Bloomberg’s Niedermeyer: Tesla Master Plan Part 2 Is Just Promises?

JUL 25 2016 BY MARK KANE 95

SolarCity To Be Acquired By Tesla

SolarCity To Be Acquired By Tesla?

Recently announced Tesla’s Master Plan Part Duex met with a hard assessment in Edward Niedermeyer’s article Tesla’s ‘Master Plan’ Is All Promise, No Product on BloombergView.

One might remember Mr. Niedermeyer at the center of the Model S suspension failure allegations back in June (that ultimately didn’t lead to any findings or recall for defective parts, but did lead to Tesla reworking its NDA agreements).

This time around, Niedermeyer first examines Elon Musk claim that the first master plan “is now in the final stages of completion“, noting that there is still work to do:

Step 1 was to build a low-volume electric sports car, a goal Tesla achieved with its Roadster. Step 2 — “develop a medium volume car at a lower price” — has deviated considerably from the original “build an affordable car,” probably because Tesla’s Model S sells for a lot more than its initial (and arguably “affordable”) $50,000 price target. Step 3 — “create an affordable, high volume car” — certainly wasn’t accomplished with Tesla’s third car, the Model X SUV, though it may be someday with Tesla’s planned Model 3. Musk says Step 4 — “provide solar power” — is “in the final stages of completion” on the strength of a planned but unapproved merger with solar-energy provider SolarCity.”

As for the second part of the plan, more skepticism:

  • empty promises to make all Tesla Superchargers stations solar-powered – grown to “Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage“. There is open question whether Tesla and SolarCity will merge into one company
  • There will be no cheaper Tesla than Tesla Model 3, which barely qualifies as “affordable” ($35,000 is average price of a new car in the U.S.)
  • Revenues from sharing its car for autonomous taxi purposes sounds too good to be true, especially that there will be competition
  • There is too many topics at once (solar, energy storage, robo-taxi, buses and semi trucks)

“The most troubling thing about Musk’s new plan is that it ignores the most consistent criticisms of Tesla: that the company overpromises, underdelivers, lacks focus, and over-relies on Musk’s vision. Simply producing a high-quality Model 3 at high volumes on the promised timeline (and supporting it with competitive service) would be a monumental achievement. But doing that requires intense focus not on the exciting possibilities of tomorrow but on the prosaic realities of today.

The determined grind of manufacturing may not feed the public’s hunger for visionary futurism, but that’s how ideas become realities. Until Tesla delivers on its decade-old promise of an affordable electric car, Musk’s rambling ideation amounts to little more than escapist entertainment.”

Tesla and Niedermeyer have certainly have a choppy history with each other, so one could argue there is a little personal bias/vitriol at play regardless of which side is talking (check out Tesla’s blog retort on the suspension issue last month), but is there also any truth to be found in the piece?  And more importantly, do we care if Tesla doesn’t achieve perfection with its 10 year plans?

source: BloombergView – Tesla’s ‘Master Plan’ Is All Promise, No Product

Categories: General, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

95 Comments on "Bloomberg’s Niedermeyer: Tesla Master Plan Part 2 Is Just Promises?"

newest oldest most voted

Please don’t waste our time with more Niedermeyer BS. Who cares what the guy thinks.

Agreed. Next . . .

Yeah, might as well have Broder or Cavuto weigh in on Master Plan 2.

Exactly my thoughts too: Don’t give this douche-nozzle any more exposure on the web.

“There is too many topics at once (solar, energy storage, robo-taxi, buses and semi trucks)”

Why is this BS?

Do you think it’s wise for Tesla to take on SIX (!) car models, home batteries and solar at once.

Read this tweet: It’s a very good summary in the same direction what’s wrong with Tesla’s strategy.

No one said anything about all at once. This is a master plan, probably for the next decade or so.

It is very wise grand plan and it comes exactly at the time when it is needed. How else you would raise more billions for SolarCity/Musk bailout by pumping and dumping shares just after another secondary share sale? It will be needed before end of year to close the deal and pay SolarCity debts. How else do you distract devote followers from horrible second quarter results? And who cares that first part of the plan isn’t done or failed. Devote followers do not care about it, they want to stay in grand virtual reality and dream about great bright future.

And what qualifications do peope have who are shorting Tesla (or who simple hate change and still want their dead horse to pull thier buggy)???

Are they smarter, harder working, more intelligent, loaded with common sense, have multiple doctoriactes degrees, started and ran multiple billion dollar enterprises???

I dont really know but I do know who does the real work and who posts on the internet…

Elon Musk Profiled: Bloomberg Risk Takers

Because one guy doesn’t do all the work.
Because, the CEO Hires and Delegates.
It’s the most idiotic criticism I’ve ever heard.
“Lose Focus”.

Phrases like “empty promises” from a Wall Street parasite, is unbelievable. This company is DOING Things. Not some lazy ahole critic that products nothing but noise.

Yup. Just another little whining Tesla/Musk hater. They would be funny if they weren’t so pathetic.

Oh no! Dell makes 56 different types of computers and servers! They can’t POSSIBLY make them all!

Oh no! Hershey’s makes 56 different types of candy! They are going to fail tomorrow!

Oh no! Tesla wants to make 1 car, 1 bus, and 1 semi over the course of the next 10 years! Short! Short! Short!


Niedermeyer and his lying buddy Bertel Schitt:

are both lying POS Tesla-haters.

Niedermeyer has already been thoroughly discredited by his incessant publicizing of false claims that Tesla Model S was sufferering alarming (and alarmist) suspension failures.

And for the rest of the Tesla shorters/haters like tftf, zzzzzz, Texas ffe etc who are running around chicken-little style claiming that Tesla is unprofitable and a doomed scam here is a good takedown of their positions.

Hey, thanks a very great deal for that last link, “Get Real”!

I didn’t understand even half of that long and very deep dive into Tesla’s financials, but if the change explored in the article means much less short-selling speculation in Tesla stock, and hence means a significant reduction in the trolling in InsideEVs comments by short-selling FUDsters — comments which drag useful and informative conversation into the muck — then I’m looking forward to that change very much!

At least use the proper case. There are too many..sheesh! From the article so I’m not really blaming you for that mistake, just your comments.

@tftf and zzzzzzzzzz:

Hey, I appreciate you chiming in here with uncritical support of that professional stock manipulator and anti-Tesla propagandist, Niedermeyer. It really helps us distinguish between people with honestly held negative opinions about Tesla Motors… and obsessed Tesla-bashing FUDsters like you two.

Actually, that small of a span of products is pretty low for a car company.

I can’t name a single major car maker with only that few products. The VAG group products count into the hundreds including their lines of commercial trucks. Mercedes and Volvo also make large trucks. Heck, Mitsubishi even makes large shipping tankers.

It seems like the only problem here is a lack of vision from tftf.

“It seems like the only problem here is a lack of vision from tftf”

The problem is funding. Each new product line / car model requirses billions, time and attention.

Tesla has enogh on its plate to finish the Model3, not add five other new car models (remember they promised a faster ramp to 500k units by 2018).

Oh, and the SCTY merger.

Now add all of this up and compare with Tesla’s balance sheet and past funding rounds.

Nix said:

“Actually, that small of a span of products is pretty low for a car company.”

Yup. If this is a 10-year plan, then what on the surface looks like Tesla planning to dissipate its energies by going in too many different directions, may well be entirely appropriate for a company the size that Tesla plans to grow into within 10 years.

Look at the wide range of products Ford Motors makes: Lincoln cars, full-sized vans, commercial trucks, rebuilt gasoline and diesel engines… and of course, lots of different cars and light trucks. Ford has during certain periods in the past also made farm tractors, school buses, airplanes (notably the Ford Trimotor), and military jeeps, as well as Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover cars.

If in 10 years Tesla Motors is the size Ford is now, that “Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (Part Two)” might look like it’s less ambitious than it ought to be!

One minute you’re saying Tesla can’t make one car (a civic equivalent) in less than 43 years, and the next you’re saying Tesla could build everything Ford does in 10????

You need to let your keyboard cool off… you’re starting to confuse yourself

Carcus, I think trucks should take priority over a less expensive Tesla for now, but I, too, strongly think there will be a less expensive model down the road.

Carcus said:

“One minute you’re saying Tesla can’t make one car (a civic equivalent) in less than 43 years…”

You may have inferred that into what I wrote, but that’s rather far from what I actually said.

” The VAG group products count into the hundreds including their lines of commercial trucks. ”

Please google the following:

– Cap-ex required in car industry to raise output
– Number of plants and employees/capacity from VAG vs TSLA
– Capital and balance sheet from VAG vs TSLA
– Number of distribution points worldwide VAG vs TSLA

What is so bad about an American company making a product in America that pushes technology and has people all over the world talking about it? Has oil addiction infected our brain?

Regardless if you want an EV or not, why can we not celebrate innovation? We congratulate and faun over pop singers and give them accolades for copying others. Something truly innovative scares people. Just turn off the “back in my day” old farts and keep looking forward.


I agree with most of it. Tesla should focus on what they do well, making cars. The solar business is a complete waste of effort.
Making the superchargers solar powered sounds nice but would require a HUGE canopy over them or enormous fields of solar panels connected to the grid somewhere else. Tesla is not and should not be a utility as well, let someone else generate all that power!
The autonomous revenue maker is unlikely to work. Who would want to have random strangers drive around in your car all day?

Expanding the product line with new vehicles however is at least reasonable. I think Tesla can do a lot of good there but they should try to make a $25000 car to truly reach “affordable”.

Oh and I forgot – that autonomous moneymaking scheme requires that we actually have fully autonomous cars, something that could be very far into the future.

Or not.

Someone out there said: “The solar business is a complete waste of effort.”

Not so sure about that.

After all, if a domestic PV system can pay off, then surely with Tesla owning the design/install company and working with standardized modular PV+battery assemblies and a minimum of custom design, it too should pencil out. No ?

In any event, I think the big issue is demand charges for those multiple 125-145kW power draws at SuperChargers. I read something a while back re. Tesla griping about demand costs.

I assume Tesla would begin with a pilot program in a few sunny spots in SoCal to iron out the sizing and other pros and cons.

But solar isn’t paying off otherwise SolarCity wouldn’t need be bailed out

I don’t get any warm fuzzy’s from Musk’s “part 2”.

A ‘decent’ $25,000 EV (think Honda Civic with 160 mile range and 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds) should be totally do-able and would best fit his “enviro-vision”. …. but he instead rules this out and scatters in all directions.

It seems worrisome to me. … Like he’s feeding the stock price with ever bigger promises instead of getting down to business.

Run the math first. There are many reasons why branching to other vehicle types make more sense than going further downmarket, especially when you consider ride sharing services, the actual 6 to 12 year cost of ownership, and the carbon emissions of other vehicles classes. It doesn’t make much sense for Tesla to tackle $25k BEVs until much later.

For now maybe but in the long run a $25000 car is needed. Prices of components are dropping all the time, by 2025 at the latest I expect to see a 200-miler for $25000. Time will tell if it is a Tesla. According to Musk it will not be.

By 2025 you’ll be able to 3d print a car in the public library. That will be a cool school project. And you’ll be able to manually drive a car in an amusement park’s private track. But everyone will be riding around in self-driving cars or vans and not need to own one.

OK, maybe by 2030… but still.

Exactly. A high end pickup truck will bring in more revenue.

An EV pickup is a bad idea.

Pickups are sold on their ability to tow. Even if it’s only used a few times a year,… that’s what a lot of the buyers are thinking about. (Large camper, boat, horse trailer etc…)

We don’t have the batteries (or the charging infrastructure) to make towing these kinds of loads over any distance practical today. Stopping every 100 miles for an hour long charge is no bueno.

/same “long haul restriction” applies to the big trucks only more so (in town deliveries might work ,…. maybe)

95% of the pick-ups out there will never tow a thing.

Carcus said:

“A ‘decent’ $25,000 EV (think Honda Civic with 160 mile range and 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds) should be totally do-able…”

Someday. But almost certainly not within 5 years. Not in the time Elon plans to remain at Tesla Motors.

Tesla (or Elon) got tired of commodity li-ion batteries coming down in price too slowly, so the company is now building the Gigafactory, both to provide the large supply they’ll need for the Model ≡ and to reduce prices faster than the year-on-year trend in the market.

There isn’t any magic way for Tesla to reduce battery prices even faster. A competitive $25k BEV will have to wait until either we see a significant breakthrough in battery tech, or else wait for several years until the current rate of 7.5-8% price reduction per year brings the price down far enough.

A 160 mile “civic EV” is only going to need 45 kwh of battery.

GM has already let the cat out of the bag and told us that LG batteries are under $145/kwh. Tesla can surely supply them for less than that.

There’s just not much to a basic EV. Way simpler than an ICE car. All that’s needed is scaled production, and the motivation to make it happen.

carcus said: “A ‘decent’ $25,000 EV (think Honda Civic with 160 mile range…” At this stage of the EV revolution, this is nothing more than wishful thinking. My first car was a very early Honda Civic; a ’73-4. The tiny car (far smaller than today’s Civic) was notorious for having the body rust out, and had a serious problem with the electrical system. Honda started making sedans in 1969, and the Civic debuted in 1972. So Honda has had 47 years of development to ramp up production of its cars; 47 years of benefit from improving the economy of scale, and refining production to improve reliability and bring its costs down. Here’s an article comparing that car to the 2016 Honda Civic: By comparison, Tesla has been selling its in-house, mass produced cars for four years now; since 2012. If we allow for the same number of years for company growth and development, for increasing manufacturing capacity and bringing down costs, then in 2049 Tesla will be where Honda is now. I think there’s a very good chance that by that time, Tesla — assuming it’s still in business — will be able to successfully market a BEV competitive… Read more »

It isn’t going to take Tesla 43 years to get there.
I think the reason Elon is putting the next more affordable Tesla on the back burner is that he sees cleaning up trucks as a better use of Tesla’s resources for now.
I have to say that I’m not really behind the “making money renting your car” scenario. I think there will still be room for a $25,000 Tesla in their product lineup before autonomous cars make it to the big time.

Rick Danger said:

“It isn’t going to take Tesla 43 years to get there.”

I wasn’t trying to suggest it will. Perhaps I wasn’t clear?

As I said a but further upstream, it’s going to take Tesla more than 5 years to get there. My point was that Honda has had 43 years to ramp up production, gain experience, and reduce prices on its mass produced cars. Tesla has had only 4 years!

My point wasn’t to assert Tesla will take 43 years to make the BEV equivalent of the 2016 Honda Civic. My point was that if we could look into the future, 43 years after Tesla first started making the Model S, then we would will almost certainly see that Tesla will have already done that… or better.

I know. My reply was more to carcus, I accidentally replied to you.

I just see it as following the logical conclusion of autonomy and the greater competitive challenge at the lower end of the market.

Autonomy would essentially destroy the greatest reason for car ownership, because public transportation would move closer to doorstep-to-doorstep. So if you think autonomy is coming, moving downmarket should be a move into autonomous public transportation, not into expensive cheap cars.

Full autonomy is certainly the biggest wild card in predicting automotive future (trumping electrification, imo)…. Why would “driverless uber” penetrate the low end of the market first? My guess is that it will be a middle to upper middle class sort of thing, .. at least to start with. … Upper class Moms don’t have to pick up the kids, upper/middle management can work through email on the way to/from work., … basically all the stuff rich folk use chauffeurs for. I’m guessing the service providers will go for the upper end market to start with., then we’ll see how fast it will trickle down. /I wouldn’t be surprised if Tesla still ends up building a “downmarket” autonomous car,… but they probably won’t make it available to the general public for individual ownership. More likely they’ll want to keep the low cost of ownership for their own profits and operate it as a wholly or partly owned fleet of autonomous taxis. (rumors already circulating now that the biggest chunk of GM Bolts will go to Lyft). This is why the automakers are scrambling into this market, they see their old “maintenance dollars” drying up with EV’s, but another door has… Read more »

Musk is always “getting down to business” even when it appears he’s not.
That’s why he’s where he is today.

Lol. How are these ‘promises’? At best they are forward-looking statements that any reasonable person would ignore or file as a side note.

I see a need for more money.

I completely agree with the guy. Tesla is not focusing in one direction, it is too young and lacking funds of any kind. Elon Musk’s vision of Tesla is to become a green lifestyle company targeting all sorts of products, be they for consumers or commercial appplication.

It should just focus on being an automaker. For all the people saying that we should celebrate Tesla for innovating, this site technically praises Tesla all the time. I’d argue it’s the #1 company people love to read around here. If they get praised, they also need to get criticized as well to improve.

Polar Care said:

“…this site technically praises Tesla all the time.”

Are you suggesting a website named InsideEVs should not praise the company that is almost single-handedly pushing the EV revolution forward?

Tesla Motors has earned the admiration and respect of EV enthusiasts. If and when other auto makers start making compelling long-range plug-in EVs in large numbers, and work to constantly improve those instead of just “resting on their laurels” for year after year, then they will also get our admiration, our respect, and praise.

Of course I can’t speak for the staff of InsideEVs, but I rather suspect many or most of them feel the same way.

Don’t put words in my mouth fan boy. I stated that there is enough Tesla love from the community, enough to beat out Apple fanboys as a matter of fact.

Not every critic is a Tesla stock shorter as I constantly see you throw that around to everyone you feel is offending you. Some people actually want the company to improve by pointing out the negatives so they may take the next step as a successful company.

Polar Care said:

“Not every critic is a Tesla stock shorter as I constantly see you throw that around to everyone you feel is offending you.”

Exaggerate much?

I didn’t accuse you of being a Tesla stock shorter, now did I?

Yes, you have the right to post a negative (but honest) opinion about Tesla Motors. In fact, I’ve done so myself many times, when I thought they deserved it.

And I have an equal right to post an opinion dissenting from yours.

I don’t know. I’m a pretty big Apple fanboy too… 😉

I just have one question, when is the money going to run out? Tesla is not going to see a profit until at least 2019 and that’s if Tesla settles in with the Model 3 and doesn’t venture off into any more grandiose plans right away. I would like to see all those things in the Master Plan come true but if Tesla doesn’t start making a profit the plan will never happen.

When did the money run out for, when it was a rapidly growing company? Oh, wait… it didn’t.

Tesla is following the same business plan. Of course that doesn’t guarantee that Tesla Motors will become the biggest auto maker in the world, as has become the biggest retailer in the world. But it is a business plan that has been proven to be able to work.

I’ll be very glad when commentors here quit whining about Tesla Motors not being cash flow positive, and mis-naming that “not profitable”.

Sadly, it seems that — just as with — investors and would-be investors won’t stop their short-sighted whining until Tesla matures as a company, and becomes cash-flow positive.

Kudos to Tesla Motors for taking the long view instead of being as short-sighted as all too many high profile businesses are today. We need more long-term planning, not less!

Go Tesla!

Maybe never. Or such a long, long, time, that it won’t matter. If we were in a more normal interest rate environment, then the huge money burn would be more of a concern, but we’re not.

The only hope for an automaker to be cashflow positive is to have true volume production.

Because of that, and even assuming that their production targets will actually fall within their crazy-short timeframe, I do not expect the company as a whole to be cashflow positive until probably 2022 or so, which is when I expect they will be selling vehicles in the millions globally. If they can’t do it then, well…they’re probably toast, or ripe for a punishing buyout.

I dont think any one needs to give Elon more motivation as he already has more than enough…

Promises??? just like his first Tesla master plan… whatever…

As for too many topics… they are all intertwined not separate…

Feel free to short Tesla again in another year or so when it engulfs SpaceX…

I suppose it’s a public service for InsideEVs to report what that professional Tesla basher and stock manipulator, Niedermeyer, is doing to bash Tesla.

However, it would be appropriate for InsideEVs to point out, when doing so, that he is willing to stoop so low as to create a smear campaign that he knew perfectly well was based mainly on made-up “evidence” with absolutely no truth to it; evidence made up by a nutjob who has some sort of axe to grind against Elon Musk; a nutjob who has a website up claiming that all of the videos showing SpaceX rocketships landing are fakes.

It is not sufficient for the InsideEVs editors to merely point out that “Mr. Niedermeyer [was] at the center of the Model S suspension failure allegations back in June (that ultimately didn’t lead to any findings or recall for defective parts…”

It wasn’t just “allegations”; it was a deliberate smear campaign, with the apparent aim of manipulating Tesla’s stock price.

I call upon InsideEVs to appropriately label anything from Niedermeyer on the subject of Tesla Motors as the negative, fact-fee, stock-mainipulating propaganda that it is.

You may really focus on some teslamondo, teslarati or whatever Tesla cultie website and worship your idol as much as you wish, we have freedom here. There is no need to take over general EV website with your Tesla propaganda and attack any free critical thought.

Tesla Motors has earned our respect and our admiration, due to its achievements and vision.

That’s not propaganda; that’s honest opinions. The constant anti-Tesla FUD that you and other short-sellers post about Tesla, is propaganda, and you never post an honest opinion about Tesla Motors.

Do you really think readers here don’t notice the difference?

I agree man. This website has gone from an open table discussion website about EV news to a Tesla only website where a difference of opinion is unacceptable by keyboard gangsters.

I see constantly, new EV options that benefit the EV community and the Tesla fanboys putting down the products because it doesn’t have Tesla flare written all over it.

You Tesla fans are the bane of the open discussion, free choice EV movement.

“free critical thought?”


You and a few of your Tesla/Musk hating buddies should really get help.
You’re a pathetic lot.
Go pop open another beer and get your hate up for the next article.

Also wondering why you are giving this guy screen time since he has an obvious axe to grind?

Here’s my Tesla master plan (in 2 easy steps)

1. Bring Alan Mulally out of retirement to serve as CEO
2. Sell to Apple

The Tesla Two Step? Well, this is the 2nd half of the master plan.

Maybe, they will make Apples cars for them, by the time Apples shows us what they got! In 2021, that is!

That’s Master Plan part 19! How did you get a hold of that!

Why are you reporting the ramblings of this widely-discredited dude? MOVE ON.

I agree with the other posters. Please stop furthering the rhetoric of fools like Niedermeyer. This guy is far from objective.

I like the Tesla Master Plan 2. It’s very ambitious, but if they even accomplish some of the goals, it could be huge. If they can’t accomplish them all, nothing lost. As long as they don’t sink the company with development costs, they should go for it. BYD is already making electric busses, so why shouldn’t Tesla?

I have been saying for years that trucks and SUVs need to be electrified, in order to make a difference, especially in America. If you replace a Prius with a LEAF, you haven’t gained much ground. When you start replacing F-150s and Tahoes with EV/EREV trucks and SUVs, then Tesla will make a huge impact. It’s an even bigger impact for Semis and busses.

niedermeyer’s criticisms are actually not unreasonable. the solar city plan seems a bit dicey; i don’t get the part about households having batteries. why would people do that if they have net metering?

as to the promises of an “affordable” bev: tesla is following the pricing structure that is used by benz/bmw in the U.S. it is a stretch to call a benz c-class or bm 3-series “affordable”.

i think the whole “make money with your car” thing is weird. the car sharing model being used by gm makes a lot more sense.

i agree that tesla is a bit scattered in its approach. the issues faced in energy storage are too much different from those faced in cars to keep under one roof. it only works to the extent that tesla is a small operator in each area, but the planned structure is one for breakup. from a strategic perspective, it gives tesla an opportunity to see which activity is more likely to take off; then can then jettison the other activities through asset sale. the only saving grace in this plan is that the different activities share common technical core competencies.

Batteries are the way to go for integrating renewables. Net metering will probably disappear in the near future. Their grid storage is actually a very good idea that’s not theirs but they’re the ones driving the costs down.

why is net metering going to disappear? if you have net metering and a reliable power grid (not all countries have these), then you don’t need residential battery storage.

First, the power companies are slowly lobbying net metering away.

Second, the US’s aging power grid would greatly benefit from distributed buffering, just as it does/will from distributed power generation. Buffering is essential to compensate for the variability of grid needs in general, and the variability of renewable energy output in particular.

from what i have heard, the power companies are trying to change how credits are granted in net metering. the power companies want to pay for credits at wholesale and sell you power at retail. it’s not an entirely ridiculous proposition, really; when you are doing net metering at retail both ways, the power company is effectively acting as your battery – so you are getting something for nothing.

the bigger concern of the power companies is to try to make it more expensive for people to install solar panels. it’s a reasonable proposition from the perspective of the private power company, they want to keep you on their grid; but it’s not a reasonable proposition from the perspective of the public.

no comment said:

“why is net metering going to disappear?”

Because net metering requires the electric utility to pay the home solar customer the full retail value of electricity, despite the fact that the utility must shoulder the entire burden of maintaining and upgrading the grid.

A fair market value for the utility to pay the home solar customer for electricity would be the wholesale price, not the retail price.

What a grump.
Come on!
It is visionaries like Musk that make the USA such a vibrant economy.

He’s clearly a loser speculator. Remember when Apple was back on track in the early 2000s and some so called experts bashed their strategy and the “iPhone toy” ?

This is even more ridiculous in my opinion because Tesla is doing the whole planet a favour, not just the users of its products.

Completely different sector, product turnover/ adoption rates (smartphones vs cars) and cap-ex requirements.

That’s why disruption in the car sector isn’t possible.

It took the Japanese car makers DECADES to get to double-digit marketshare with superior products from 70s – 90s in Western car markets.

DECADES, not months or years.

Apple was actually one of my biggest holdings and winners since the early 2000s…

I think Mr Musk’s reply to your rhetoric would be, “Watch Me”!

tftf mesmerized the reading audience with this statement:

“…disruption in the car sector isn’t possible.

Maybe you should change your name to Lord Kelvin. He’s the stick up his a$$ guy with no heart and no vision who, over a century ago, mesmerized his audience with this piece of brilliance:

“Heavier than air flying machines are impossible”

Great company to be in, you must feel proud.

““…disruption in the car sector isn’t possible.”

Disruption as defined in the tech industry (speed, complete change in profit/market share within months or 3-5 years) isn’t possible.

Read my example of the Japanese car makers exporting into Western car markets (above).

Changes that take DECADES aren’t disruptive – and they give embedded giants time to react to changes.

The Model S has disrupted the luxury class in only 4 years. I don’t see any of the embedded giants coming out with anything even close.
Watch the Model ≡ do the same to the entry luxury class in less time than that.
Of course the automotive heavy manufacturing sector is going to take a little longer to disrupt than making and selling smartphones. Wake up and smell the coffee tftf, this is a new day and a new age.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

@tftf What Apple added to the flip-phone was internet access. This was hugely popular, but in my opinion, not a true disruption. The real disruption actually took place some time before the iPhone. Microwave networks were set up all over the place and the cell phone itself was vastly improved, reduced in size, etc. Many people began to use just their portable cell phones, and abandoned the land line altogether. That was the true disruption, not adding internet access to the cell phone with the Apple iPhone. We see this leap-frog technology taking place in Africa and India where the portable flip-phone is the only phone in many places. In many rural areas of India there is no electric grid nor telephone exchange. The people are using solar charged lanterns and battery operated cell phones. A true, future technological leap might be the Hyper-Loop replacing all the railroads, or the hover Pods from Star Wars eventually replacing the automobile. I see electric cars as a disruption of the energy business, not so much the automobile business. What electric cars really disrupt is Oil. While the electric drive train has numerous technological and practical advantages over piston engines, that’s not it’s… Read more »

Excellent points – and that is the vision behind this second part of the master plan – energy is the key, and all of the issues brought up by Musk fit into the energy domain and particularly to the same core competencies on which his companies are based. It’s not that difficult to put it all together. It fits naturally.

+1, exactly, well said jmac!

Yes, very well said but it runs counter to anti-tesla troll tftf’ short position regarding Solar City aquisition by Tesla.

tftf said:

“…disruption in the car sector isn’t possible.”

I guess you never heard of the Ford Model T, then.

But please! do continue to “short” Tesla stock. All the money you’re losing on that investment will certainly benefit Tesla Motors.

Mr Niedermeyer’s consistent, consistently wrong, but at least consistent.

Of course the plan is full of promises! That’s the whole point of a plan! It hasn’t happened yet! Duhh!!!!!!!! As far as particular points go: 1) Model S manufacturing is comfortably profitable at over 20% across all models. If Model X demand supports similar sales volumes, then it will be comfortably profitable, as well. 2) Model X is not the third generation, mass market vehicle (what a self-serving moron). It is a smart offshoot of the Model S platform, particularly in the US where SUV/CUV models are widely popular across segments. 3) The SC networks were always supposed to have solar canopies! That is not new! When the network was first introduced, that was the goal – to have them all canopied with solar panels and buffer storage, the ones in sunny climates first. 4) Model S was supposed to be more affordable than it is, but customers didn’t want 160 mile ranges – they wanted 200-mile ranges, so they simply dropped the cheaper model. Makes smart business sense to me. You cannot perfectly predict market demand, so I do not consider that to be a renege on a goal made 10 years previously. 5) I do not have… Read more »

The food was good, thanks Tom.

Whatever posters here want to believe the motives behind this article, the Bloomberg quote below is business truth.

“The most troubling thing about Musk’s new plan is that it ignores the most consistent criticisms of Tesla: that the company overpromises, underdelivers, lacks focus, and over-relies on Musk’s vision. Simply producing a high-quality Model 3 at high volumes on the promised timeline (and supporting it with competitive service) would be a monumental achievement. But doing that requires intense focus not on the exciting possibilities of tomorrow but on the prosaic realities of today.

The determined grind of manufacturing may not feed the public’s hunger for visionary futurism, but that’s how ideas become realities. Until Tesla delivers on its decade-old promise of an affordable electric car, Musk’s rambling ideation amounts to little more than escapist entertainment.”

My take – Musk’s Part 2 announcement has the same disturbing quality of pronouncements of other charismatics throughout history who doubled-down on their “vision” message to bolster Believers’ faith when the hard data continued to point towards internal structural weaknesses.

Blah, blah, blah…. you should tighten those blinders, there may be some light leaking in through the edges.
It just kills you Tesla haters to see them being successful, dunnit?

Other than reacting to market forces (dropping the cheaper 160-mile Model S), I have yet to see where Tesla Motors has ever overpromised. And, once the bugs have been worked out, the Roaster and Model S have clearly OVERdelivered, not underdelivered!

If one wants to argue that production delays constitute “underdelivering”, then whatever makes you feel better. As long as the product comes out, and works, I’m not concerned.

If one wants to argue that the less-than-stellar initial quality counts as “underdelivered”, then sure. However, it’s not a problem if they solve those issues. With Model S, they have. We shall see if they get the X production straightened out.

The Model S exceeded expectations, and even exceeded their own predictions in terms of performance and overall ride quality. There is a reason why their owner satisfaction is the best ever.

i don’t think this has been reported on insideevs but daimler-benz has announced that their truck division will be introducing a battery powered heavy duty truck. i don’t know whether that actually means a bev truck, or a truck that uses a turbine.

in the case of daimler, they made clear that they are thinking in terms of a product launch in the 5-10 year time frame. so, while elon musk didn’t give a time line for his strategy vision (for PR reasons, i suspect), it is not reasonable to expect that he is going to pull it all off by this time next year.