are becoming commoditized. Tesla doesn’t have the scale ( or experience ) to play that angle.

Ancalagon23 hours ago

literally what are the gigafactories for then?

stetrain9 hours ago

At the moment most of them are running notably below capacity.

Tesla's growth plan originally had them doing factory expansions and new factory in Mexico by now, but instead they have pivoted to trying to keep utilization of their existing lines up by introducing cheaper trims of existing vehicles.

observationist23 hours ago

Batteries - lots of uses beyond EVs, but lots of EVs are making use of the batteries they can produce, as well.

+1
Ancalagon23 hours ago
avs73322 hours ago

Regular car factories with a fancy name.

doctorpangloss23 hours ago

it's very difficult to have a conversation about this, because it would appear that sincere answers to your question will get downvoted. one POV is that, if you accept the bear case from Internet commenters that these guys are incompetent or stupid - blah blah blah, Cybetruck - the existence of their autonomous taxi product is extremely bullish. they managed to pull off something similar to Waymo despite being so much worse at it, yes? I'm not sure they will even need a diverse product line of premium cars, if they can sell an autonomous 3 for the price of a small house. on the flip side, the bear case there is, if they could figure it out, so will a lot of other car companies. and yet, Cruise ceased operations, and Tesla will seemingly pay a manageable amount of blood money for Autopilot and move on.

nobody really can predict the future, so unsurprisingly, "reading various articles about this doesn't make it more clear." but people on the Internet keep getting worked up about it. to me, people do not comprehend the meaning of "high risk, high reward."

mosdl23 hours ago

Their autonomous taxi program is a joke right now, especially compared to Waymo. Way fewer cities/rides, and they haven't even deployed their cybertaxi thing.

sixQuarks19 hours ago

[flagged]

+1
rossjudson18 hours ago
Mawr15 hours ago

If you think it is, take your hands of the wheel and close your eyes. Fall asleep at the wheel. Not willing to do so? I guess your car isn't really driving you everywhere.

Your view on how stocks work is interesting as well — you realize most of the investors are regular, uninformed non-techies who invest based on vibes, right? Vibes like "my car is driving me everywhere, this is the future!" — the exact same thoughtless, surface-level analysis you're going off of.

Therefore, you're trying to beat the market by using the exact same reasoning 99% of its investors have used. Good luck.

tensor22 hours ago

When Tesla started producing cars, everyone wanted what they proposed. Now, no one wants the cybertruck. No one is really asking for humanoid robots. Their self driving is vastly inferior to waymo when it comes to taxies, I can't see them winning that market. Their batteries and solar panels, like their cars, seem to be more or less abandoned.

So, it's pretty easy to see why people are confused and upset. Tesla is discontinuing all the things people like about Tesla, and selling vapourware that no one really wants anyways, instead. It's also not "a difficult conversation."

What seems more likely is that Musk, in his extreme shift to the right, has abandoned the original goal of Tesla: producing sustainable electric vehicles. He's become more and more delusional, with failing like the Boring machine and the Cybertruck starting to pile up. He's alienated his existing customer base by both getting into politics and dropping any pretext of trying to help the environment.

From my point of view, Tesla is a failed company with a leader who has gone off the rails, and a board that refuses to reign him in. Revenues are falling off a cliff outside of US governmental money, and it's betting the whole ship on only two ideas: self driving, which is so far no where close to being where it needs to be, despite the progress, and on yet another fairy tale that is humanoid robots.

jeltz22 hours ago

The board cannot rein him in because doing so risks having the stock valued as a car company stock and not as a tech company or meme stock. I think they can only fix this after the stock has crashed.

tyre23 hours ago

imo their competition for autonomous vehicles doesn’t come from car companies, but from tech companies.

Amazon has a lucrative incentive to automate its supply chain up to and including last mile delivery. Waymo has proven out the tech and could easily partner with Uber or Lyft for the rider experience and reach.

If you’re FedEx, for example, would you rather buy from Amazon or from Tesla? Who is more likely to be a sane and trustworthy partner?

mandevil21 hours ago

I don't think that Uber or Lyft are going to invest in self-driving taxis. The capital model is completely different: Uber and Lyft are by design capital light, they own nothing more than the software (1), and someone needs to buy all of these self-driving machines and then someone needs to maintain them, whereas their current model doesn't do that- they can't offer that to any tech partner.

The reason that you don't see more Waymo areas has nothing to do with rider pool or experience, it is because their tech requires pre-mapping everything with LiDAR several times- the advantage is that if you know what is static (because it was in all of that LiDAR mapping) then a simple difference algo can tell you everything that is dynamic in the environment. (Also, they are just starting to hit cities with significant precipitation- SFO, LA, ATX, PHX are all pretty dry cities, they are going into ATL, MIA, DC, DEN, etc.)

1: With a lot of suspicion that much of their profit comes from drivers not understanding depreciation of their vehicles, something that the accountants who work for Uber and Lyft will understand very very well.

+1
AlotOfReading19 hours ago
cesarvarela19 hours ago

Uber spent billions trying to make self-driving work, until they gave up. Not "by design".

bdangubic22 hours ago

> they managed to pull off something similar to Waymo despite being so much worse at it, yes?

similar?! what exactly is your definition of similar? tesla and waymo are so far apart that it is difficult to accept any argument that tries to make this comparison. they cannot co-exist in the same sentence unless to explain one’s success against the other’s failures

voisin19 hours ago

Can you elaborate for those less familiar with the successes vs failures?

bdangubic19 hours ago

- https://x.com/Waymo/status/1924931187274826077

- https://x.com/Waymo/status/1945106097741664630

will leave it to the astute reader to look up “robo”taxi

SR2Z22 hours ago

Just a reminder that Tesla has still not offered driverless robotaxi rides to the public.

At this point, it's entirely because Musk refuses to add LIDAR. If he did they could probably be competing with Waymo in a year.

voisin19 hours ago

His rationale seems to be validated by Nvidia following the same strategy, no?

SR2Z18 hours ago

Nvidia follows the same strategy because having a large end-to-end model is how you get your customers to buy GPUs with their AI slush fund (and I don't think they limit themselves to vision).

His rationale at this point seems to be mostly stubbornness, coupled with a healthy dose of anxiety when he considers how much money he'll have to spend to deliver FSD to the people who bought it 10 years ago.

wmf17 hours ago

Nvidia isn't offering driverless robotaxi rides to the public either.

mrcwinn23 hours ago

You should probably keep reading.

Elon for years has said Tesla is not a car company. He’s also said the “factory is the product.” Tesla also has energy divisions and investments, as well as xAI investments now.

Logically given that Model S and X are something like less than 5% of deliveries (and have been for years), if they’re right about Optimus, that capacity will generate far greater revenue.

cosmicgadget22 hours ago

Do they have enough people to remotely operate that many Optimuses?

chihuahua21 hours ago

They can probably hire enough random dudes in India, especially if AI reduces the need for call center employees.

It will be slightly creepy when the Optimus walks into the bedroom and stares while its owner is ... in the middle of something, but that's a small price to pay.

Plus the Tesla employees in the U.S. will also be able to share the video, so it's a win-win.

pilingual18 hours ago

This is interesting. If Optimus hardware is supposed to be $15k, and Indian workers remotely operate it, there must be jobs in the US and elsewhere that it can handle. Median Indian salary is $4000 a year. No US minimum wage, no overly expensive health care, no Union fees, no workers comp, no visa. 86% savings over a US worker at $15 an hour. Plus, if they are a maid, there's a chance they'll get a free peek.

cosmicgadget21 hours ago

Is this a Black Mirror episode yet?

MBCook20 hours ago

> if they’re right about Optimus, that capacity will generate far greater revenue.

How many Cyber Trucks were they supposed to sell?

Yeah. And that was a car. A thing that is at least a category people buy.

tempestn23 hours ago

Optimus is complete vapourware. The quoted 1M units a year would be utterly unbelievable from any company, let alone Tesla with their history of over-promising.

sixQuarks19 hours ago

[flagged]

SloppyDrive23 hours ago

Its not that strange; normally manufactures are focused on volume and brand. So you have the 3 and Y in numbers where they can compete in the mass market price range; and CT and FSD for brand notoriety.

S and Y are not special enough to do anything for the brand, they dont qualify as halo products anymore. Probably still wouldnt be that interesting even if refreshed.

CT is still interesting, it looks different and has some tech inside that seems worthwhile to iterate on.

And unlike traditional brands, tesla has FSD, Optimus, and Musk to do enough to keep the brand itself healthy.

My guess would be they are deciding what they can learn by iterating the CT, and might decide to drop it in a year or two when the roadster takes the halo role.

They will keep trying to improve on volume for 3 and Y.

NoPicklez24 hours ago

Why is it seen initially so negatively?

There's nothing inherently wrong with a company deciding to stop producing models that are extremely old, have newer comparable models that are more widely available globally and sell multiples more of. So why would you keep those older models?

If anything its a good thing. But its Tesla so nothing they do will be spoken positively of.

breve23 hours ago

> Why is it seen initially so negatively?

Because Tesla is being measured against the benchmarks they set for themselves. It's not a good look with cancelled models, declining sales, and a lot of self-inflicted brand damage.

Musk used to claim Tesla will sell 20 million vehicles per year:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

The new goal is to have sold 20 million in total by 2035. That target represents a further decline in sales. And, given that Tesla over-hypes everything, maybe they won't achieve it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/elon-musk-tesla-...

addaon22 hours ago

> Why is it seen initially so negatively?

They went from being able to profitably produce a luxury car, to not being able to profitably produce a luxury car, to not being able to produce a luxury car at all. All while becoming uncompetitive in the econobox market, and losing huge chunks of it even before their real competitors arrive in market…

jeltz22 hours ago

Yeah, in Europe Tesla is not losing to BYD. They are losing to VW and BMV before the Chinese manufacturers have entered the competition for real.

WorldMaker7 hours ago

And Renault and Dacia and MG and…

Europe doesn't seem to want for EV competition in anything like the same way that the US is falling behind.

MBCook20 hours ago

But they’re making a robot! It will totally save the company!

On top of all the problems you have identified, as well as more, they’re clearly now just aiming for fantasy land.

tensor23 hours ago

I'm not surprised at the X, but the S has always been the flagship model with all the best features and the top performance. The 3 is a fine mid-sized car but it's very strange to get rid of your flagship model. Those always cater to a small audience anyways.

jerlam20 hours ago

Yes, flagship models aren't intended to be good sellers. They often are where new features are tested out on customers willing to overpay to be early adopters. Tesla did test out the new steering yoke and removing the control stalks in the S: both features were met with tepid reception and partially rolled back. This is also bad for the 3 and Y, since there will be low confidence in any changes before they are released.

groundzeros20158 hours ago

What if they have planned product lines we don’t know about.

WorldMaker7 hours ago

Then the smarter PR move would be to tease those before announcing massive cuts?

groundzeros20156 hours ago

that's a reasonable strategy. Maybe they want to clear some inventory first?

NoPicklez21 hours ago

I guess from my perspective you can't buy the S or the X in Australia, all I see everywhere are the 3 and the Y. So for me its not flagship but I do know that the S was the original popular Tesla and has all of the bells and whistles.

WorldMaker7 hours ago

The S was a true American "land yacht" in the classic style of an Oldsmobile. There's a lot of reasons for it to be seen as the US flagship model and for it to have done poorly in other markets or not even released to them.

browningstreet23 hours ago

As a car company the expectation is that they develop new car models for consumers. They don’t seem to be doing that either.

NoPicklez21 hours ago

They developed the Model 3 and Y, which is partly why they're stopping the S and X?

They completely refreshed the Model Y last year and made a number of updates to the Model 3 including different body word.

TulliusCicero13 hours ago

"Completely refreshed" is doing a lot of work here in that sentence.

The new refreshes don't look nearly as big in terms of changes as new generations of car models for other manufacturers, and Lord knows even Tesla fans have plenty of things they'd like to see improved.

+1
EnPissant10 hours ago
protastus15 hours ago

Because it looks like Elon recognized Tesla's inability to compete against BYD and gave up making cars. This is negative.

Since he couldn't leave it at that, he announced a pivot to a product that doesn't exist. This is also negative.

NoPicklez12 hours ago

How did he give up? The model Y and the model 3 were refreshed last year. With the model 3 now pushing 750km of range.

Ford got rid of plenty of popular models including all hatchbacks and many sedans.

cosmicgadget22 hours ago

Toyota sells a lot of Camrys and Corollas. It is nice that they also make (made?) Supras and 86s.

Also we can have a conversation without tossing the "everyone hates Tesla!" poison down the well immediately.

NoPicklez21 hours ago

The difference there is that Supra's and 86's are performance cars, whereas Camry's and Corollas arent. You can't compare a Hatchback to an 86.

The Model S is comparable performance to the Model 3 performance.

My point is that the latest models 3 & Y are more affordable alternatives to the S & X and more widely available globally.

cosmicgadget21 hours ago

Okay that's my ignorance of Tesla models then, I assumed the more expensive models were also faster.

I guess then it's more like Toyota EOLing Lexus or GM getting rid of Cadillac.

I understand the point that the cheaper models are higher volume. Historically that had not precluded the creation of sports and luxury models for most manufacturers. Are the legacy brands wrong to do this? Currently I doubt their business acumen far less than Elon's.

+1
NoPicklez20 hours ago
+1
rossjudson18 hours ago
fortran7719 hours ago

But the 3 isn’t comparable. It’s cheap, looks cheap and feels cheap.

rossjudson18 hours ago

Someone who owns a BMW 5 series isn't going to switch down to a new model of the 3 series. The X makes the 3 and Y feel like go karts (that are slow). The S is a missile. Fun, but not for me.

The other way of looking at this: The X is the only Tesla model with door handles that aren't stupid.

NoPicklez18 hours ago

How are they slow the Model 3 high performance does 0-100kph in 3.1 seconds? The X does it in 2.1, both of which are extremely fast and on par if not quicker than a 5 series BMW

SilverElfin22 hours ago

Having a halo product can be inspiring. A lot of BMW buyers may get a boring old 3 series but they like that the low volume M cars exist, for example.

MetaWhirledPeas6 hours ago

If Tesla wanted to be BMW they could just do all the BMW things. But they are aspiring for more, so they flip the script quite often. I'm not arguing for or against their decisions; just saying that because BMW does it is not a good argument for them.

electriclove19 hours ago

Maybe they will finally release the Roadster to serve this purpose

seanmcdirmid20 hours ago

Just buy an i4, even the eDrive is pretty zippy 0-60 in 5.4 seconds (the M50 can do it in 3.1 seconds). I’m not sure what the M car EV will look like beyond a motor for every wheel, but I can’t really see a point to it.

electriclove19 hours ago

Will they increase specs on the 3 and the Y after the S and X are sunset?

nunez20 hours ago

Ford got a lot of heat for shifting all of their NA production to Mustangs and F-series trucks too a few years ago.

MBCook20 hours ago

Ford didn’t say it was so they could make a robot butler instead.

kenhwang19 hours ago

The reason was sillier: China forced Ford to sell Mazda to enter the Chinese market, because Mazda entered the Chinese market before Ford and China considered them the same entity subject to the same outside manufacturer limits).

Mazda handled the small vehicle chassis design for Ford. So without Mazda, Ford no longer had the knowledge for continued development of their sedans and crossovers based on sedan platforms.

+1
nunez16 hours ago
MBCook19 hours ago

Oh is that why they gave up small cars? I didn’t realize that.

nunez16 hours ago

No, but they are retooling their MachE factory to make batteries, which felt just as much of a wtf as this BS

Slothrop9917 hours ago

Ford dropped sedans, they still have plenty of SUVs and other trucks you can buy.

EnPissant10 hours ago

Because it's Elon Musk.

10 years ago people here would be describing this as a good decision.

mrcwinn23 hours ago

You are, of course, exactly right but you will nevertheless be downvoted for the same reasons you allude to.

michelsedgh14 hours ago

the voting rings at HN are hard at work :))

nkotov7 hours ago

I know that the Model S platform is old but for me it was always seen as a halo car. I've owned three of them and I really wished they would release a completely redesigned S version.

sebastian_z9 hours ago

A genuine question, what are the use cases for Tesla's Optimus robots? Are they consumer products that help with household chores, industrial robots for warehouses or manufacturing, a play toy, something else?

palmotea8 hours ago

> A genuine question, what are the use cases for Tesla's Optimus robots? Are they consumer products that help with household chores, industrial robots for warehouses or manufacturing, a play toy, something else?

Convincing investors to buy and hold Tesla, because of the vague promise of some great technological innovation being just around the corner. Electric cars and partially automated driving don't serve that purpose anymore.

ozten8 hours ago

They are one of several memetic devices which keep Tesla’s stock price in orbit, untethered from reality.

blinding-streak8 hours ago

They are a financial engineering product with limited real world utility, in an attempt to keep the company solvent.

root_axis7 hours ago

If a use case emerges it will have to be industrial or commercial. The power and maintenance constraints for a robot like that make it pretty impractical for home use.

WarmWash8 hours ago

>A genuine question, what are the use cases for Tesla's Optimus robots?

A longer horizon promise of multi-trillion dollar wealth generation for Tesla.

As the whole robotaxi thing is starting to fizzle, Elon has quite notably talked more and more about how actually Optimus is the true gem of Tesla.

testing223218 hours ago

If they actually work (and I’m not saying for one second they will), they’re intended to be all those.

I have no doubt there will be many tens of millions of them, it’s just a question of when. 5 years? 10? 50?

dabinat14 hours ago

Before Tesla came along there were a small number of EVs but they were all pretty bad because their only purpose was to serve as “compliance cars” in states like California so automakers could sell more gas cars. (See the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? for more on this.)

So Tesla deserves credit for building the first electric cars that people actually wanted to buy. They also deserve credit for building the largest and most reliable charging network - a key factor in making electric car ownership more feasible.

But they’ve made a lot of poor decisions recently and all the money and power went to Elon’s head. I think it was beneficial to the world for Tesla to exist and do that important work early on, and now it’s beneficial to the world for the company to die.

WorldMaker6 hours ago

The sequel Revenge of the Electric Car is a very interesting follow up, especially now with hindsight. It followed the stories of the Tesla Roadster, Nissan Leaf, and Chevy Volt all in about the exact same time period and stages of development.

Of those, the Leaf is the only model that has continuously existed since then, and from the documentary there is a sense of that. GM admits the Volt was a stepping stone and not the final product. Tesla's part of the documentary involves a lot of trials and tribulations and even Tesla seeming unsure about their manufacturing problems. (Though the documentary itself spins a hopeful tune.)

Of the figures in the documentary the most prescient seems to be Carlos Ghosn, then in charge of Renault-Nissan. He very much insisted that EVs weren't just the future, they were the scramble for the present. Renault took that message to heart and seemed to be the side that won it in the messy divorce that also eventually wound up with Ghosn getting charged for treason and embezzlement in Japan. Which is an incredible and weird story on multiple levels and maybe the documentary makers will get a chance to include that in a third movie for the series.

snarky_dog8 hours ago

[dead]

cosmicgadget22 hours ago

> “If you’re interested in buying a Model S and X, now would be the time to order it.”

I can't tell if this is real and he realizes the traditional luxury brands have beaten him or if he's just using the classic rug store sales tactic.

jeltz22 hours ago

Is that an international thing? There was a rug store next to where I grew up in Stockholm which had a sale because they were closing the shop from at least the early 90s until ca 2020 during covid when they closed the shop for real. There are also a couple more rug stores doing the same thing, one of them still to this day.

decimalenough20 hours ago

It's an international thing, down to the neverending "Closing now fr fr" sales. There was general bemusement in Sydney when one shop notorious for this actually closed down, but only because the building was demolished to make way for a highway interchange.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/rozelle-rug...

In many countries, "carpet salesman" is equivalent to "used car salesman" as the least trustworthy occupation imaginable.

Slothrop9917 hours ago

"Rug merchant"

cosmicgadget22 hours ago

Well, at least Sweden and the US. Kind of amazing.

thorio13 hours ago

For what it's worth: he has been saying for years, that they were only making the S and X for nostalgic reasons.

diabllicseagull18 hours ago

classic "closing-store" sale, I wouldn't be surprised if the closing phase never ended.

Tadpole918122 hours ago

"Buy the software-dependent product we're not going to support going forward!"

chihuahua21 hours ago

Also, good luck if you ever need replacement parts.

FireBeyond19 hours ago

Absolutely. Tesla's already shown significant disdain/deprioritization for replacement parts in models they're not discontinuing. After all, every part in a service warehouse is not a part going on a new car to pump the quarterly numbers (or be parked in an abandoned shopping mall).

bob102916 hours ago

I think Tesla would make way more sense if they got out of the car part of the business. Serving the consumer market directly is very expensive.

Their electronics, batteries, motors, etc., are world class. Packaging this up into something a partner can use to build actual cars could have less risk. An electric motor or battery can propel many kinds of automobile. They tend to keep their value better when stored in this format too. The moment everything is integrated into a car, things get very bad very quickly unless you're selling Ferraris or Lamborghinis.

WorldMaker6 hours ago

You can compare the market cap of say GM (automaker) to Bosch (massive automaker supply chain and logistics company) to get a sense of why that sort of pivot would probably not be appreciated by the market. Supply chain companies are usually considered "lesser" companies.

2OEH8eoCRo05 hours ago

They don't make their own battery cells they are an integrator of third party cells.

notahacker15 hours ago

That would be lower margin and narrower moat even if they had the partners lined up and didn't have a valuation based on the assumption one day the car everyone would use would be a Tesla.

flakeoil13 hours ago

> Their electronics, batteries, motors, etc., are world class.

This was maybe true 5-10 years ago, but not today.

Cornbilly1 day ago

They need more room to make the next stock pump scheme look legit.

I'm sure they already have enough inventory to last a while and demand is probably cratering because of Elon's Twitter posts and the fact that Tesla never refreshes their models.

jve14 hours ago

> Tesla never refreshes their models

I'v seen quite a few Tesla Ys that needed repairs and... they seem to improve the car year to year or even months to months. Car interface suddenly changes to RJ45, some metal parts changed to aluminium (if I'm not mistaken), various things that become easyer to fix and so on. Low Voltage battery getting Li-Ion. Front under body changes: https://service.tesla.com/docs/BodyRepair/Body_Repair_Proced...

And then the airbag controller gets newer and newer.

Not something to market about, but you see steady incremental improvements.

What I want to say, the serviceability is very good for the cars. You get open documentation, you can access toolbox for a price, but it's there for the simple DIYer. Need to change pyro fuse? No problem, pop up docs, order part, change it. The parts are cheap.

NoPicklez24 hours ago

They've just refreshed their Model 3 and Model Y within the last year or so. With the model Y looking considerably different so I'm not sure where you got that from

Cornbilly24 hours ago

I can give you the Model Y but take a look at the rest of the lineup compared to when they were first released. Hell, you're in this very post calling the S/X old.

akmarinov17 hours ago

And yet absolutely no under the hood stats have changed in 8 years - battery capacity, charging rate, charging curve, performance

NoPicklez12 hours ago

Sorry? The midrange model 3 now has 750km range as of last year.

fascism_is_bad17 hours ago

Personally I'm also rather turned off by elon musk killing several hundred thousand people per year by illegally shutting USAID. You know, mass murder and all of that. Inhuman filth.

jatora24 hours ago

[flagged]

Cornbilly24 hours ago

>irrational

Oh buddy. I don't think that's the word you want to use here.

jatora9 hours ago

I'm not your buddy, friend

thelastgallon10 hours ago

Coming up next: Tesla to end production of all cars and sell only NFT/Crypto with pictures of Cybertruck going to the moon/mars. This is the only company which provides Speculation as a Service. With a complete monopoly on SPaaS, the market cap will skyrocket to $20 Trillion. Elon will be given Nobel peace prize for saving mankind from itself as well as physics.

el_nahual8 hours ago

There is in fact one person who has won both the Nobel Peace prize and a hard-science one:

Linus Pauling. Chemistry 1954, peace 1962.

apparent16 hours ago

Interesting that they're cutting S/X but keeping the Cybertruck. Whatever metric they're using (revenue, profit, units, etc.) that led them to cut the S/X would surely have similar numbers for the Cybertruck, if not worse.

protastus16 hours ago

The metric for the Cybertruck is the impact to Elon's ego. Nothing about this project is rational.

apparent15 hours ago

The only rational reason I could come up with is that the pool of potential Cybertruck buyers is not as saturated as for S/X, which have been around for quite a while.

numpad013 hours ago

Painted metallic chassis of a car is always dipped in car sized acid baths and primer baths. Dipping the whole cars held on a carriage is the only way it's done, anywhere, for any brands, using any metals, even many Ferrari, as well as with many classic car restoration projects. Your cars will be competing with brand new 1960s Fords and Mazdas if you were not doing it in terms of corrosion resistance - unless, I'm guessing, you're making DeLoreans and Cybertrucks.

snek_case8 hours ago

Part of it is they wanted that factory space at Fremont for the Optimus production line. That's because the Optimus team is located there, in Silicon Valley.

apparent7 hours ago

Wondered about that also. Seems like a really big decision to cut off the S and X though! Will they have something else to offer customers who want something more than a Y?

CalChris17 hours ago

One of Oxide+Friends predictions was "6 year: Tesla is out of the consumer car business".

https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/predictions...

ted_dunning8 hours ago

Even Tesla pessimists would probably agree with that. The question is whether they will be in any other business by then.

4649316819 hours ago

So is the new roadster just not happening?

csa19 hours ago

Tesla designer I know said that it’s not something that anyone is currently working on.

As such, my guess is “not any time soon”.

akmarinov17 hours ago

It’ll be out and immediately cancelled

testing2232118 hours ago

On the earnings call Elon said

“we’re hoping to debut [next gen roadster] in April, hopefully. It’s gonna be something out of this world.”

(I’m just the messenger, don’t shoot me)

kccoder18 hours ago

He didn't specify the year.

officerk17 hours ago

He said it's on April 1st [1]. So, yeah.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/06/tesla-delays-reveal-of-pro...

system217 hours ago

On an earnings call, everyone expects it to be this year. Unless specified, it should be this year.

eco23 hours ago

Elon's $1T tranches are mostly based on market cap, right? Switching from just a carmaker to a "physical AI" company could be all he needs to convince the stock market to ignore Tesla's declining profits and raise the market cap even higher.

bdangubic22 hours ago

he’s done it time and time again and I don’t see him failing this time either.

aunty_helen22 hours ago

The market for humanoid robots hasn’t been established like the market for $40,000 personal transport.

Saying that, I wouldn’t be too surprised if robotaxi replaces 90% of taxis and Ubers in the next 5-7 years.

But yea, stepping from sinking raft to the next…

jeltz21 hours ago

Potentially in a few cities with high cost of living and nice weather, but certainly not worldwide. Not even the best can handle bad weather yet.

nebula880418 hours ago

Waymo is launching in Detroit.

kccoder18 hours ago

> I wouldn’t be too surprised if robotaxi replaces 90% of taxis and Ubers in the next 5-7 years

I'd bet a kidney that doesn't happen.

akmarinov16 hours ago

Not Tesla’s version anyway

bdangubic21 hours ago

> Saying that, I wouldn’t be too surprised if robotaxi replaces 90% of taxis and Ubers in the next 5-7 years.

How about we start with 0.00076% first before we start throwing insane numbers like 90% (chance of which happening are in-line with me marrying Beyonce)

peterisza14 hours ago

so you own the stock then. right?

nunez21 hours ago

This is sad in that I was serious about finally getting one in two to three years (We have two Model 3 LRs already), but is fantastic in that no other car interests me and I now don't have this hyper materialistic goal distracting me.

If Tesla completely exits automotive and decides to license their FSD tech (or someone else catches up), then I'll probably just get whatever the equivalent of a Bolt is then with that and premium sound.

And they just might, too. Recall that the EV tax credit went away this year along with regulatory credits to other auto OEMs, which was a huge part of their business. This combined with the Cybertruck (unsurprisingly!) missing sales targets is problematic.

rconti17 hours ago

Wait, an S? Why? I've got a 3 LR too and.... I just can't say anything about the extraordinarily long-in-the-tooth S excites me. Usually something is desirable when it's new, then the desirability fades as the product ages and other new, hot things come onto the market.

Don't get me wrong, I don't generally lust after EVs, but I am looking forward to the R3X....

nunez16 hours ago

Bigger battery, larger center console and the cabin is slightly more premium. Not $76k premium but moreso than the 3. I also really like the yoke.

However, the 3 is lighter, has better headlight clusters, the light accent inside of the cabin (that I thought the S was getting, but I guess not), and a marginally better sound system.

rconti7 hours ago

Got it. Yeah, the headlights and sound system on my (2018) 3 are AMAZINGLY good, especially (now) for the age. I drove a 2017 S fairly regularly-- so it's a first year (?) of the refresh, but pretty dated now. The sound system is abysmal (I'm sure it's the low end option) and the car generally feels less cohesive.

The yoke and button turn signals would be a deal breaker for me, but to each their own.

lavezzi18 hours ago

> This is sad in that I was serious about finally getting one in two to three years

Couldn't have said it better

niek_pas13 hours ago

This is slightly off topic but what kind of living situation requires three cars? Polyamorous family?

senordevnyc9 hours ago

I have multiple friends who have 6+ cars. To be fair, they're pretty well-off (mid six figure income), but one for example:

- Husband Tesla daily driver - Wife Bronco daily driver - Truck to pull their boat - Campervan for outdoor adventures - Older car for teenager to drive - 90s convertible for summer fun

LeoPanthera17 hours ago

[flagged]

yalogin7 hours ago

Looks like they are not selling the larger vehicles at all, so why not kill the truck too? It’s god awful and a flop. Ego? Or thy want to try to revive it?

What they are really signaling though is with EVs they are not able to differentiate between the higher and lower cost models enough to show value to the higher end models. This is a huge failure IMO. Model S was the OG car that really was looked up to when it launched. It did have them luxury image, by not matching the build and interior of the car to the image Tesla really dropped the ball. Now the S is seen as inferior to the other luxury cars in that price range and so it’s becoming tough for Tesla to differentiate between the 3 and S.

This actually brings up the larger question, does musk care about cars at all at this point? Or does he just want to move on to robots? Feels like his heart is not on the cars.

shanehoban11 hours ago

Hard to believe, but it's almost 10 years since they announced the new Roadster

danw197911 hours ago

> Tesla is developing Optimus with the aim of someday selling it as a bipedal, intelligent robot capable of everything from factory work to babysitting.

“Full Automated Parenting”. You win a Darwin award on behalf of your kids if you fall for this shtick.

DalasNoin9 hours ago

These robots give of a kind of dark vibe to me, especially with everything going on in his AI company. How long until one of them kills someone? I'd prefer a home robot that can't kill me (like something that is passively safe).

dlisboa11 hours ago

Elon Musk is already doing that kind of parenting, so I can see how he likes it.

cmoski13 hours ago

> Tesla is developing Optimus with the aim of someday selling it as a bipedal, intelligent robot capable of everything from factory work to babysitting.

I did not look forward to the news articles about robots accidentally dropping or squashing babies.

bayindirh16 hours ago

The elephant Tesla mocked has run, and stomped over them. Now there comes the pivot.

While "The old auto establishment" is not a benevolent structure, they proved that experience is something earned with time and doing things. Corporate knowledge and memory is real, and you can't beat it with brute force.

They started the change, but they failed to keep up with the pace. Also hubris, greed and monies.

uejfiweun16 hours ago

I don't really get this take... not when Tesla is by a wide mile the world's most valuable automaker. How does Tesla ending production of the S and X equate to the old auto establishment "stomping over them"?

tzs11 hours ago

In terms of actually selling cars Tesla is around #15 by annual unit sales and around #11 by annual sales in dollars.

Toyota sells more cars in a year then Tesla has sold ever.

bayindirh16 hours ago

Worth related statistics doesn't mean anything in the realm of hard engineering. I completely look from the point of "what the companies are doing tech-wise".

When Tesla came about, they were distinctively different. A different chassis, a different weight distribution, completely different dynamics. Since they started with a blank slate, their cars were greenfield projects, and they correctly took note of the pitfalls, and avoided them.

On the other hand, avoiding past pitfalls or remedying them doesn't make you immune from the future ones, and doesn't mean the other companies can't learn, too. This is where they made the mistake.

They overpromised (esp. with the Autopilot thingy) and underdelivered massively on that front, and while they "made" the software-defined-vehicle, they underestimated the problems and behaved like the problems they face are as simple as configuring a web service right. This is what slowly broke them. They also underestimated hardware problems of the car (like using consumer grade parts in the critical parts of the hardware. Remember wearing down flash chips and bricking cars?)

Because while car is software defined now, it's also an "industrial system". It has to be robust. It has to be reliable, idiot-proof even. Playing fast and loose with these things allowed automakers to catch them, maybe slowly but surely.

Because, "the old automakers" has gone through a lot of blood, sweat and tears (both figuratively and literally), and know what to do and what not to do. They can anticipate pitfalls better then a "newbie" carmaker. They shuddered, sputtered, hesitated, but they are in the move now. They will evolve this more slowly, but in a more reliable and safer way. They won't play that fast, but the products will be more refined. They won't skimp on radars because someone doesn't believe in them, for example.

Not everything is numbers, valuations and great expansions which look good on quarterlies, news, politics, and populists. Sometimes the slow and steads wins, and it goes for longer.

Physics and engineering doesn't care for valuations. They only care about natural laws.

This is what I'm seeing here.

uejfiweun15 hours ago

Thank you for the explanation. I guess the thing I don't understand is what exactly the problems are that you are seeing. We've all heard the stories of wooden parts in initial production runs of Tesla models, sure. But it does seem like they iron out these kinks over time. Maybe I'm biased because I'm in the bay area, but it seems like every 3rd car you see on the highway is a Tesla, and lots of my coworkers speak very highly of theirs that they own. It just doesn't seem to me like there is actually a quality issue here?

If anything, ending production of SX and giving more focus to 3Y would probably increase the quality of those models, I'd imagine.

If you're pointing to Autopilot / camera-only as the main transgression here, yeah I'll agree that they have definitely overpromised, but it doesn't really seem to me like the lack of a L5 system is actually a deal-breaker for anyone, because from what I hear they are just damn good cars anyway.

Ekaros14 hours ago

I can get them ending products. That is natural cycle. But what should be worrying is that they have not already introduced at least one model that replace either one. It looks like real stagnation which in long term will kill the company.

frogperson6 hours ago

I simply dont care how good or bad the cars are. I will never put a penny in Elon's hand. He is a despicable nazi and a terrible person. I hope he goes bankrupt.

shawn_w1 day ago

No more S3XY lineup of models? I'm surprised Musk was okay with breaking that up.

avar24 hours ago

3YC is the new S3XY.

RA2lover23 hours ago

YC3.

avar23 hours ago

CYR3S, if we're going to add Roadster and Semi, both of which are allegedly still in development.

plun923 hours ago

C3CSY

jsight18 hours ago

It is sad, but big sedans do not sell well and the X really needed to be replaced with something completely different. There are now several other 3 row EV SUVs competing with it, and even low volume ones (eg, R1S) outsell it easily.

Don't be surprised if something else takes its place as they do need something larger than Y and less expensive than X was.

swedishuser10 hours ago

Pretty sad seeing people take pleasure in the company failing. See past your opinion about it's leader. At the end of the day, it's the company that brought vehicle electrification to the masses and has acted cash cow for SpaceX, Starlink and Neuralink.

wmeredith7 hours ago

> See past your opinion about it's leader.

This is like asking Mrs. Lincoln what she thought about the play. The scope of the (financial and physical) damage by Musk's government meddling is breathtaking, is ongoing, and will echo for generations.

sidcool9 hours ago

Is Tesla really failing? They have $40 billion cash at hand. More than some legacy automobile market cap.

snek_case8 hours ago

They're clearly not failing, but if you read comments here or on reddit, lots of people want them to, and have wanted them to for a decade.

nessbot9 hours ago

He's not just the leader, he's the primary beneficiary, and he's a blatant white supremacist. He's arguably responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people world wide from his short tenure shutting down USAID[0]. So yeah, I'd say its more than fine to take pleasure in his failings.

[0] https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts

throwaway1324489 hours ago

Not nearly as sad as people getting emotionally invested in corporations.

Add why should anyone look past their opinions about the leader?

We have the saying “the fish rots from the head” for a good reason. Tesla has been rotten ever since Elon got involved.

snek_case8 hours ago

> Add why should anyone look past their opinions about the leader?

Because it's the most advanced car manufacturing in the US... Virtually the only successful EV maker outside of China, and it provides over 100,000 jobs worldwide.

throwaway1324488 hours ago

Actions have consequences. Maybe an upshot of this is that people will learn not to put all their eggs in the POS’s basket.

anon_anon1215 hours ago

I can imagine Musk selling these very models with AI slapped onto them and call it revolutionary

Havoc12 hours ago

Tesla must be in serious trouble given recent erratic moves

antonyh14 hours ago

Any other car company would create an S / X MkII.

cesarvarela6 hours ago

Yup, and most are dying and getting bought by Chinese capital.

nusl14 hours ago

FSD will launch next year, of course. Just like every year.

varjag13 hours ago

So essentially down to making one car huh.

xnx23 hours ago

I'm almost surprised they didn't end model 3 production too. Benefit would be much smaller since 3 and y are already so similar.

throwaway8582523 hours ago

By the same logic it costs less to keep the 3 in production.

shevy-java18 hours ago

I think ever Elon made some strange moves (the chainsaw image, mass-firing people at DOGE and elsewhere or the right-arm gesture) people question more why they should give money to where he is associated with. Tesla suffered from this, in addition to the design becoming awkward compared to older models.

jmyeet23 hours ago

It seems fairly easy to find figures on how many cars Tesla has produced each quarter but, surprisingly (at least to me), it's harder to find compiled information on (for each quarter):

- Average Selling Price;

- Cars produced vs cars sold;

- How many unsold cars are in inventory. I did find this [1];

- A model breakdown of the above 2.

The reason I'm interested in this because my theory is that:

1. Sales have been shifting from the Model S/X to the Model 3/Y, which reduces average selling price and overall profit. Stopping production is really about the inventory glut;

2. Unsold inventory is going up, particularly for the Cybertruck; and

3. Tesla marketshare is collapsing in many markets due to a combination of brand collapse among the most likely EV buyers and competition from lower-priced alternatives, particularly Chinese EVs in developing markets.

So what exactly is propping up this company at an above $1T market cap?

[1]: https://electrek.co/2025/06/17/tesla-tsla-inventory-overflow...

lotsofpulp23 hours ago

While this isn’t sale price data, it should be pretty close, and the trends should be clear:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1F5IQOynIawoXiJPV...

SilverElfin23 hours ago

Feels a lot like giving up. I guess this is why there is such a strong change in the Tesla messaging, to Robotaxis and robots. But maybe this is inevitable. The cars being made in China are pretty amazing and I don’t think it is possible for American or European companies to compete.

reactordev23 hours ago

We outsourced it and it would take us 10 years to retool and rebuild that kind of capability. No one wants to take that kind of investment on.

stackghost23 hours ago

The narrative from Musk cultists has been "Tesla isn't a car company, it's a bet on $excuse_du_jour" for at least a year and a half.

neets19 hours ago

I am surprised that nobody here is talking about grid energy storage, they basically invented that business vertical. It's about 13% of their revenue.

jbm19 hours ago

Certainly longer than that. I actually thought Tesla as an energy company made sense — sadly just an excuse to buy and shelve solarcity.

mdavid62615 hours ago

So many Tesla/Musk haters around here.

flakeoil13 hours ago

People are just being rational and pragmatic.

mdavid6268 hours ago

It’s always funny to me that hating is fine if the person justifies it by some reason, but it’s generally not accepted, when that person doesn’t care about the reason.

“Stop the hate”, but of course only if it’s not me hating. Because that hate is valid and justified.

groundzeros20159 hours ago

People are losing money and a product they liked because they imagine disliking it hurts an individual they don’t like.

This is a lose/lose enemy centered mindset, and a weird personification of a corporation.

throwaway1324488 hours ago

[flagged]

+1
groundzeros20158 hours ago
sidcool9 hours ago

How so?

flakeoil6 hours ago

They say Tesla cars are not better than any other EV nowadays. They say the Tesla stock is overvalued. They say the Tesla robot will likely not be a super hit in terms of sales.

I don't see it as hate. It's quite pragmatic views.

+1
sidcool6 hours ago
throwaway1324489 hours ago

They have self-respect.

baron81623 hours ago

> converting Fremont factory lines to make Optimus robots

I’m very bullish on humanoid robots, but this seems absolutely batshit insane to me. These things are no where near ready for full scale production.

wombatpm23 hours ago

If the can walk and randomly fire teargas and bullets into crowds of protesters they could replace half of ICE right now.

internet_points14 hours ago

but first they have to demo it to the higher ups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsulVXpgYg

sawjet15 hours ago

This would only replace a small fraction of ICE, and only in states that don't cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.

senordevnyc9 hours ago

only in states that don't cooperate with federal law enforcement officers

Courts have consistently ruled that state and local jurisdictions are not legally required to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

ocdtrekkie23 hours ago

Elon Musk says something absolutely insane on the weekly. Almost none of it actually happens.

mrcwinn23 hours ago

That’s just nonsense, of course. Almost everything he says happens. It rarely happens on time.

malfist23 hours ago

Almost everything he says happens? Thats pretty far from the truth. Isn't Tesla still embroiled in a legal tussle over "full self drive"? What about the $30k model 3? What about the $200/kg to space?

He has very little connection to the truth. He's a hypeman and a conman

+3
rogerrogerr23 hours ago
browningstreet23 hours ago

On a scale of “happens” on one end to “doesn’t happen” on the other, he has a few “happens” that Elon fans will try and anchor against the weight of the enormous load down at the “doesn’t happen” end.

etchalon23 hours ago

A few of the things he says will happen, happen. Many of them happen late.

Most of what he says will happen never happens, but people point to the few things that did happen, but were late, and say, "This too will happen."

tcdent23 hours ago

Nobody here seems to remember that this was always the plan: release expensive cars to bootstrap the company which allows them to release progressively cheaper cars until everyone can afford one.

Not a fanboy, but this seems like it went exactly according to plan.

tensor23 hours ago

Nowhere in that plan was "only produce cheap cars." Unless you're aim is to be the budget brand, it's bizarre behaviour not to have a top end flagship model.

mattas19 hours ago

Which phase of the plan talks about repurposing the cheap car factory to make humanoid robots?

malfist23 hours ago

Where exactly are those cheaper cars? Still waiting for a 30k model 3 like promised.

avar23 hours ago

You already have it. Musk's earliest promise of a $30k price point appears to be an interview in September 2009: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2009/09/25/teslas-elon-musk-on-...

Adjusted for inflation, $30k then is around $45k now. Tesla sells a Model 3 for just over $35k.

It doesn't make any sense to hold someone to a promise like that and not adjust it for inflation. I think you can legitimately complain that he didn't meet the timeline he was aiming for.

consumer45122 hours ago

I think your point is fair, but look at the 2026 Nissan Leaf.

The base is around $28k. This feels like one of the first "affordable" EVs in the USA. It also comes with decent tech without a subscription, and has comparable ranges to Teslas.

https://www.caranddriver.com/nissan/leaf

FireBeyond19 hours ago

Meanwhile folks are waiting (no, not really) for their $35K Cybertruck...

willio5823 hours ago

Elon got distracted and decided we want humanoid robots.

cmxch23 hours ago

Buy it used?

inerte23 hours ago

Yes. It's interesting to see a consequence of this strategy, which is at least some part of your model 3/Y customers bought it because "it is a Tesla", and being Tesla is premium. If you get rid of the premium, you lose that aura. But maybe the impact is small.

formvoltron23 hours ago

Tesla's secret weapon will be the dyson sphere. Probably complete within 2.. 3 years maximum.

aetherspawn17 hours ago

If they want to sell a buttload more cars just make FSD free on all Tesla’s, done.

The possibility of FSD is probably the only reason I paid $10K more for a M3 over a BYD Seal. But free FSD? Who can compete with that. Nobody.

Also, turning FSD into a subscription is total enshittification and I hate it. It would also go a long way to coax back peeved off buyers and convince them not to make their 2nd EV a different brand.

My current sentiment towards Tesla for making FSD subscription-only AFTER I bought my car? Screw you. Go to hell. It’s MY $80k asset. I feel betrayed.

insane_dreamer21 hours ago

X sure, but the S? it was the best in the lineup

why not kill the cybertruck instead?

rhplus19 hours ago

The S is simply too expensive. People in the market for $100K+ sedans/coupes are gonna perceive more curb appeal from a Mercedes, Audi, BMW or Porsche.

Tesla crashed the allure of its brand by lowering the price point of the Y and 3. The X and S aren’t different enough to attract $100K+ purchasers.

(It’s one reason why Toyota and other brands use different marks like Lexus for their high end offerings).

aglavine19 hours ago

Roadster will replace S

driverdan19 hours ago

The same vaporware Roadster that was supposed to come out years ago and that Tesla has not shared any updates on?

RCitronsBroker10 hours ago

someone is stuffing their channels, huh? first the fsd fiasco, now this

mrcwinn23 hours ago

I’m a little sad (nostalgic?) about this decision. Model S is a truly historic vehicle.

rpmisms17 hours ago

Really sad. I loved my Model S. Amazing car.

slowhadoken13 hours ago

I wish people that jeer Musk would decide if he’s running his companies or not. They think he’s an ignorant figure head and a conniving strategist. I don’t care either way just stick to one.

therealdkz6 hours ago

[dead]

diamondfist257 hours ago

[flagged]

mdjt6 hours ago

Having read through the comments I think this is pretty bad take. The vast majority of the criticism seems pretty reasonable to me. By any metric you would use on any other company, Tesla is overvalued. It trades largely on hype/missed promises. It’s bitcoin but with regular earning reports. Your inability to read critical thought and not scramble to claim mental derangement because those doing the criticizing don’t agree full heartedly with your supreme leader is pretty funny to me.

sidcool11 hours ago

[flagged]

iinnPP10 hours ago

It is and so is the sum of nonsensical replies to the entire thread.

It makes sense though, with the experience of the average app/website these days. Those devs come here and you can pick them out with ease.

I called this event years ago, it has been obvious in foresight.

rob10 hours ago

Lol yeah Tesla is doing so great they just got rid of two flagship models.

Government rebates have ended. Sentiment towards EV has shifted negatively in consumer eyes. Manufacturers are sticking to gasoline. Even Jeep just got rid of all their electric stuff.

Maybe they'll be good for self driving robot taxis over in California with "FSD."

Past performance does not indicate future success.

sidcool10 hours ago

Nop. The S and X were always meant low volume high priced. And it's a great strategy. Didn't Tesla repay loans before it was due?

Challenge is that even that good past performance was shat upon by people. I hate Elon. But I don't think Tesla is doing bad at all. GM is shitting itself on EVs.

top_sigrid11 hours ago

There is no evidence of unsupervised robotaxis actually rolling out. These are just the same promises Elon has wrongfully done since literally 10 years and some publicity stunts.

sidcool10 hours ago

People have taken rides in unsupervised Teslas. Please check news.

top_sigrid10 hours ago

Yes, privy influencers. And it was supervised from the car behind it. No one else was able to find such a ride. Tesla cars also autonomously self-delivered. Which also turned out to be a one-off publicity stunt. Up until now, nothing points to that this is something different this time.

+1
sidcool9 hours ago
bayindirh11 hours ago

Most of the people are bashing Tesla because they 1) Overpromised and underdelivered 2) They claimed/acted like they're so ahead that nobody can touch them.

Now, other automakers are closing the gap fast, and their overpromise of camera-only FSD is reaching Duke Nukem Forever levels, while other automakers use a diversified sensor set with more conservative autonomy levels because they value human lives more than playing fast and loose (plus, they are scrutinized way more heavily for various right and wrong reasons).

For me, it's not hatred, but I saw that they were hyped a bit too much and need some correction, and this correction is coming hard for them.

Valuations means nothing except investor trust. We have seen some spectacular collapses under unbelievable valuations. Theranos had a valuation of $9 billion. Tesla is not a scam or balloon per se, but they were a bit too overconfident of their moat.

davedx11 hours ago

FSD has been maturing for ~an entire decade now. Their latest stunt with moving the supervisor to chaser cars has made a lot of people understandably angry anew: Musk has to hit his robotaxi milestones to get more billions, so he's forcing the programme ahead with smoke and mirrors to get his stock option grants.

Their profit is decreasing, revenue growth is negative. Their autonomy programme is always "just one more update" away. Humanoid robotics is already full of competition from hundreds of other startups and larger companies (even Amazon, an AI sceptic, has a significant robotics programme).

I wouldn't call them a failure, but they certainly seem to have lost their way, and you have to really drink the kool aid to be able to justify the valuation in any sense.

sidcool10 hours ago

I agree that Tesla over promised. I strongly feel they'll deliver, albeit late. That does not make it a failure though.

ceejayoz10 hours ago

This is the same argument people made with Bernie Madoff before the ponzi collapsed.

sidcool10 hours ago

Seriously? This comment cant be serious.

ceejayoz8 hours ago

It really was the argument there; that he'd been in business so long with such great returns that everyone assumed it had to have been looked into by everyone else.

> If a company was overvalued for a couple of years, it's ok to be sceptical. Tesla has been at such high valuations for many years now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff

"Madoff said that he began the Ponzi scheme in the early 1990s, but an ex-trader admitted in court to faking records for Madoff since the early 1970s."

The SEC stuff rhymes a bit, too:

"The SEC's inspector general, Kotz, found that since 1992, there had been six investigations of Madoff by the SEC, which were botched either through incompetent staff work or by neglecting allegations of financial experts and whistle-blowers. At least some of the SEC investigators doubted whether Madoff was even trading."

Now, Tesla actually makes stuff; it's not a ponzi. But it's a wildly inflated stock that looks entirely divorced from the business metrics available to us.

sidcool7 hours ago

Your last paragraph is the only thing I agree with. Inflated stock != Ponzi

bluescrn11 hours ago

Of course it's not about Tesla at all. Yeah, there's been overpromising and underdelivering on self-driving (is anyone doing better yet, though?), but in reality the hate is entirely about Elon and his politics.

techblueberry10 hours ago

How would I even know what Elon’s politics are? He’s too busy running the worlds biggest companies to get involved with politics.

otterley10 hours ago

Why can’t it be both? And, besides, it’s not like criticism of the latter is utterly invalid.

rob10 hours ago

Elon Musk doing Nazi salutes and calling people "retarded" on Twitter all the time has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on Tesla or how I feel about them.

I just don't like Tesla's vehicles, how they look, or the interiors of them. Nothing to do with the individual.

sidcool7 hours ago

Did he actually do Nazi salute? Come on. People moved on from that when Mamdani did the same gesture.

Gud18 hours ago

Probably one of the dumbest decisions taken by a CEO?

vtail18 hours ago

Shutting down low-volume, complex project, that needs to be substantially redesigned to be competitive, while these resources can be redeployed elsewhere, in high growth areas? I disagree: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46805773

vtail19 hours ago

"HN is dying" is a cliche, I know, but I seriously want to bookmark this thread to revisit it in 10 years - I'm sure it will age even better than (in)famous Dropbox thread. So from that perspective, HN is alive and well :).

The level of cynicism of the discussion is overwhelming, frankly. I get it that some people don't like Musk because of his politics, but why should that prevent people interested in technology to at least try to present a steelman case?

Let me try it, at a risk to be down-voted to oblivion...

1. As people correctly point out, S&X are outdated, low volume models. Investing more engineering time in them doesn't make any business sense; these engineering resources and capital should be clearly redeployed elsewhere.

2. People think that Waymo is supposedly better(?) than FSD, but at least some very well informed people (and NVIDIA as a company) believe that it's not. Personal anecdote: an older (HW3) version of Tesla drove me perfectly well in Yosemite last weekend, in on winding mountain roads with 0 cell phone coverage. It will take Waymo forever to map everything there properly with LIDAR, and true autonomy only in selected metro areas has limited value.

3. It's obvious that when we have autonomous, general purpose humanoid robots, they will completely transform our societies. Any such robots would require an enormous AI/vision investment. Say what you want about Elon, but xAI basically caught up with the top LLM shops in ~18 months, and now have comparable AI training capacity. You can bet against Optimus, but who else would have the skills to bring both the technology and the AI to market first? China? Good robotics, but no enough data to train their vision models comparing to Tesla, at least not yet.

4. So the bear case is that (a) driving autonomy is not possible without LIDAR, (b) Tesla can't bring another very complex product to market, and (c) autonomous robots are not possible in our lifetime. If you look at the AI progress even in the last 12 months, that's a tough sell to me.

What are the serious, tech-based counterarguments to the points above?

abstractbg17 hours ago

Okay, I'll bite. For the record, I own Tesla stock and I am generally bullish about AI.

I'll try to provide some counter-points specifically regarding the rate of progress.

3. It's much easier to catch up in capability (ex. LLMs) than it is to achieve a new capability (ex. replace humans laborers with humanoid robots). You can hire someone from a competitor, secrets eventually leak out, the search space is narrowed etc.

4(c). To me, what's most important is whether or not truly autonomous humanoid robots happens in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc. rather than in our lifetime.

These timelines will be tied to AI development timelines which largely outside the control of any one player like Tesla. I believe the world is bottlenecked on compute and that the current compute is not sufficient for physical AI.

It's extremely easy to be too early (ex. many of the self driving car companies of the past decade), and so for Tesla, there is a risk of over-investing in manufacturing robots before the core technology is ready.

vtail15 hours ago

Thanks, these are fair arguments!

Re: both 3 and 4(c) - agree that compute (or maybe even power for that compute) is likely to be a bottleneck in the next 3-5 years. However, I think Tesla/xAI are better positioned than many competitors as Tesla is a manufacturing company first and foremost; and this expertise (which is shared freely between Musk's companies) can help it to build it's own data centers, power generation (e.g., solar), or - in the most bullish case - even fab capacity.

gsharm11 hours ago

Thanks for saying this. For new, impressionable minds here who read most of the comments here and think this it's all devs - it isn't. A lot of us value Musk and incredibly awesome tech like FSD and aren't consumed by political partisanship. That tells you more about the commenter than Musk.

Some of these same commenters were trying to make you believe not long ago that FSD wasn't going to be competitive with Waymo because it dropped LIDAR. If you bring that up now they'll just change goalposts. There's no point even arguing with someone unable to approach an argument in good faith.

danny_codes16 hours ago

Tesla isn’t a market leader in any of these things. It’s a decent shop, but not a leader in any of these things you’ve mentioned.

vtail15 hours ago

I would argue that it is a leader in vision-only FSD, which is useful for both self-driving and robots.

amanaplanacanal11 hours ago

Only if you are confusing FSD and actually autonomous. Which is basically just a bait and switch on Musk's part. FSD is whatever Musk says it is, actually autonomous is another thing entirely.

rossjudson18 hours ago

What's with the "outdated" adjective? There's nothing in the US market even remotely close to the X. Every other EV is a slapdash pile of hoobajoobs and knobs that can't even drive itself.

Source: 45000 miles in a bit over two years, loved every minute of it. Makes our other high priced German car a disappointing machine to be avoided if possible.

vtail18 hours ago

You might be more informed that I am. We only have 3 and Y in the family. I based my statement on th fact that S/X were last refreshed 5 years ago; so they would need to be refreshed fairly soon.

Mawr14 hours ago

1. Your argument is that cutting off a rotting limb is good. Obviously it is, but I'd rather not have a rotting limb in the first place. I want a healthy, revenue-generating limb.

2. Waymo has been offering a driverless taxi service for some time now, and Tesla is not. That's a hard fact. Meanwhile your arguments are beliefs and personal anecdotes.

When, or rather if, Tesla starts offering their service, they will be behind Waymo by approximately however long ago Waymo started theirs, so at least a few years.

Unless you have some "serious, tech-based counterarguments"?

3. It's also obvious that when we have AGI, fusion, etc., they will completely transform our societies. I promise I will deliver you those by the end of this year. Send money now. If my timeline slips by a little—maybe a few decades—well, it was just a best-effort estimate and I did deliver in the end!

4. No, the bear case is that there's no real reason to believe Tesla would be the company that captures the market vs any other company. Their solar, tunnelling, and now car business models have failed/are failing, so they must win on self-driving/robots.

Self-driving is looking really bad, they're badly losing to Waymo.

They have shown nothing in terms of robots. If anything, dressing people up as robots and showing that is a rather negative signal. Oh, and robots are at least a 10x harder problem than self-driving.

Der_Einzige19 hours ago

Dropbox really was shit, the fact that we lampoon the HN anti-Dropbox guy is evidence that this place died long ago. You really could have just done it with rsync and I'm so glad Claude Code exists to kill every other shit SaaS business that doesn't deserve to exist. Dropbox first please.

vtail19 hours ago

Hard to tell whether you are serious or sarcastic, but assuming it's the former: my contrarian position on CC vs SaaS is that in the quest to kill shitty businesses people will discover that creating a high-value SaaS is very non-trivial. CC would kill a whole category of low effort SaaS while at the same time substantially raising the quality bar for SaaS that people are willing to pay money for.

webdevver8 hours ago

i think there's a danger here of underestimating how varied mankinds 'mindware' is at large.

for us lot who were 'born in it, molded by it' (tech), it can be very hard to internalize that there are a lot of people out there who legimiately cannot for the life of them wrap their head around a computer, or the internet, other than "wifi logo = i can video call my grandkids".

you could say services like dropbox are outreach/charity organisations that onboard the masses onto 10x productivity curves (whether they like it or not!)

and to be honest, ive become guilty of drag n dropping tarballs to/from my gdrive account when im too dumb to figure out the ssh proxy tunnel incantation (or beg an llm for one for the 1000th time.) so really, everyone wins.

im not sure claude code will change all that much for the non-technical segment. from their point of view, you changed one terminal window for another. so what? its still a black box (literally).

jaimex218 hours ago

Makes sense and it sounds like Optimus is getting ready for prime time.

Are they betting Robotaxi will replace all cars in the future?

steve_adams_8618 hours ago

I'm likely out of the loop, but what evidence is there that Optimus is anywhere close to ready for prime time, or any commercialization at all? I haven't seen anything compelling yet outside of highly edited videos in controlled settings.

bamboozled18 hours ago

How does it "make sense" to you, really? Can you provide more rationale ?

reenorap23 hours ago

Dropping the S and X is going to kill the market for them. Who is going to buy a car that they know is getting discontinued?

jdross23 hours ago

Including Cybertruck, it's just 2.75% of sales

Q4 sales: Model 3 & Model Y: 406,585 deliveries All Other Models (S/X/Cybertruck): 11,642 deliveries

ebbi23 hours ago

Carmakers discontinue models all the time. The support network is still around, and parts will still be produced for a while.

tapoxi23 hours ago

Yeah but most companies have a few dozen models, Tesla has 4.

ebbi22 hours ago

Given the product splits, Model S and X served no further purpose besides taking up production capacity. If that unlocked capacity is used for more Model 3/Y builds or other product lines, then that would be a net positive for the company as opposed to continuing on with S/X for the sake of having product range.

_123 hours ago

It's not like they aren't going to support any new purchases.

smileysteve23 hours ago

S launched in 2012.

X launched in 2016.

Both launched with slow rollouts.

Meanwhile, the average car in use today is 13 years old and getting older. (I currently drive a 22 year old car)

It definitely turns me off buying a used model S to know it's being discontinued. And if I extrapolate that to the 3/Y, a new purchase.

Given my desire for a midsize family sedan, it makes it feel like BMW i4 or Porsche Taycan just won me over in the future.

rconti17 hours ago

I think of the i4 as being more of a Model 3 / BMW 3 series size car, isn't it?

The S is more in line with with 5er.

I love the way the Taycan CrossTurismo thing looks, but holy hell getting in and out of it is like getting in and out of a sports car. I expect it to be slightly compromised compared to the competition, not.. extremely compromised.

podgorniy13 hours ago

I guess self-driving will be done by the humanoid robots now

Fischgericht16 hours ago

Sitting over here in Asia, I am doing a wild guess:

Most people in the western world have no clue HOW bad the crisis in our electronics industry caused by AI BS, tariff wars etc is.

When you wanted to get anything done in China as a western company, last year you might have issues to have China allow EXPORT. For example due to the pissing contest about Nexperia, a lot of really basic chips like USB controllers suddenly were forbidden for export.

And since January 1st 2026, things got far worse: Now some standard connectors (that are, amongst others, used in cars) that are made in the USA can no longer be IMPORTED into China. Which means that you now can typically will have parts missing on PCBAs that you then have to re-solder with the missing US components somewhere else. And many don't have the competence for this anymore.

This is all just wild speculation.

And I am pretty sure that right now it will be next to impossible to source parts for such a complex product like a robot. I need grey market brokers locally in Shenzhen to get even the most basic stuff at insane prices. And a lot of stuff simply is no longer available at all, due to things like "Intel has replaced anyone with a brain with an AI, and now no longer is able to produce and chip embedded N150 CPUs from the US to China, because... how?".

Tesla is now putting in 4680 battery cells back into the Model Y. Years after they had discontinued the 4680 program. What does that mean? They are using up whatever parts they still have, like everybody else in the electronics industry is now doing.

Good luck buying a computer, phone, fridge, car or toaster in the second half of 2026.

dzonga23 hours ago

Tesla has no moat - but one thing I will give to Elon is his incredible strategy in building Tesla

1. Build sports car

2. Use that money to build an affordable car

3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car

4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options

he got distracted by side-missions, his personal shitty side

however if you separate the ideas from the person you can see how such a simple strategy was executed successfully

willio5823 hours ago

The thing is it’s hard to stop at 4.

5. Peace out from Tesla for a while to pivot hard into far-right politics, using outsized power and influence to wage culture wars, alienate core customers, and inject volatility into a brand that was built on trust, optimism, and engineering credibility.

6. Unveil Optimus as the next grand pillar of the vision, not as a shipping product but as a perpetual demo, a future-shaped distraction that soaks up attention while core execution, margins, and credibility quietly erode.

SideburnsOfDoom13 hours ago

The problem is that Tesla in step 1 and 2 was a ground-breaking EV market leader.

Tesla step 6 Optimus robot is not. Others are ahead, with less hype and more delivery. See Boston Dynamics / Hyundai

kanbara23 hours ago

it’s not a difficult strategy to come up with, tbh. tech companies do this sort of thing all the time.

sergiotapia18 hours ago

Is there another car out there in the US that has a way to type in an address, tap a button, and it drives you there? All other car manufacturers software is terrible.

podgorniy13 hours ago

Electric cars hype topic is has rotted away. Time to bring new, yet novel for the the public. Now people will belive in the musk stories of the future shaped by the humanoid robots, not shaped by the electric cars. Who cares if in 3 years they will switch to another subject if stock keeps being pupmed (and compoensation keeps flowing in the hands of this guy).

His idea is to keep involving more investors, more people, government is possible in tesla's orbit with nice stories. When other are so invested the failures aren't his problem anymore, he got hist compensation which is tied to the company price.

Nevermark16 hours ago

Elon should be sending robots to the Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt. That would make much more sense.

Setup automated low gravity refueling depots. Then automated mining of the solar system will scale up as it more than pays for itself. And as with Starlink, SpaceX synergy would give him a serious advantage.

Much faster to achieve (despite the challenges), less expensive, and more profitable than a human Mars colony which would burn money without return for decades.

(Regardless of wishful thinking, civilizations coming backup is a second substrate adapted to the rest of the solar system, not a colony suffering truly miserable conditions. Although I am all for human exploration, which would also be easier and cheaper on the back of expanding automated infrastructure.)