Sources: Business Insider, Reuters
quote: Tesla is rolling out the charging network and building the battery plant that will allow them to sell more EVs 10 years from now than GM sells ICEs.
quote: Tesla is going to be a high margin company.
quote: Would you give your money into company that was bailed out, making mostly crappy products, at best stagnate economically and technologically or the one that is almost doubling production every year enormous demand globally, new tech with so much space to improve, don't forget greener than most, which is trendy, and just cool to have (Apple syndrome).
quote: Their strength is the lack of EV commitment from other automakers aside from a few exceptions, and thus being way ahead of them in their platform and charging infrastructure.
quote: Assuming they win most legal battles against auto dealers, that's another advantage they'll have.
quote: Car industry is literarily owned by oil companies and they will never transition from that model, even there is no oil left for a year globally, they'll die with last drop of oil.
quote: Major automakers have had ample time to come up with an equivalent vehicle. They don't seem all that interested. In fact Elon has stated that part of Tesla's goal is to goad these same automakers out of the status quo. (To no avail, so far it seems.)
quote: The current theoretical understanding of disruptive innovation is different from what might be expected by default, an idea that Clayton M. Christensen called the "technology mudslide hypothesis". This is the simplistic idea that an established firm fails because it doesn't "keep up technologically" with other firms. In this hypothesis, firms are like climbers scrambling upward on crumbling footing, where it takes constant upward-climbing effort just to stay still, and any break from the effort (such as complacency born of profitability) causes a rapid downhill slide. Christensen and colleagues have shown that this simplistic hypothesis is wrong; it doesn't model reality. What they have shown is that good firms are usually aware of the innovations, but their business environment does not allow them to pursue them when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from that of sustaining innovations (which are needed to compete against current competition). In Christensen's terms, a firm's existing value networks place insufficient value on the disruptive innovation to allow its pursuit by that firm. Meanwhile, start-up firms inhabit different value networks, at least until the day that their disruptive innovation is able to invade the older value network.At that time, the established firm in that network can at best only fend off the market share attack with a me-too entry, for which survival (not thriving) is the only reward.