Hacker News

points by paxy 1 day ago | 0 comments

- Federal EV tax credits are over.

- The emissions credit market (where Tesla made most of its money) is dead due to lowered standards.

- Manufacturing costs haven't come down.

- EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).

- Chinese EVs are dominating every market outside the US.

- All the overhyped moonshots (sub-$30K car, unsupervised autopilot, autonomous robots) are nowhere to be seen.

It's hard to see where Tesla goes from here as a company. The stock is still surviving on Elon hype but has been stagnant for 5 years. The day he gets bored and decides to resign to focus on SpaceX full time the company is basically done.

[–] epistasis 1 day ago

> EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).

It's not every quarter, but it's steady and that spells absolute disaster for US car manufacturers:

https://www.coxautoinc.com/insights/q3-2026-ev-sales-report-...

US car companies have been protected and bailed out too many times and are now not only completely uncompetitive on the global market, but set up to be completely demolished as EVs take over.

Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency mean that either investors are going to pay a massive price, or US consumers are going to pay a massive price. If we keep on pushing up consumer costs by propping up bad manufacturers with protectionism and bail outs, the US's entire economy is drug down by that.

There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again.

I hadn't followed just how bad US manufacturers were failing at EVs the past two years, what with all the other disasters unfolding, thanks for the wake up call. Two years of wasted time, of the US falling even farther behind... such a massive fail and yet not the most massive.

[–] CharlieDigital 1 day ago

It isn't just US manufacturers.

I'd say Koreans are probably the closest to the Chinese, but Japanese manufacturers have fallen behind. Toyota spent too much time with hydrogen. Nissan? Honda? Mazda? None of them have a solid lineup of electric vehicles.

I appreciate Toyota's hybrids, but that is not the future and every model year that they try to delay, they are missing out on developing the technology, experience, internal expertise, and platform refinement.

[–] hnav 1 day ago

Toyota is the leader by profit, has been selling cars with batteries and electric motors for 3 decades and simply doesn't want to pile into a crowded space where you effectively have to be dumping your product at cost to have a chance of success.

While most others are wasting money on failed forays into the EV market, Toyota has quietly made their entire fleet (modulo trucks) hybrid.

At this point anyone can design a chassis to accommodate a skateboard battery and some drive motors. The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs. Admittedly this is a biggie, but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.

[–] chii 1 day ago

> early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.

the iphone is an outlier imho, and i dont think EV will replicate this.

The manufacturing capacity of batteries in china will continue to be a dominant force, and prevent competition in other countries from really setting up properly.

Not to mention the chinese EV giants have the R&D budget to be the ones to discover new chemistry.

[–] CharlieDigital 19 hours ago

I think this might be more like a TSMC situation where the rest of the world is always behind.

China will have a critical mass of research, scientists, manufacturing, engineers, and the right government buy in to stay ahead because there's so much demand.

[–] fromwilliam 1 day ago

Yeah, my Toyota BZ is great.

[–] panick21_ 14 hours ago

Yeah that's nonsense. Toyota is behind on a number of technologies. They are still making cars, but its the old style of cars in every aspect. They haven't done the integration of technology and the car the way Tesla or China has.

They are surviving because of massive scale but they are losing ground.

> The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs.

So the only thing they need is the hardest part of the supply chain. At Toyota scale building that supply-chain is fucking gigantic. It takes a decade to build that.

All the battery companies already have large multi-year of-take agreements. And they are not building massive new capacity without new demand.

> but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.

We haven't seen new form factors in many decades.

As for chemistry, everybody is working on that. Toyota has burned billions and achieved nothing.

Yes new chemistry are constantly coming in, but the reality is, each new chemistry innovation needs a decade or so to scale. And it mostly builds on existing supply chains and suppliers.

Take a look at things like silicon additives, they have been talked about for a long time, and it has been increasing. And it will continue to increase, but its not a magical pill that makes all existing battery factories obsolete.

Battery companies sell their new state of the art batteries to their long term partners first. And those partners are the first to learn of new innovations.

[–] hnav 10 hours ago

If you go look at used car prices you'll see that cars that offer dependability have good value retention. This makes the TCO lower than other gas cars. Toyota is basically the king of that space. They're "surviving" because they're synonymous with no-frills transportation. Even today if you drive long distances, don't have anywhere to charge and want something that'll take you to 100k with just oil and tire changes and is still worth something at the end, you can't really beat a basic Corolla or Camry.

Tesla is stuck with a cylindrical battery supply chain because they built that out. Basically their undoing since their cars are crappy enough where they need to compete on price alone. They give away their margin by buying 3p prismatics for their bottom end offerings. So being first can and does burn you badly.

[–] nopakos 23 hours ago

Nokia was the leader by profit until they weren't. They even experimented with hydrogen powered phones!

[–] Root_Denied 1 day ago

Toyota didn't just spend (past tense) too much time with hydrogen, they're still going with it trying to take a "multi-path strategy" that includes hydrogen engine development.

I'm not sure where they think the market for this exists in sustainable numbers.

[–] kalleboo 1 day ago

It's really insane. I live in Japan where you'd think Toyota may have some pull to make their dream come true. My city actually has one (1) hydrogen station, it's only open a day or two a week - it's basically only open by appointment, you have to call ahead if you want to be sure to be able to fill up.

[–] conductr 15 hours ago

I have an insider friend that says they just don’t believe in battery electric and so have never built the supply chain for it. It leaves them searching for the next thing despite what is occurring in the market, they think they’ll prevail as they’re not focused on a (perceived) faulty approach. I’m not privy to all the details they have to reach that investment thesis but it explains a lot we see from the outside.

[–] kunai 1 day ago

Oh no, how dare a company try and invest R&D into a diversified portfolio of propulsion technologies. I'm sure HN has all the right ideas, just like they had the right idea when Starship was almost sure to beat SLS to orbit and full IOC a decade before Artemis II. I'm sure Morizo is crying after winning his latest gentleman drivers' race and wiping all his tears away with his paper yen.

It is genuinely insane how divorced SV is from actual people and reality.

[–] panick21_ 14 hours ago

I'm old enough to remember when people said 'Falcon Heavy is fake', 'SLS' is real. After that they shifted to 'Starship is fake' SLS is real.

And that SLS launched first isn't surprising it started to get 2 billion $ a year funding long before SpaceX had any money to invest in such projects.

And what matters for a rocket isn't 'first to orbit' that's only how idiots compare rockets. What matters is first 10 or even 100 flights.

And as for R&D, fine do R&D, but you still have to produce what actually sells. The simple fact is, hydrogen cars, either fuel cell or ICE are rounding errors. They have been rounding errors for decades and have made essentially no progress despite 50+ years of continuous government funding and R&D.

They are not just doing R&D, they have literally spend marketing money demonizing EVs. They have encouraged and leaned in to all government lead efforts to delay the EV industry. They have lobbied for regressive legislation. To act as if 'all they do is some nice R&D' is pathetic.

Toyota has not done like Tesla and invested in infrastructure, like hydrogen fuel stations. Because they know this is delusional and will never happen. Their hope has always been that government is going to build all the infrastructure for them, and pay for their R&D. They have been grifting government R&D money for literal decades. Even while with just a fraction of that money the EV industry was established. They have been lobbying Japans government for decades and have used that to prevent more beneficial R&D and infrastructure investment.

And Toyota is barley even selling these 'diversified portfolios'. Go and actually try to buy a hydrogen ICE or hydrogen fuel cell cars. In literally 99.9% of the world you can't buy them.

Hydrogen is a pipe-dream propped up by government budgets and anybody that believed in its wide deployment in 2000 was a moron, anybody that still believes in it in 2027 is straight up delusional. So if anybody is divorced from reality its you.

[–] BLKNSLVR 1 day ago

It's a shame Nissan didn't lean harder into EVs since the Leaf is a great little car, and they were releasing them since 2012.

[–] Tanoc 2 hours ago

Blame Carlos Ghosn. He basically took everything Nissan would've liked to use and spent it on Renault instead. The Leaf was supposed to be the first of three electric cars for Nissan and Infiniti starting in 2010, but Ghosn cut that off in favour of pumping the Rogue and Murano instead because they were solid earners that could funnel money back to Renault during the recession. And he just never changed that afterwards. Nissan's board of directors even had several revolts over this between 2012 and 2018, one of which got the French government involved.

[–] CharlieDigital 1 day ago

    > It's a shame __________ didn't lean harder into EVs

That's the story with just about every "legacy" manufacturer because they don't understand the existential nature of the shift; it doesn't feel real while their ICE are still their money maker.

[–] BLKNSLVR 1 day ago

I agree, but I was more pointing out Nissan because they were relatively early with the Leaf which, I thought, was pretty successful.

[–] atombender 20 hours ago

Nissan has the Ariya (crossover SUV) and Micra (small city car), both of which have been very well received and are popular in Europe.

Nissan seems to be scaling back their EV push in the US, though — but not in Europe, as far as I know.

Nissan is also making EVs for the Chinese market, which are not being exported anywhere else.

[–] _heimdall 1 day ago

That does beg the question though, if none of the major non-Chinese manufacturers are focused on EVs did they all entirely miss the boat or do they know something the Chinese don't?

Its absolutely possible that they did all miss the boat, but even the stats just in this thread point to a drop in EV sales and economic challenges with regards to price and demand. The Chinese keep prices low with very low labor costs and subsidies from a totalitarian government, our goal isn't and shouldn't be to compete with that on price.

[–] defrost 1 day ago

> Chinese keep prices low with .. subsidies from a totalitarian government

Lower labour costs per hour can be balanced against lower cost of living for workers.

Industrial Policy Spending for China’s EV Sector (subsidies) have dropped from $13,800 USD per vehicle in 2018 to $4,700 USD in 2023 and are less today in 2026.

How do these subsidies compare to US subsidies to the fossil fuel oil and gas industry?

[–] _heimdall 11 hours ago

You backed up my point though, so thanks? The CCP subsidized EV production heavily, lowering it over time as I assume manufacturing facilities are in place, but they continue to subsidize to keep prices low.

The oil industry is irrelevant here and feels more like a whataboutism deflection. We can debate the oil industry, based on your comment we'd likely agree on much of it, but that's a separate discussion.

[–] Telemakhos 15 hours ago

China, for all its flaws, is the undisputed master of innovative automated manufacturing. They can iterate over design revisions quickly. They will build you whatever you want, and, unlike twenty years ago, it will be insanely precise, and everything that can be automated will be. US and EU automakers have to keep their unionized employees happy, which means less automation and less precision and higher prices. Robots and AI don't unionize.

[–] _heimdall 11 hours ago

No disagreement on the technical skills today. My point was simply that Chinese EVs are cheap, in part, because the government spends money to make them cheap.

And they do have plenty of flaws to call out, though living in the US today I don't want to throw stones in a glass house...

[–] nixon_why69 1 day ago

BYD subsidies ended this year and Xiaomi was never subsidized.

[–] _heimdall 11 hours ago

BYD subsidies have swung up and down over the years. Some years like 2020 it was a very small percentage of revenue and profit. Other years its been much more, 2024 they received just over 10.5 billion yuan accounting for 26% of total income and last year they received 12.5 billion yuan representing 38% of net profit.

The company would not exist as it does today without such funding.

[–] nixon_why69 4 hours ago

Yeah, they were certainly accelerated by the subsidies, and now that the subsidies are just padding their profit, they're phased out.

That's.. completely sensible? Don't we all want a world with lower carbon emissions?

[–] j2i3jl23ij4 1 day ago

I hate to see it and I hate to say it, but the last time I was in Europe there were A LOT more giant american vehicles, at least outside of city centers. I really hope this SUV plague doesn't go global.

[–] 9dev 1 day ago

Are you a time traveller from 2010? SUVs are already the most popular kind of car all over the world. That ship has sailed.

[–] Eueudhsbsj32 1 day ago

I don't think that's true anywhere in Asia, except for maybe the Middle East.

[–] Danox 1 day ago

One state makes up over a third of all EV sold in the country EV’s have a way to go in the United States. Hybrids seem to be doing a lot better in recent times.

California accounts for roughly 35% of all U.S. EV sales, though some estimates put its share near 40%.

[–] epistasis 1 day ago

That's certainly a way to view the data, but it's a way that ignores the trajectory of the technology and sets up The Big Three for complete failure.

The Big Three have not figured out how to make compelling EVs, without a doubt, but it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the leadership's product choices and failure of implementation.

Meaning that the entire industry will be pushed farther and farther behind in the race, only to be completely disrupted.

This will happen far slower than the transition from Palm to iOS-style phones, because the lifetime of cars is far longer than phones and are far larger investments, but the trend is inevitable. EVs are superior on so many different fronts that there's ~0 chance that gas and diesel engines persist except for a tiny fraction of future market share.

US manufacturers are trying to delay the transition as long as possible, which only ensures their own doom.

[–] CharlieDigital 1 day ago

It's not just US manufacturers. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, etc. are also falling behind on the technology, expertise, and platform development.

Koreans look competitive. It's interesting that the later the entrant to the market, the faster they are to adapt.

[–] nikanj 1 day ago

Vinyl is still doing great, better than CDs actually. Technical supremacy is useless, if the customer base wants nostalgia

[–] jemmyw 21 hours ago

Great against CDs because those were obsoleted by streaming. Streaming takes over 80% of the revenue and probably far more of the volume.

Your comment would be like if 85% of the market was EVs and you said that cars with manual transmission are still doing great, better than autos.

[–] double0jimb0 1 day ago

It's not just the Big Three, it's a boat anchor of the Big Three + Tier 1/2/3 suppliers. Tesla probably most vertically integrated of any, therefor most likely able to survive a major pivot.

[–] mathgeek 18 hours ago

Well, there's that one US manufacturer that bucks the trend, so it's not _all_ of them.

[–] toomuchtodo 1 day ago

California is the world’s fourth largest economy, so this tracks. Whether or not flyover country gets EVs is immaterial to the overall US situation. They can pay forward curve petrol prices if they so choose (“freedom!”), or find a suitable EV if that is a more suitable choice for their needs, unless federal policy returns to assist with purchasing. I am hopeful, concerning recent regime change, that federal EV incentives come back to enable folks to buy affordable EVs (because we should be optimizing for affordable zero emission mobility for all, imho), but only time will tell.

Wyoming‘s population of 600k people is less than one percent of total US population, for example. Californians buy about half that number of EVs per year (~300k-400k).

[–] wat10000 1 day ago

Flyover country has several times the population of California. It’s vital to the success of American manufacturers that their products sell well there too.

[–] toomuchtodo 1 day ago

Nah. You go where the purchasing power is, and that is not poor rural America that is evaporating [1]. K Shaped economy. That’s related, but distinct from the fact that American auto makers are already dead. They collectively wrote off $50B in EV investment to turn away from EVs, and GM just created a $20B multi year stock buyback plan while not investing more in electrification. That is an active choice to allocate that capital to profits instead of investment to build EVs.

The future is affordable, well built Chinese EVs. They already have the capacity to build 50M EVs per year, more than half of global total light vehicle demand. They are currently exporting ~12M/year, and constrained only by there not being enough marine car carriers available to ship more. They are building more car carriers to ramp exports to the world. How long would it take the US to learn how to build 10-20M EVs per year? A decade, probably more, on current trajectories, during which Chinese automakers will continue to ramp. “Build the machine that builds the machine.”

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48586250

(the US sold out its future in this context for globalization and shareholder returns, unfortunately)

[–] wat10000 1 day ago

There are plenty of well-off people in poor rural areas, and there are plenty of wealthy urban areas in flyover country. California is an important market but it's not so important that the rest can be ignored.

[–] toomuchtodo 1 day ago

Please provide geographic economic citations of where.

Here’s mine:

Interactive: Visualizing Median Income For All 3,000+ U.S. Counties - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/interactive-median-income-u... (blue is better, red is worse)

(assume 45k-$50k new vehicle price in the US, back out to the income needed to support a payment at current interest rates on a 5-7 year term, which is roughly $500-$1000/month, which is why auto loans are currently defaulting at record highs)

/r/dataisbeautiful: USA auto loan delinquency rate from 2000 to 2025 - https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ueked2/oc...

[–] 59percentmore 18 hours ago

>because we should be optimizing for affordable zero emission mobility for all, imho

Cool, build rail and solar.

[–] MisterMower 1 day ago

That’s just what we need: more subsidies to Elon Musk via federal EV tax credits.

[–] toomuchtodo 1 day ago

Limit subsidies to vehicles that are no more expensive than $25k after subsidies. Make them build cars like BYD, with sub 4% margins. No subsidies for Tesla, they had their chance. He can find a new grift. It’s time to focus on people who actually build, not those who use theatrics to inflate silly capital market numbers for power and status.

[–] tstenner 1 day ago

To be fair an absolute amount already does that. $6k less is nice for a Mercedes CLA (~$55k), but there's a reason you can't buy a Hyundai Inster ($20k) and get it within a year.

[–] lesuorac 1 day ago

> Two years of wasted time

Try two generations. I think it was obvious since the oil shocks that fossil fuels were not a good bedrock of the economy.

[–] pjc50 1 day ago

It's interesting to try to work out what the civ-style "dependency tree" of viable electric cars has been. It requires at the bare minimum high energy density light batteries, which were a spinoff of the cellphone revolution. As well as high efficiency digital power control, which while not impossible in 1970 would have been larger and heavier without modern SiC semiconductors.

Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements.

[–] mrguyorama 1 day ago

>Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements.

But they aren't really. In terms of efficiency, a 2x increase is a lot yes but the thing that has finally made them really viable is simply the cost dropping like a rock.

I don't care if I have to buy 2x as many solar panels when they cost as much as a fence post.

That cost reduction was entirely investment into production capacity. None of that couldn't have been accomplished decades ago.

That's the saddest part. If we had been adults in the 70s, we could already be done the green revolution basically. We could have seriously prevented global warming.

But a bunch of idiots rejected that and instead voted for people who doubled down on fucking up the middle east and burning liquids.

[–] epistasis 1 day ago

I interpreted the "1% improvements" to be exactly that effect of cost dropping like a rock (economic efficiency), not about the energy conversion efficiency.

PV entrepreneurs are the real heroes of the climate movement, IMHO. They figured out markets that would have enough demand to push forward with developing the tech. Germany's government is a major hero too, they pushed the tech forward so far at a crucial time. Then China took up the mantle.

Both supply and demand need to build together for the industry to grow. Government subsidies played a huge role in accelerating this, and will have paid for themselves so many times over. We're going to live in a world of super-cheap technology thanks to the modest tax-cut-based investments of governments the world over.

It does suck that so many powerful people were against the obvious-in-retrospect good idea of solar PV, but I'd love to focus on all the heroes that pushed through anyway and made it happen. They deserve a lot of thanks!

[–] k_g_b_ 23 hours ago

The real heroes are still the boots on the ground climate/green/anti-nuclear movements of multiple decades that enabled the parties to be voted into power, that set up the subsidies which gave entrepreneurs an actual market, initial funding, public research to use and planning security.

As you said, subsidies played a huge role. Look at the timeline when Germany and then Spain set up their subsidies and the following ramp up in PV production.

Sure, it was an idea at the right time, but the right time needed decades of political groundwork.

While the entrepreneurs deserve some credit, they generally got cash. The movements got massive backlash by conservatives and some got terrorism charges for protesting non-violently.

[–] epistasis 1 day ago

Well, perhaps, but the time for the followers in the field to push on EV manufacturing capability has been the past 5-10 years. And the US majors are all followers, not leaders. About two years ago they all put out press releases saying "we are not seeing EV sales so we are pulling back on manufacturing" meaning "we couldn't figure it out and are scared so we are abandoning our future."

With the strangle hold that these industries have on getting the government to bail them out, we are in a really bad position on the national level. We have let bad politics and weak management override good economic decision making.

[–] heresie-dabord 20 hours ago

Full disclosure: I have been driving an EV for almost a decade. I use an e-bike too. Electric commuting is brilliant. I'm glad for the sake of air quality that EVs and e-bikes exist and are increasingly popular.

That said — let's be realistic and dispassionate.

> There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again.

Inflicting job losses at that scale is not going to happen. US protectionism (a euphemism for ahem current federal initiatives) is alive and well. The legacy US auto makers have a huge domestic market and their survival is a primary motive for the US trade/tariff war. (Does the thoroughly corrupt administration face any comeuppance? That is a different discussion.)

The lack of EVs has not been a pivotal concern of voters. US voters want cheap fuel. Affordability was a fundamental concern for voters. The mid-term election result is not about loftier environmental goals.

> Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency

Yes, "an American vehicle" is known for grotesque size and high cost of maintenance. And now after two years of a despicable administration, "an American vehicle" is also a Trump-Miller-Hegseth-Bessent-Lutnick-Musk-*.arsehole symbol.

Even so, Tesla sales success is real, domestic and abroad. People who can afford them buy them.

[–] tromp 1 day ago

> - Chinese EVs are dominating every market outside the US.

Not so in Europe, where the top 10 EVs sold in 2025 [1] has not a single Chinese car.

[1] https://autorai.nl/tesla-van-de-troon-gestoten-als-populairs...

[–] Den_VR 1 day ago

I see sources saying BYD sold 187,657 vehicles in Europe in 2025, and MG sold 307,812. Interesting.

Your source only says: “Top 5 best-selling EV brands in Europe in 2025 Volkswagen – 274.417 (+56%) Tesla – 238.765 (-27%) BMW – 193.186 (+15%) Skoda – 172.100 (+117%) Audi – 153.848 (+51%)”

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

BYD sells a lot of hybrids rather than BEVs fyi. I believe its the majority of their sales maybe?

[–] Den_VR 1 day ago

Of course, because the agreement between the European Union and Chinese limits battery electric vehicles, but does not limit hybrids the same way… which I think speaks again to the ability of the different manufacturers to compete on a “fair” basis

Correction: the European Union imposed additional tariffs (up to 35%) on Chinese-made battery-electric vehicles, while conventional hybrids and plug-in hybrids were exempt from those additional tariffs, giving Chinese manufacturers an incentive to shift toward hybrid sales.

[–] lefra 23 hours ago

Chinese EV have heavy import taxes in the EU. Also in France, (I don’t know in other countries), you get more subvention when buying an EU-made EV. This heavily distorts the market to try to save VW and friends.

[–] muddi900 1 day ago

How long until they are devoured by the Chinese? Geely already owns Volvo.

[–] gniv 1 day ago

Things have changed a lot since 2025. In fact in October BYD sold a ton of cars in Europe.

[–] holgerschurig 3 hours ago

> Chinese EVs are dominating every market outside the US.

Well, that is factual false. In Germany for example, the market share of chinese car vendors (EV or not) is 6.1%. And the market share of "pure" EVs is 37.0%, the one of plug-in-hybrides is 11.2%.

So there is no way that chinese vendors dominate the german car market. Not the whole one, not the EV submarket.

I think you US guys should stop declaring victory of china. It's entirely in your head and makes you non-competitive. For example, Germany as a export-import surplus since the 50s, every single year. While the USA has an export-import deficit since the 70s, again every single year. And because of your deficit you now collectively think "Oh, we are de-industrialized and China is leading worldwide, we can never compete". I can't say if the first thing is true. But the 2nd is false: China is not leading worldwide. Otherwise Germany could not have a surplus. And if the small Germany can compete, then so could you.

[–] pjc50 1 day ago

I think they have a future as a "normal" car company, but in order to do that they'd have to manage to deliver a new "normal car" model at some point, and accept normal stock prices.

That EV market share direction in the US, though .. really bad compared to non-petrostates (except Norway)

[–] mbreese 1 day ago

They’ve never been a normal car company. And that’s the problem.

They don’t do a good job at the car company part. They make nice cars, but the company part has issues. Quick example… I was very happy to drive a model 3 for many years. But the constant changes in price of their new cars destroyed any resale value mine had. Every time Tesla was having a bad quarter, the value of my car dropped. That’s not the way to get me to buy another one.

There are certainly other areas where they could improve too. But my point being - they’ve never been all that good at (or interested in) what it takes to drive long term success in selling cars. It’s just too long of a time horizon for them.

[–] sergiotapia 1 day ago

I never understood why people care about "resale value" of a car. I buy a car to drive it until it's done. I don't buy a gaming PC and worry about resale value, or a polo, or sneakers, or a nice mop. I buy stuff to use it.

[–] bunderbunder 1 day ago

I don’t know that you have to agree with typical consumer behavior to accept it as a reality, though. And resale value does matter to people who don’t drive cars into the ground, because trade-in value affects your purchasing power when you do decide to get a new one.

And even if you do keep cars indefinitely, it can still be an important consideration because it affects how things work out when you need to make an insurance claim. It means your car is both more likely to be declared a total loss and more likely to be worth less than what you still owe for it when it does get totaled.

[–] solyin 1 day ago

Because if you desperately need cash, you can trade in the $80,000 luxury suv for a $20,000 subcompact, and use that cash to pay rent and for food. It's a depreciating asset and sometimes a money sink, sure, but if you live somewhere you need a car anyway, some people choose the more expensive ones.

[–] ychnd 1 day ago

That's... Financially irresponsible. You build your cushion in non-depreciating assets. If you are approaching situation where you would desperately need cash, you prepare for in some way different from buying luxurious suvs.

[–] azan_ 1 day ago

There are some situations that can wipe your savings - even large ones - really quickly (e.g. cancer).

[–] Freedom2 1 day ago

Wouldn't healthcare cover a large portion of these kinds of expenses? At least they do in quite a few parts of the world.

[–] radpanda 14 hours ago

Not that you’re the only one deciding when you’re done with the car. I’ve had the misfortune of getting in an accident and having a car totaled, at which time the insurance company will give you something like the value of the car at that time. If all else is equal and you’re choosing between two cars, you might want to opt for the one that retains value better.

[–] mbreese 1 day ago

I get your point. But look at this from Tesla’s point of view. Why should they care? They will want to sell as many cars as possible. If they sell me a car, that’s just one sale. However, every marketing book will tell you that it’s easier to sell to an existing customer.

If my car (an asset) has more resale value, I’m more likely to sell it to buy a new one. They should be trying to protect my resale value — if they want me as a repeat customer. Even if I want to buy another Tesla, if my resale value isn’t high, I’d wait longer to buy a new one.

Or, what I’m leasing the car (reasonable for an EV and used to have better tax incentives)? If the end of lease value is low, I have to spend more on the depreciation over the lease. That makes my monthly payment higher. Instead, if the end of lease value is higher, I have a lower monthly payment and I’m more likely to buy the car.

Either way, Tesla was good at selling one car. They need to get better at selling the second or third one.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

If Tesla is dropping the price of their cars, then that means you can buy a new car for less. It makes no sense to want to overpay for a consumable item at time t+1, regardless of what you paid at time t.

[–] mbreese 1 day ago

If cost(t) >> cost(t+1), then I'm not going to be able to afford to buy that new car. I'm going to be underwater on that deal. That also means that Tesla has one fewer possible sale. I'm not overpaying for a new car, which means that if Tesla would like to have more sales, they should try to keep their prices more constant.

Remember, this is from the Tesla point of view... and it's a long time-horizon perspective. It's a much easier decision from the customer's point of view.

(And there are other ways for companies to incentivize sales with discounts and promotions that don't obviously impact the "value" of the car).

[–] stevage 20 hours ago

It seems strange to me not to. Because if you don't sell it, you're basically the kind of person who drives a new car one day, but ten years later, you're a person who drives a ten year old car?

Speaking as someone who mostly drives 20 year old cars.

[–] yodsanklai 1 day ago

Because an old car often costs more in maintenance. It's best to re-sale it before it gives you too much trouble. Basically, you can have a more reliable car with no extra cost. And some people like modern and new cars and upgrade every few years.

[–] nutjob2 1 day ago

For a lot of people cars are less a way to get from point A to point B and more of a status symbol, so they like to drive a new or at least newer car.

Personally I'm with you. I love my car because its exactly enough car for my needs. I bought it new (in 2016) and I never want to sell it. I'd get so much less (or more to the point I can't buy a new car) for the same money I spent on it.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

pretty sure they average out to holding their value better or at worst in line with other brands

[–] paxy 1 day ago

The problem is that transition would require a ~95% drop in stock price, and the company isn't going to survive that.

GM - $74.5B market cap (6.2M cars sold annually)

Ford - $50.2B (4.6M)

Volkswagen - $40B (9M)

BYD - $100B (4.6M)

Toyota - $256B (11.3M)

Hyundai - $57B (7.3M)

Tesla - $1.4T (1.6M)

The numbers simply don't add up.

[–] pjc50 1 day ago

A stock drop does not in and of itself kill a company which has positive cashflow, although it may give the executives heart attacks and leave it vulnerable to takeover.

[–] marcosdumay 1 day ago

If the company keeps the startup structure of paying employees in stock options and growing by VC money into the several billions value, yes a stock drop can kill it in and of itself.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

1. compare debt, tesla is cash rich while old OEMs are saddled with debt

2. compare growth opportunities, ie https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi - rollout is going well, and every cybercab produced nets what ? $25k/year? $75k/year? vs $5-8k once per car sold?

[–] abustamam 1 day ago

I don't like Musk, but this is the correct answer. So many people are trying to fit Tesla into the old OEM box but they are not a car company. They are a technology company that sells cars.

I don't know if robotaxi will take off, but if it does, it massively undercuts Waymo because the vehicles are just so much cheaper to make and are made in house.

[–] FabHK 21 hours ago

Just like WeWork is not a real estate company, but a technology company that does real estate. They had nearly $0.5m net income in 2016, but presumably the future is bright.

[–] abustamam 4 hours ago

Well sure, two things can be true though. I don't know much about the rise and fall of WeWork (I honestly didn't even think they were still around or relevant) but a fleet of inexpensive autonomous taxis in markets that have pricey uber fares seems like an incredible growth opportunity

[–] nutjob2 1 day ago

Telsa/Musk is a cult of personality. SpaceX's valuation makes no sense either.

On that basis if Musk overdoses on ketamine or something then 95% devaluation may well happen.

[–] thinkcontext 1 day ago

Musk has said Tesla's future is cybercabs and robots, not a normal car company.

[–] chris_wot 15 hours ago

Yeah, by basically ignoring regulation. That's going to be a lot tougher since the midterm results. The government will no longer be giving him any easy passes.

[–] Steltek 1 day ago

Oooh, normal cars. Now there's a concept. Can we get a real EV minivan? Not a gimmick like the Buzz. I've got kids and go on long road trips to visit family. Seats, cargo capacity, range, and 800V charging speed.

Closest thing is like the Ioniq 9 but the cargo space really sucks.

For a polished product that ticks all the boxes, I would pay a premium for this.

[–] toephu2 1 day ago

You might need to move to China for that.

XPeng X9 - Seven seats, 800V charging, and a third row that folds into the floor. The long-range version has 382 miles WLTP range and charges 10–80% in approximately 12 minutes under ideal conditions.

Li Auto MEGA - Seven seats, 800V architecture, 441 miles CLTC range, and manufacturer-claimed charging that adds 311 miles of CLTC range in 10 minutes. Li Auto says its trunk holds four 28-inch suitcases with all seven seats occupied.

Zeekr 009 - Seven-seat versions, up to 460 miles CLTC range, and 10–80% charging in as little as 10 minutes on the upgraded 900V model. Very luxurious, though some versions offer less rear cargo space.

Denza D9 EV - Seven seats, 115-kWh battery, up to 497 miles CLTC range, and BYD Flash Charging claims of 10–70% in five minutes using compatible ultra-high-power chargers.

China is years ahead of the West (EU/US) in terms of EVs.

[–] FabHK 21 hours ago

The cars you describe are quite popular in HK, and typically family cars chauffeured by, well, a chauffeur. Carries a family of 4 plus a maid or two.

[–] angry_octet 17 hours ago

Surely chauffeurs will be replaced by autonomous driving modes soon? Will HK experience gridlock as all the robo cars take laps around the block?

[–] varjag 17 hours ago

I'm sorry not everyone is swayed by LED lighting and plastic cupholders in fake chrome.

[–] fumar 1 day ago

Lucid Gravity. We just picked one up after cross shopping an R1S. Its been solid so far the interior packaging is impressive. I was sold after driving it. Although it is more of a wagon than anything.

[–] abustamam 1 day ago

I've been seesawing between R1S and Gravity. Granted, I cant afford either right now, but planning for the future. But it made me realize : I don't know if I trust that Lucid will be around in a few years. Rivian seems more stable. And I don't want to buy a $100k car from a company that may not be around in a few years because then I basically have a brick.

[–] fh973 1 day ago

A Mercedes VLE maybe? It ticks all the boxes incl premium price.

[–] geerlingguy 1 day ago

Doesn't have the doors that go __-----

[–] dsr_ 1 day ago

Wikipedia maintains a list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

[–] thiscatis 1 day ago

I live in SE Asia and travel regularly for work in this region. Chinese EV's are everywhere and completely dominate the market, except perhaps a few fans in Singapore, it's living driving in the future (Denza D9 anyone?) compared to Western countries (tech-wise, not the questionable production and market flooding)

[–] jedberg 1 day ago

> unsupervised autopilot

They are running a fleet of taxis around the Bay Area. It's kind of scary because they aren't that safe, given the lack of LIDAR. But they are doing it anyway.

[–] paxy 1 day ago

They all have someone behind the wheel. Tesla doesn't have a driverless permit in the Bay Area.

[–] jedberg 1 day ago

Yes, they have safety drivers for now, but they are still running them as an autonomous fleet.

And also, they are driving fully autonomous in Texas and Florida.

[–] paxy 1 day ago

> for now

So let me guess, fully unsupervised self driving is rolling out "next year" right?

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

They have more fully unsupervised robotaxis riding around Texas than Waymo.

https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

[–] katbyte 18 hours ago

That link doesn’t say how many, and it doesn’t differentiate between when there is a driver in the car or not

> Miles Driven Autonomously

[–] iknowstuff 12 hours ago

It does. None of them have a driver. Doesn’t count bay area.

[–] torginus 1 day ago

Photogrammetry + AI has developed to the degree, that there are 3D scanning apps on iPhone that don't even use the Lidar when available, so you can certainly make do without and get comparable results.

[–] jvwww 1 day ago

In the Bay Area they have human supervisors but in Austin they are autonomous.

Is there data to suggest they are unsafe in Austin - as in less safe than a human?

[–] timy2shoes 1 day ago

They're working hard to not release any of their safety data, unlike all the other autonomous car companies.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

wrong

https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

[–] Slow_Hand 1 day ago

I’m not sure these self-reported numbers are trustworthy considering they report “0 robotaxi injuries” when a cursory Google search turns up this article claiming 249 Roboxtaxi accidents in Austin and at least two injuries that required hospital visits. Which is at least two more than “0 injuries”.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

Those were Waymos…

[–] Slow_Hand 1 day ago

Yes. My mistake. It seems that the article is grouping all autonomous taxis under the title of "Cybertaxi", which is where I was confused.

[–] Geezus_42 1 day ago

That's what Elon wants you to think...

[–] brightball 1 day ago

What makes you say they aren't safe? The numbers say they are about 4-6x safer than a car with a human driver.

[–] standeven 1 day ago

What numbers?

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

these https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

[–] tsimionescu 1 day ago

We know this data is trustworthy because Musk and his companies would never ever ever lie about anything important.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

Ah you’re right it’s not like there’s any media scrutiny of robotaxis

[–] Geezus_42 1 day ago

Then share those instead of the same biased blog post.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

[–] Geezus_42 1 day ago

Biased source.

[–] jfoster 23 hours ago

What would an unbiased source be for this data?

[–] Geezus_42 18 hours ago

A blog post from the company definitely ain't it.

[–] jfoster 16 hours ago

Sorry, I meant the opposite. What would a good source be? Isn't Tesla the primary source of such data? Where else would you expect it to come from?

[–] Geezus_42 14 hours ago

Tesla can not be impartial about itself.

[–] absoflutely 16 hours ago

A source that doesn't have an incentive to lie about the topic...

[–] jfoster 23 hours ago

A fleet of hundreds of cars, right? Maybe even thousands including Austin? All with no LIDAR, and operating perhaps up to 18 hours a day?

So then where are all the horrible accidents if they're not safe?

[–] bushbaba 23 hours ago

Why do you assume lidar is must for safety. So far the Tesla auto pilot record is better than human drivers

[–] katbyte 18 hours ago

Because less then ideal conditions for vision exist? Heavy snow/rain/fog, sun shining into cameras at dawn and dusk etc

It’s not hard to be better then an average human generally, the issue is liability as when a driverless taxi hits or hurts someone you can’t just go “but we are safer then human drivers!”

[–] arjie 1 day ago

I don’t see why it’s scary. Most cars on the road have a driver and no LIDAR. The cybercab is no different.

[–] jedberg 1 day ago

They intend to take the driver out, and they are already running them without a driver in Texas and Florida.

[–] small_model 1 day ago

Yep, very safely https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety

[–] senordevnyc 1 day ago

Thank goodness we definitely know we can trust the data in that link /s

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

gov reports seem to agree so unless you have any data to deny this just take the L

[–] Geezus_42 1 day ago

Share those reports then.

[–] kalleboo 1 day ago

You mean the government that Elon Musk gutted with DOGE?

https://www.newsweek.com/doge-cuts-watchdogs-investigating-s...

> Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly cut 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) workers in February, disproportionately affecting regulators tasked with assessing self-driving vehicle risks, according to a Financial Times report.

[–] dozerly 1 day ago

For now, their goal is to have no driver and no lidar. That is what said the commenter is scared of.

[–] idlewords 1 day ago

It's more likely he'll merge Tesla with SpaceX.

[–] baobabKoodaa 1 day ago

I get all my news from Matt Levine and this is what he keeps saying.

[–] gniv 1 day ago

> - EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).

Wow. Compare with 41% in France (in October), 37% in Germany, 60% in China.

[–] Longhanks 14 hours ago

The incentive to switch is a little lower with actually affordable gasoline. In Europe, gas prices are incredibly high right now and will probably never go down again, so it’s natural for the market to drift towards electronic.

[–] slibhb 1 day ago

From what I've heard, the autopilot is very good and getting better. It is hard to distinguish the haters from the hype.

[–] afavour 1 day ago

I’ve heard the same but I think the question is “is autopilot worth basing your entire car purchase around it?” and “will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”.

If autopilot is basically the only thing Tesla has going for it then they’ve got a risky path ahead of them.

[–] jkdufair 1 day ago

From personal experience: "yes, no question", and "maybe though it'll take a long time and a lot of compute and training data". The day level 3 automation (basically what Tesla's FSD is, even though it's classified as level 2) comes to some other car, I'll strongly consider switching.

Maybe a stock crash and total failure of Tesla will be the best thing that happens. The US government (assuming us citizens can somehow continue to claw it back) or some benevolent entity can buy the ML models for cheap and open source them. It's really their only truly valuable, resilient asset, IMO.

[–] sejje 1 day ago

> “is autopilot worth basing your entire car purchase around it?”

Unsupervised FSD is, yes.

> and “will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”.

I wouldn't bet on a big auto-maker, personally. But maybe they can outsource it. And...well, AI. Things are moving fast. But I think the moat can hold for a while.

[–] umutisik 1 day ago

For me, even now it's worth basing the entire purchase around it. Competitor auto-makers, if they executed perfectly, would need 4-5 years to get to catch up to where Tesla is now in autonomous driving; so probably a lot longer in reality.

I loved how the Cybertruck looked but when I test-drove it, I realized it wasn't for me. Tesla can now do a Rivian R1 or Hyundai Palissade type design and do well. But they will prioritize the cab since they got it to the current scale pretty quickly and it will be a money printer for them.

[–] testing22321 1 day ago

> *”will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”

Tech first companies like Waymo: yes, clearly.

OEM US automakers? Not a chance, not ever. They can’t do a simple infotainment system to save themselves. If they want to “auto” driving, they’re going to license it from some other company.

[–] bradleyjg 1 day ago

I rented one for a road trip. It was nothing short of magical. Scary to give it control. And I can believe there are edge cases … but it’s real.

I’d guess that it’s going to take a while to catch up because the real world data is the moat. Maybe if someone partners with Waymo but the price point will be higher.

The thing that gives me pause about buying one is: what happens if the company loses interest? Is it like “owning” a game after the company shuts down the servers?

[–] jfoster 22 hours ago

It's actually easy. The media would love to print stories about robotaxis having chaotic accidents, so you can trust that you will hear about it if that starts happening.

You might be waiting a while, though... If it's not happening now, it's unlikely to ever happen.

[–] cevn 1 day ago

I have it. It is shockingly good but not as good as a person. And anything below 100% is dangerous.

For instance, how it detects pedestrians. Ive had instances where someone is looking to cross, the FSD either ignores them completely or it slows down a little, baits them into going forward, then resumes running them over. It detects car to car problems very well but doesn’t try to interpret pedestrian’s intent outside of the actual road.

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

I, and many others, could never go back to a vehicle that doesn't have this level of self-driving. It really is such an improvement it's crazy how little people who haven't experienced it understand.

[–] nunez 1 day ago

> unsupervised autopilot

Robotaxi is live in some markets. I've used it twice here in Houston. Works quite well.

[–] teachrdan 1 day ago

I was under the impression there were teleoperators for their taxi fleet: https://electrek.co/2025/05/16/tesla-robotaxi-fleet-powered-...

[–] marcusverus 1 day ago

This article just says that teleoperators had remote access to the first 20 cars when they were rolled out ~17 months ago. It doesn't support a claim that the fleet is currently using teleoperators, let alone relying on them more broadly as you seem to imply.

> Recently, Jonas met with Tesla with some clients and released a new note that he hinted to be based on what he learned from Tesla during the meeting. He claims that the planned “robotaxi” rollout in Austin next month [June '25] is going to use “plenty of tele ops to ensure safety levels”: Austin’s a ‘go’ but fleet size will be low. Think 10 to 20 cars. Public roads. Invite only. Plenty of tele ops to ensure safety levels (“we can’t screw up”). Still waiting for a date. ‘Tele ops’ stands for teleoperations, meaning that Tesla employees will be able to remotely access Tesla’s vehicles and operate them in some capacity.

[–] nunez 13 hours ago

afaik they are more or less operating like Waymo: truly unsupervised with remote support and limited low-speed roomba-like manueverability in emergencies

[–] afavour 1 day ago

I’d say Tesla’s charging network remains a very strong suit for them. Problem is it’s nowhere near strong enough to justify their current valuation. But we’ve been saying this for years and the stock price still stays irrationally high.

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

Do you ever see any legacy American car companies getting close to what Tesla can do, even with a 10yr timeline?

[–] specialp 1 day ago

Well it depends on what you are saying "can do". Ford and GM already outsell Tesla on volume by 4-5x each. There is some portion of the population that will spend more for an EV but that is a tapped and declining market. Chinese manufacturers are selling attractive EVs at a cost lower than their ICE counterpart - not higher. But they are cut out of the USA market. Now we can say that Tesla is leading in autopilot and other things like that but apparently that is not translating to growing sales. They have a stagnant lineup of models that people would actually buy.

[–] CalChris 1 day ago

> Manufacturing costs haven't come down

That’s not true in general but the Cybertruck in particular is stupid expensive to manufacture. And then there’s the 4680 fiasco. I think it’s more of a personal political design than a realistic product.

[–] 59percentmore 18 hours ago

>The stock is still surviving on Elon hype

I wish people would stop saying stood things like this and consider the structural and technical reasons why TSLA share values might be disconnected from the company's performance. (No one wants to do that because it might point to misbehavior by market participants.)

Hundreds of billions of dollars do not move because of "hype"; someone, somewhere is making a calculated decision.

[–] bunderbunder 1 day ago

It’s slightly amazing how persistent the Elon hype is. Quite a few of those problems are at least partially due to own goals that Musk himself has been scoring.

I realize that some of it is just a cult of personality, and that part will be unusually sticky because of things like cognitive dissonance. But that can’t be all of it. My next best guess is a bunch of it is a whole bunch of institutional investors are privately thinking these companies are way too risky, but keep it to themselves because it’s not their money they’re putting on the line and taking a contrarian position would risk angering a presumably vocal subset of clients of unknown size. Which isn’t a great way to make yourself popular with your boss.

[–] brightball 1 day ago

If he had delivered Neuralink alone, the hype would be valid. Doing that...plus SpaceX, Tesla, Boring, etc.

The biggest knock on him is that he says something will happen at a certain time and then it comes later. Even the sub-$30k EV. Cybercabs cost < $30k.

[–] turtlesdown11 18 hours ago

What "hype" has been delivered by the Boring Company?

[–] archagon 1 day ago

No, the biggest knock against him is how he caused hundreds of thousands of people in the third world to die from sudden cutoff of food and medicine. This will never be forgiven or forgotten.

[–] FeepingCreature 1 day ago

No seriously, this actually didn't happen. That one website is a "model" and simply doesn't account at all for the fact that most of the critical parts of USAID were picked up by other US aid programs.

It looked like it might happen for a bit! And it is quite bad of course that that could have happened! But it didn't.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

Yes, it fucking happened. These people have names and reputable journalists on the ground talked to the grieving family members of the deceased: https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/07/how-pulitzer-final..., https://www.propublica.org/series/the-end-of-aid

I have read multiple articles to the same effect from other publications. Aid got cut off instantly (to the extent that supply trucks were left without gasoline), people could not access medicine and food that they needed to survive, and then they died, horribly. That was just ground zero.

Get out of your bubble before you destroy yourself.

[–] FeepingCreature 1 day ago

Yes, people died. People did not die at the scale reported.

edit: Okay fine, I'll rephrase it. There is no convincing evidence at this point of mass deaths. It's entirely speculative on the basis, frankly, of assumptions we know to be wrong.

[–] olelele 21 hours ago

Seriously my dude, this is not a hill to die on.

[–] brightball 1 day ago

That did not happen…

[–] archagon 1 day ago

It did. Go ask your LLMs about it if you don't believe me.

[–] brightball 1 day ago

Confirmed. Those numbers come from models and estimates but are not supported by anything that actually happened on the ground. Funding was transferred to the state department.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

It looks like you're pretty bad at prompting. Here, let me help you out: https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/07/how-pulitzer-final...

(I literally just asked Gemini "how many deaths are verified to be caused directly by the sudden shutdown of usaid?" to find some articles I had read featuring actual journalists tracking deaths on the ground.)

[–] misiti3780 1 day ago

Trump did that, not Elon. The president is the only one with the power to cut that aid. Sure, he was the "face" of it but Trump signed the EOs

[–] afavour 1 day ago

Elon proposed it and implemented it. Yes, Trump signed off on it but by that logic no one in the Trump administration is guilty of anything other than Trump himself, which we all know is not true.

[–] UltraSane 1 day ago

Elon actually bragged about destroying USAID on Twitter.

"We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead."

This is the richest man in the world being GLEEFUL abut destroying an organization that helps the poorest people in the world. Musk is basically Ebenezer Scrooge.

In an interview when asked about it he insisted their was vast amounts of fraud in USAID.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886307316804263979?lang=en

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

USAID was a pretty evil organization that was founded and used to bribe warring organizations under the guise of humanitarianism.

[–] sirtaj 53 minutes ago

It was definitely a mixed blessing, but I had a close relative (a local, not an American) who worked with them in some poor countries for some years. The verdict was, yes, it's pretty clearly a CIA front, but they also did some real and serious humanitarian work.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

Whatever USAID is guilty of, it is indisputable that thousands of people died from aid being suddenly cut off without a tapering period. You can find many news articles talking to people on the ground that confirm this.

[–] UltraSane 1 day ago

What does "bribe warring organizations " even mean?

[–] throwitaway222 1 day ago

MrBeast did more for people in Africa than USAID ever did. The only thing USAID tents were used for was filming ISIS videos.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

The man who fires the gun is just as culpable as the man who makes the plan. And boy, did Musk enjoy playing executioner! He acted with gleeful, reckless abandon and gloated about “taking a chainsaw” to USAID. And as I recall, they shoved Rubio in front of the cameras only after Musk's illegal rampage already happened, as a sort of fig leaf.

[–] mahboi 1 day ago

Most people don't even pay attention to what he announces, myself included. It happens if/when it happens. I got on a plane and had fast internet for the first time thanks to Starlink, that's great. But when someone at work is telling me about his "FSD" car, sure, show me it going around the block while we sit in the back.

[–] bunderbunder 1 day ago

All of those are debatable at best from a business perspective.

Neuralink is still in clinical trials. So it hasn’t actually been delivered yet, and there’s no actual guarantee that it will be.

From a certain perspective, SpaceX’s launch business was an effort to create an airline in space. And that’s exactly what they did, profit margins and all.

Starlink is looking good right now, but its profits seem to be heavily propped up by crony capitalism, a system that the US electorate arguably voted against in a big way earlier this week. Plus, their up-and-coming competition was recently handed a gift beyond their wildest dreams, courtesy of Elon Musk, in the form of a clear demonstration that dependence on SpaceX is a major strategic liability.

The AI bit, well… yeah.

Tesla has had some past greatness, but, as I mentioned above, all of their recent misfortune is wholly or partially the fault of its own CEO. Worse, many of the minds more directly behind past successes have left the company. Investment is about future prospects, not past glory.

Boring Company’s greatest commercial success thus far is the Las Vegas loop. That’s all that needs to be said about that.

[–] brightball 1 day ago

Neuralink

Speech Restoration - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2100342084011978896

Controlling a Power Wheelchair - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2080405463649100114

Playing Games - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2057943187746849002

Using a computer & drawing a signature - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2057222230807830948

Painting with a Robotic Arm - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2055351348728668340

[–] bunderbunder 1 day ago

But again, from a business perspective this is all just PoCs, not products delivered to market. There’s a whole gauntlet, including a very difficult and expensive regulatory approval process, between all of it and a successfully delivered product that can start generating ROI.

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

Hah, and what, pray tell, has bunderbunder done to so casually dismiss the thousands of engineers pushing the boundaries of physics in almost every single one of those companies?

[–] bunderbunder 1 day ago

You have completely missed the point. I never said a single word about whether or not engineers have engineered. I’m talking partially about whether Musk’s companies merit the valuations they’re getting, and partially about whether the investor goodwill that Musk’s companies receive is merited.

Furthermore, what exactly are you getting at, anyway? If I just uncritically gave all my money to anyone who I think might have hired people who are better at mechanical engineering than I am, then I would have no money.

[–] rplnt 1 day ago

> and then it comes later

Ignoring dozens if not hundreds of promises that never came. You can't wait forever.

[–] mahboi 1 day ago

You can in fact wait forever if you're not investing money in the company

[–] Geezus_42 1 day ago

What did useful thing has Boring done?

[–] sho 1 day ago

> a whole bunch of institutional investors are privately thinking these companies are way too risky

What's that saying? "In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone"?

[–] ngomezdev 1 day ago

There’s a severe lack of focus and the only endgame that still makes sense to me for Tesla is basically turning into a cab service like Waymo. Perhaps you own the car perhaps not.

[–] guelo 1 day ago

> Federal EV tax credits are over.

It's crazy that Democrats were the pro EV party because of the environment, and half the reason liberals bought Teslas, but Elon's white supremacy overrode his business interests and he went all in with the fossil fuel party. And Tesla shareholders rewarded him with an insane pay package for this genius move.

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

Democrats abandoned the environment in lieu of this weird obsession with socialism- starting with the unions. First, Tesla was repeatedly snubbed when the Biden administration poured billions into every other car company to make them produce EVs- gleefully declaring GMC of all companies to be the Leader of EVs. Then, the COVID situation where the local staff member in government made it illegal for Tesla, and only Tesla, to continue operating. That's when Elon finally got the message that the Democratic party had abandoned him, and cared more about raising money than any kind of environment or progress. He then went on twitter, called it out, and then the entire democratic party reformed under the banner of Anti-Elon (since the whole trans and immigrant stuff was settling down a bit too much to encourage passion).

[–] dimaggiosghost 1 day ago

I think he had his feelings hurt by these snubs, but to align with the anti-immigrant side was odd. I think that, plus he understood the Republican "money in my pocket over all" values rather than a more complex "be a decent person" valueset. The former was more clear than the latter, and clarity beats morality any day.

Oh yeah, he also made what - $500 billion dollars? - by aligning with corruption and cronyism.

edit - also, as I've become older, I find myself saying more and more that my dad was right. I guess he may have realized the same thing after he alienated his family. It turns out maybe there was some wisdom in the old emerald mine magnate papa (</s>) and any criticism of how workers are treated, or markets manipulated, or harm caused to millions - it is just woke haters.

[–] marcusverus 1 day ago

It's hilarious to me when Democrats crash out over Elon's reliance on EV credits, as though acting on the incentives they created was a moral failure on his part.

[–] sirtaj 47 minutes ago

It _is_ hilarious, but not in the way you intended I think. The crash out is not about his receiving the credits. It's about his then working so hard to pretend he did it all himself, and that the government should stop giving people money to do things because it's always a tremendous waste. The irony and hypocrisy is indeed sublime.

[–] mahboi 1 day ago

The proliferation of over-the-top EVs around 2019-21, not just from Tesla, did make me think something was wack with the subsidies. Gas was insanely cheap for part of that too.

[–] esalman 1 day ago

They already pivoted to AI.

[–] chinathrow 1 day ago

He'll just fold Tesla into SpaceX to cover up the ashes.

[–] rawgabbit 1 day ago

This is the most realistic scenario. Hide the stock losses by folding it into SpaceX. Dare the US government to nationalize it. Walk away a “business martyr”.

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

Lol what ashes? Tesla has the best selling vehicle in America, only faces real competition from Google and China.

[–] chinathrow 1 day ago

There is a world outside the US.

[–] scottyah 10 hours ago

What an insightful comment, thank you for adding to the discussion.

[–] mandeepj 1 day ago

> It's hard to see where Tesla goes from here as a company.

Probably will get acquired by SpaceX to hide the poor financials

[–] nunez 1 day ago

Federal EV tax credits are over partly by Elon's hand. Masterclass level foot-gunning.

[–] thinkcontext 1 day ago

And subsidies in California, which he hates, are responsible for an outsized part of sales.

[–] jmspring 1 day ago

He's also looking at an incoming congress that is going to give him a colonoscopy that he didn't ask for.

The only people I've seen driving cybertrucks tend to be asian or older white guys that likely think Elon is great. Yes, this is a generalization, but an observation over thousands of miles between the Bay Area and Vancouver, BC.

I think Tesla is in for more hurt over the coming years, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in my opinion on how Musk has handled himself in the public arena with Tesla and Starlink.

[–] browningstreet 1 day ago

He seems to suggest that the future is Cybercabs and Optimus.

But if Optimus ends up with a HW3 problem (current manufactured Optimus bots aren't autonomus yet because the software isn't finished) he'll have a pile of Cybertrucks and early-model Optimus units rotting in a field.

Personally, I just don't see it. If he merges Tesla and SpaceX it won't really be about cars or vehicle autonomy.

Their current stock valuation can't ride this uncertainty forever. At some point he has to have new products that work, no caveats.

[–] animex 1 day ago

He'll trigger the sale of Tesla to SpaceX so he can get his tranche before that happens.

[–] oramit 1 day ago

Not sure why you didn't mention Elon Musk zeig heiling at the inauguration he helped buy which led to a mass boycott.

[–] jackmott42 17 hours ago

Elon leaves the company, maybe they focus more on quality, good UX, and a lot of people not currently buying Teslas because they are owned by a nazi and have bad UX and quality issues might start.

[–] Forgeties79 1 day ago

Also, the truck was ugly, awkward, and not good at being a truck.

[–] wickedsight 23 hours ago

Don't forget, they built a truck that's near impossible to sell outside the US due to the fact it's way too big and deadly for other road users.

Elon made this into something cool, but creating a whole model line for a single country is risky. Especially if that model is already in a small niche and has an incredibly controversial design.

[–] cmrdporcupine 1 day ago

Elon resigning from Tesla and just letting it run as a reasonable car company making just regular incremental quality and price and new model improvements on normal vehicles people want to drive could be the best thing for the company. The Model 3 is a huge success. That they didn't follow that up with just a regular pickup truck in a similar niche, and instead got distracted by this cybertruck nonsense is an indictment of Musk's poor leadership at this point.

They should just be the Toyota of EVs -- mass produce quality vehicles people want to drive -- instead he's trying to be Tony Stark and keep pumping it as a meme stock.

Tesla remains excellent at engineering and manufacturing. They need not seek the exotic.

He's a liability to that company, not an asset, at this point. And his name has become a brand liability.

[–] Forgeties79 1 day ago

The weird contradiction of musk is that his name is what’s propping up most of his companies/projects but his proximity to his companies is also a threat to them.

[–] cmrdporcupine 1 day ago

Only because the "product" has become the stock, not the cars.

If Musk left, the stock would crash. But the company would be profitable.

[–] Forgeties79 1 day ago

You’re right but so many companies are about the stock and not any sort of core product anymore. He’s got a very unique gravity well around him lol

[–] dimaggiosghost 1 day ago

You put it better than I could have.

It makes for an interesting argument why executive comp should be capped - so they can focus on the product as the product (to benefit consumers) instead of the stock as the product (to benefit execs especially in short term)

[–] boznz 1 day ago

My wife took an overhyped Moonshot for a ride when she was on holiday in Texas last month and sent us all a video - just saying

[–] warkdarrior 1 day ago

Did it fly?

[–] leptons 1 day ago

>The stock is still surviving on Elon hype but has been stagnant for 5 years.

People may actually start buying Teslas again if they're no longer associated with a fascist trillionaire. The number of "I bought this before Elon went crazy" bumper stickers is very high. The people who would buy an electric car are turned off by his association with the brand. He's more of an albatross on the brand than a hype machine.

[–] morkalork 1 day ago

Throwing his first-mover advantage into the dumpster to get in bed with the political party who despises not only his core customer base but the very premise of his business is forever baffling.

[–] small_model 1 day ago

Hundreds of Cybercabs are driving around cities right now with no steering wheel or pedal making money and growing 20% a week, Model Y is the best selling car (of any type) in the planet. European sales are going through the roof, they are doubling production.

Cybertruck was a mistake but rest of the business is printing cash hand over fist.

[–] pjc50 1 day ago

> European sales are going through the roof

A side effect of Trump's war with Iran is that every country which doesn't have sufficient domestic oil production, which is most countries especially in Europe, has accelerated their EV transition. Buyers are grabbing every EV they can get their hands on, and yes Tesla are the leader there.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-electric-car-registratio...

"Tesla (TSLA.O), led the UK BEV market year-to-date, with registrations up 25.4% from a year earlier and a 9.53% market share South Korea's Kia (000270.KS), and China's BYD (002594.SZ), continued to compete for second place, with market shares of 6.9% and 6.8%, respectively"

The Kia model breakdown: https://www.kiapressoffice.com/releases/1975 (mostly Niro, now withdrawn, then EV6)

[–] culi 1 day ago

Maybe in the UK, but in the EU+UK Teslas (which are made in China and the EU) are falling behind GEELY, BYD, SAIC, and even Chery

https://www.reuters.com/business/tesla-registrations-surge-a...

[–] Danox 1 day ago

That ain’t a good thing. Europe continues to deindustrialize themselves. How is that a good thing?

[–] ahahahahah 1 day ago

Do you know that Europe is not just the UK? How odd to present that quote to support your claim that Tesla leads in Europe.

It's actually 4th in ev sales in Europe.... https://cleantechnica.com/2026/10/03/europe-ev-sales-report-...

And that's when ranked by manufacturer, which is only slightly less arbitrary than by model as auto groups just use it for market segmentation. If you rank them as groups (e.g. VW group), then Tesla isn't even in the top 5.

[–] esalman 1 day ago

If something is growing 20% a week, it should see more than 1,000,000% growth after 1 year. I call bullshit on this one.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

https://robotaxitracker.com/cameras?kind=cybercab&metric=veh...

[–] esalman 1 day ago

Ummm.. when normalized (per 1000 vehicles/sightings), there is 35-42% increase.

But that is over a baseline of 2-7 sightings.

There's a reason why we don't go all in on penny stocks when they go up 200% in value, you know.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

Yeah, I'm not saying anything beyond the fact that they did indeed grow about 20% for the past handful of weeks.

[–] tzs 1 day ago

> Model Y is the best selling car (of any type) in the planet.

Depends on the year. It and the RAV4 switch places now and then.

[–] paxy 1 day ago

It's also a meaningless metric because most manufacturers sell multiple models of the same type. Toyota has Corolla, Prius, Camry, Crown, Mirai, Ativ, Century, Belta - all small-mid sized sedans. Add them up and they outsell every Tesla model put together.

BYD has 61 different models in its lineup compared to Tesla's 2.

[–] small_model 23 hours ago

Yes for example in 1955 it wasn't, the OP was suggesting Tesla is doing badly now.

[–] culi 1 day ago

> European sales are going through the roof, they are doubling production.

Only when compared to their recent record lows... the broader trend is still downwards. This is disingenuous. They are losing ground to other manufacturers in Europe

Also the Teslas that Europe is buying are made in China not the US.

The countries where EVs are increasing the most are those that have access to Chinese EVs.

[–] thinkcontext 1 day ago

> Also the Teslas that Europe is buying are made in China not the US.

They are primarily from Germany. There are some imports from China but they are subject to tariffs.

[–] tw04 1 day ago

> Hundreds of Cybercabs are driving around cities right now with no steering wheel or pedal making money and growing 20% a week

Huh? The cybercab with no steering wheel is only operating in Austin, in tiny premapped areas. There are 45 registered in Texas, and they have only been operating since September.

This isn’t Twitter, you’re generally expected to at least attempt to provide factual information here.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/tesla-launches-cybercab-aust...

“Printing money hand over fist” is an interesting way to frame the dramatic drop in their margin on every vehicle sold.

[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago

Incorrect

About as many cybercabs driving around as Waymo, and this doesn't count the Model Y Robotaxis:

https://robotaxitracker.com/cameras?kind=cybercab&metric=veh...

~300 cybercabs in service in TX

[–] vel0city 1 day ago

I've seen the golden Cybercabs rolling around in DFW. Not sure if they're actually accepting fares or not. I know they offer services with a Model Y operating "autonomously", I know in the past they had chaser cars monitoring but I've heard they've stopped that these days.

[–] RankingMember 1 day ago

FWIW they have Cybercabs rolling around many places right now even in boring suburbs- they've all got drivers except for some very select areas (e.g. Bay Area)

[–] paxy 1 day ago

Not sure what numbers you are looking at but Tesla vehicle sales peaked in 2023 and have been falling every year since then. The "sales going through the roof" narrative exists on Twitter, not their balance sheet.

[–] joquarky 1 day ago

Poe's Law is still in effect. You have to add an /s at the end.

[–] scottyah 1 day ago

- When it released, people were lighting Tesla stores and charging stations on fire, flipping off drivers, spitting on the cars even when kids were inside, and defacing them. This was generally supported, and for some reason a lot of people sided with the vandals in an effort to still be considered a Democrat and show hatred of The Other Side.

[–] krige 1 day ago

It's still week 1 and we're already in full on persecuted mode?

[–] Geezus_42 1 day ago

Never stopped.

[–] MisterMower 1 day ago

I’m glad to see you don’t dispute any of the facts he presented. The usual playbook is, “that never happened!”

[–] krige 1 day ago

Engaging the delusions only serves to strengthen them, I've learned not to entertain those factless fantasies.

[–] lenerdenator 1 day ago

Elon's honestly their biggest problem. Can't focus on finishing one thing to save his life and alienated the shit out of the European market with his fascist beliefs.

[–] sejje 1 day ago

https://bestsellingcarsblog.com/2026/10/finland-september-20...

Seems like your conclusions are wrong