Their software isn't innovative either. That's the thing. They took a FreeBSD (open source) kernel and made it a proprietary commercialized product. In fact, I would argue that they actively discourage innovation. Tesla is doing literally the exact opposite of what Apple is doing. Tesla is closer to Google than it is to Apple.

Fwiw it was mostly BSD.


It's open source under apple public license. A lot of the other software is proprietary though, but the kernel is not.

I guess good news

Wow biggest building in the world

The company initially intended to purchase 10 million square-feet of land for its Gigafactory, but after recent plans of acquisitions it seems Tesla will end up with more than 24 million square-feet of land
By: Alison Peters on Jul 11, 2015 at 9:15 am EST
More articles on: TESLA MOTORS
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter follow us in feedly Flip
Tesla Motor Inc is building the biggest factory ever in Story County, Nevada. Its Gigafactory is expected to be as big as 7 “blocks,” according to Story County official Dean Haymore. The term 7 “blocks” doesn’t sound that big, until you consider the Gigafactory which is undergoing construction at the moment as one single block.

According to Haymore’s presentation at Tahoe Reno Industrial Center, Tesla has recently purchased another 1,200 acres of land next to where its Gigafactory is being built. After this recent purchase, the automaker now has land double the amount it used to have before, and that’s not just it, but it plans to acquire another 350 acres of land at the same location.

As reports state, the company initially intended to purchase 10 million square-feet of land for its Gigafactory, but after recent plans of acquisitions, it seems Tesla will end up with more than 24 million square-feet of land, making it the largest factory in the world.


Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk has forecasted an EV revolution, and to cope with it he says the company will need to build hundreds of Gigafactories. The Gigafactories will manufacture state of the art EV vehicles like the Tesla Model S.

The American automotive company aims to begin production in its Gigafactory as soon as possible. The company forecasts making 500,000 batteries for electric cars in its Gigafactory by 2020. However, Musk reported to have said that Tesla will expand battery production to maximum levels, because of an impressive response from its latest announcement of stationary energy storage products. Hence, Tesla is expecting a lot in return from the huge investment at its Gigafactory.

Panasonic Corporation (ADR) (TYO:6752), is currently the only partner working along with Tesla for its Gigafactory. But another interesting fact that Haymore shared during his presentation was that another fourteen more companies are expected to join hands with them in the Gigafactory which is great news, especially for Tesla.

“Panasonic is bringing 14 other companies, besides them, over here (Tahoe Reno Industrial Center) to provide for Tesla,” Haymore said.

Tesla initially had plans to bring in a number of suppliers to work together under a single roof in order to lower costs. However, the automaker has not yet announced a single battery cell supplier other than its long time battery supplier, Panasonic. We suggest Tesla may be relying completely on Panasonic to bring in other battery suppliers, and we also hope it works out for them so that we can probably drive better, and own cheaper EVs in the future.

So, TSLA are now finished as a car maker, in my opinion.

News today is that Apple has its own electric car project going, Project Titan, which has just been given the go ahead to triple in size and is targeting rapid development for delivery in 2019. Until recently it's just been a year-long viability study.

This is a disaster for TSLA, and not for the reason people think. Whether or not Apple will make it with their own car is largely irrelevant. The main reason it's a disaster is because Apple is also a Silicon Valley company, and has been poaching TSLA engineers. It's just given the go ahead for rapid expansion, which will mean aggressive hiring of far more experienced engineers - likely 1000+. And guess where they're going to come from?

Apple has already been doing extensive poaching, according to reports, and that's now going to ramp up with Apple's decision to go big with this. TSLA doesn't have the cash to get in a bidding war for its engineers, and will enter a spiral of decline - missed dates, engineering problems, and so on. It's finished. Losing experienced engineering talent will create a jump ship phenomenon, which will impact morale, ship dates, stock price, and ultimately send the company bankrupt, since profitability is many, many years away, and it needs a high stock and confidence for capital raising given its massive cash burn. During this time, there will also be increasingly solid attempts by the big players to enter pure EVs for the first time, such as Audi's recent announcement.

The only wildcard is the gigafactory. I don't think it's very relevant, but it adds slight uncertainty to what is definite bankruptcy, in my opinion.

This is the end for TSLA. It's about to enter terminal decline. In the short term you've got Model X announcement and hype and production, so there may be a bump or two, but after that it's finished. Sell now while you can.

And Apple acquisition - which some of the bulls think might mean something - is actually a negative IMO. It's a cinch to destroy TSLA in 6-12 months by poaching its talent. A billion dollars worth of employee poaching - not that far from normal in this business - would wipe out $25 billion of TSLA market cap, after which they can scoop up the dregs, including gigafactory, for $7 or so billion rather than the $33 billion + premium needed to acquire it now.

Interesting, i sold half of my position prior to August drop, and just today decided to sell it all.

Im in wait and see mode now, but i could see this being the eventual outcome. Tesla has moved too slow getting its cheaper car out there.

Apple's car will have a range of 5 miles.

This is a completely absurd post

TS is just being sensational.

But if we're onthe cusp of a major bear market, companies like tsla, baba, fb will be hit disproportionately hard.

Near term tsla already had to revise down their total car sales by like 10%, so there's some real life in a short term play here

This is a completely worthless post. What do you disagree with, and why?

TSLA has missed every target again and again. Model X was meant to be out in 2013, then 1st half 2014, then second half 2014, then first half 2015. They're only just releasing in final quarter 2015.

Even with a full roster of engineers they're having trouble staying anywhere near the curve. What's going to happen as their talent is poached more and more? Apple was reportedly offering $250k signing bonus and a 60% pay rise. There is very little loyalty in Silicon Valley, and Musk is known to be difficult to work for. Now that Apple has decided to go ahead with the project and is going add 1000+ engineers, what do you think is going to happen?

Seems pretty spot on. Sometimes casual readers need to point out the people who're painfully ignorant on technology. Luckily someone pointed that out in the prior thread where you were commenting on AI and feature extraction. That was pretty comical until I realized you were totally serious.

Words with no content.

You think talent poaching won't be a problem for TSLA? Why?

Oh. You just plainly know nothing about the subject matter and a poseur of the highest order. The idea that increased pixels would make any difference in feature extraction is painfully ******ed. It is obvious you made everything up to anyone with brief exposure to the field.

Your question is a total strawman as well. Obviously talent poaching is an issue in any business, especially one with a well funded entrant such as Apple. However, this is is almost completely irrelevant to your thesis that Tesla can't retain engineers which will then spell the death knell for Tesla, which has clearly already pivoted into a battery company away from a car manufacturer.

Your posts on tech, in general, are pure nonsense. You're the gold bug of tech companies continually posting irrational and silly thoughts about subjects you know next to nothing about.

Anyone smell that? Smells like burnt toast.....

Have I found the TSLA fanboy?

It's clear that you have little clue on this subject. Even people in tech are usually idiots - look at the predictions of AI researchers from the 50s onwards. The fact is that pixels and the bandwidth to process them are everything for object detection. I've written moving image detection software in another field, so I'm very aware of the problems. There's an irrational optimism among idiot researchers (see the other thread) about machine learning, but the reality is a lot more sober. See this MIT tech review article for a good overview of why the bottleneck is pixels. In controlled conditions, current resolution works just fine. Outside of it, they're inadequate. For autonomous cars to work you need much more advanced object detection than we have today, and that is impossible without much higher resolution and bandwidth than is being used today. Have a read of that article (away from Google spin) and you might begin to grasp some of the issues.

The idea that having 100+ points for reliable object recognition is not much better than several fuzzy ones is utterly ******ed. It's the edge cases that matter for commercial application, not GPS-mapped, route-planned driving on the highest quality properly signed and marked streets with a backup human. From the article (the bolded are just a small fraction of the issues that need higher resolution plus more sensors and higher bandwidth to solve):

It's the edge cases that matter, and the edge cases depend on a myriad of secondary context cues. Today's sensor bandwidth, image quality and resolutions aren't up to deciding between these edge cases. There are plenty of idiots in IT who oversimplify problems and claim that it's just software. That's nonsense. Some of the smartest people thought AI and self driving cars would be possible soon, without realizing we were 50+ years away from the processing power and image resolution.

Now the same idiots 40 years later think that feeding low resolution data into fuzzy object typing training algorithms is going to solve the driving problem. It's not. Its going to solve a small controlled subset of the driving problem, while ignoring the edge cases that are the real obstacle to autonomous cars.

Thank you for agreeing with me. You also agree it is going to ramp up. This is certainly going to hurt TSLA's engineering efforts and very optimistic launch dates.

My contention is that increasing engineer poaching (and not just from Apple - there are a number of well funded car companies with ample spare cash) is going to cause production delays for TSLA, enough that they'll be overtaken by more capable companies with far more cash to burn, who are now entering this market. It's a classic jump ship scenario, and Apple's move is now enough pressure to guarantee it will happen.

TSLA has an enormous cash burn, less than a year of reserves, and no funding source except for selling its own stock, which requires a high stock price to not further enter a death and confidence spiral.

So they're building a factory - for which they haven't even got the funding yet and will need to sell more stock - and you're claiming they're now a battery manufacturer? That's just laughable, dude. They haven't "clearly" done anything except build a building shell in the Nevada desert. They're making as yet unfunded bets on as yet unproven interest for as yet unproven profitability.

I'm sure you bought Musk's hype about "preorders" (Musk is a great at dishonest hyping, that idiots tend to love), but the reality is that they're total bull**** and hype
I've made a small fortune trading tech and being correct about it often enough to make money. Have a look at my posts in this thread, just for starters. In the very first page I was arguing strongly against shorting TSLA when others thought it was hugely overvalued in the 100s; at another I was quite sure they'd beat based on VIN numbers (and they did). You on the other hand have done what? Spat vitriol?

Give me a thesis and prediction for TSLA. We'll see who's right.

TS,

I think you are overestimating the impact of talent poaching but I think it comes down to the fact that you dislike Elon Musk. I think Elon Musk is the greatest currently living entrepreneur.

Several things I disagree with:
- $1bn worth of talent poaching will have a $25bn impact: Why would existing shareholders not take a 3% loss in order to avoid a 75% loss by raising capital?

- Tesla will sink below the rumored value that Google wanted to acquire them for years ago. I think there is a natural bottom although less relevant since I don't think they'll ever be sold.

- Talent at Tesla is worth $25bn. I think you are thinking about a tech company and I don't think this is a correct way of looking at it. They manufacture a product, even if they would lose every single employee, they could still create the products they currently offer. Plus the fact that Elon Musk alone is probably worth way more than you estimate it to be. If you compare the loss in value of Apple back when Steve Jobs was rumored to be ill again and then after his death, it is imo absurd to think that Tesla would go that low on some talent loss alone.
Also the important decision makers at Tesla probably all have (substantial) equity holdings. Tesla has the chance to double, triple, maybe even go higher. Why would they leave for a $250k signing bonus and a 60% pay raise?
I think you overvalue talent in the middle and undervalue talent at the top. I think the latter is way more important.

- Musk is difficult to work for: Honestly, I think that's a bull**** argument against him. Most people know it by now and would have left a long time ago. It's not some middle management pencil pusher who now gets the opportunity of a lifetime from Apple.
I think Musk has a lot more appeal than unappeal.

- You underestimate the infrastructure Tesla has build. The gigafactory is closer to being build than the Apple car, why do you think that is bull**** but the Apple car is the killer? What about superchargers? There are so many available now, for Apple to build the same infrastructure they would need to invest a lot and don't even have a car to show for. Are they just randomly picking places to build superchargers? Are they not bothering with them?

- I think the link between Tesla and SpaceX is unique and something Apple can't benefit from. I admit I wouldn't be able to say how big the impact is but I think the exchange of knowledge there should not be underestimated.

- Talent poaching 2.0 and estimates: Yes, Tesla missed them all but why do you think the same (according to you incredibly important) mass of engineers is going to meet the target at Apple? Is it due to lessons learned? Is it due to more funding? Is it due to other, non-transfering, talent that hold the great talent back?

- How does a mass of 1800 engineers suddenly develop stuff faster? There is no structure at Apple, there is no organization and no mastermind behind it. I think it's absurd to think that 1200 people now make that huge difference. The fact that Apple hasn't build a car yet isn't the fact that they don't have the engineers to assemble them.

- Who is the mastermind behind the car at Apple? Who is really the driving force? I think it's important in a field that hasn't been explored that much - both by the company itself as well as the outside world - to have someone who makes the difference. Tesla and Google both have that, maybe I wasn't able to find the guy at Apple but I couldn't really find news on that someone. Only thing I found was the CEO of Mercedes R&D but if he really is the guy to compete with Musk and appeal more to talent, I doubt it.

- Why is it that a 2019 product is supposedly the killer, while Tesla will have another two models on the market as well as the gigafactory producing batteries. On top you have the storage unit and potentially even more (it's still 4 years away). The Tesla does today what the rest of the car companies are trying to do in x years, I think it's ridiculous to underestimate the first mover advantage, especially in such a business.


Of course the fact that Apple is now getting into the EV business isn't super great news for Tesla, but they would benefit from more awareness around it and people that find the Apple brand appealing might find the Tesla cars today appealing and buy on RIGHT NOW.

Overall, I don't think it's doom day and trying to write off the market leader Tesla just because some rich company is now trying to do the same in a few years is overly pessimistic.

Some good points.

Regarding Musk: Musk is one of the best businessmen (but mostly self promoters) of our generation. He's to the tech world what Donald Trump is to the New York real estate world. He didn't start TSLA, or do much of the design or engineering. He didn't do PayPal. He's a businessman who buys into and/or attaches himself to existing enterprises that he can leverage and promote, gets subsidies, then heavily self promotes to create a personality cult. It's a time honored tradition, but he's no Henry Ford or even Steve Jobs. Read my first post in this thread (post #5 I think). I think a lot of his business skills. I wouldn't bet against SpaceX. But Tesla is a different kettle of fish, propped up solely by confidence and his fan base. Without it, he is dead - the product itself can't compete against car makers once they properly enter this space. The company is vulnerable from many angles - major loss of stock price, a serious competitor deciding EVs are worthwhile, poaching of talent, funding problems.

I wish I could find the analyst who wrote it, but TSLA is likely to have major problems with financing given that they've already given guarantees over all of their assets to current lenders (already spent). All they have left to pay for the many billions they need yet is to sell stock, which is fine while it's buoyant during a bull, and nothing has gone wrong. Many other debt ridden, no profit companies looked just fine too in 2007.

As for Apple - My argument is not that they'll make the car, let alone get it out by 2019. I've written before about the major issues with developing reliable supply chains in the automotive world. Musk has talked about it. It makes an iPhone supply chain look like a child's jigsaw puzzle. Although, having said that, money and size and prestige and partnerships can solve and prevent a lot of the problems that a little known, debt ridden TSLA startup ran into in getting suppliers.

The issue is purely about poaching.

As for who's leading it, it's reported to be Steve Zadesky, a very, very capable man who was an engineer at Ford and then led iPod and iPhone design teams (we know how they turned out). He is a worst nightmare for a TSLA competitor. That someone so central is leading the effort is not a good sign for TSLA.

The issue is purely poaching of talent. A couple of project leads, a bunch of engineers, $250K signing bonuses + a 60% pay rise - TLSA could easily lose 1/4 of their key staff, which would devastate them, cause all kind of rumors and negative news, production delays, ship jumping, and so on. The loss of confidence will cause a downward spiral that affects everything. Unlike other tech companies, TSLA has no cash to compete with a mass employee poaching from the world's richest and most stable company (and incredibly exciting opportunity for employees) that's <10 miles away in Silicon Valley.

This is a disaster. That people can't see it yet is why there's lots of money to be made. Tesla is done for in the car business. I've been believing in their (slim) chances of making it big for a long time (see this thread), but that possibility went from maybe 10% to 1% with recent developments and announcements. They are in deep trouble.

TS,

That is exactly what I mean. The article you link totally supports my view! You are just too naive to know it. (If you disagree, please quote the passage that confuses you and I'll explain it to you.)

I know being smart on the internet is important to you, but higher definition cameras being the solution is not mentioned by anyone anywhere wrt SDC.

The issues are computational and algorithmic (which SHOCKINGLY are interrelated).

Donald Trump's wealth stems from a massive inheritance; he has been bankrupt like three times; he doesn't really own much NY RE he mainly licenses his name; etc.

Elon Musk's wealth is entirely self made; never been bankrupt; is the largest equity holder by a wide margin (with exception of Solar City) in all of his companies; etc.

Yea, the two are not analogous at all. Also I think its, well interesting, you call someone out for self promotion and then go on to say....'well he's no Steve Jobs!' Yea, b/c there's a guy that didn't do any self promotion.

Car and Driver called the Model S the 'Car of the Century'. Tesla's cars are like something from the future compared to most traditional automakers.

Additionally, in the medium term, the GigaFactory will give Musk a distinct competitive advantage over anyone entering the space.

Yes, Tesla has problems. But I think you are being way to bearish on them in general.

The actual death knell to Tesla will be a competitive energy storage technology that will be used instead of highly polluting batteries.

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

Eventually everyone will be producing electric cars. How will Tesla stack up?

Will they be at the top like Apple is with the phone? Or will they go the way of the Jaguar, and Porche? or the DeLorean.

How is the stock priced considering those scenarios?

TS:

I think you vastly underestimate how far ahead TSLA is compared to the competitors in terms of battery technology, specifically control system technology. If you ever attend battery tech conferences, TSLA and Panasonic are simply a generation ahead of almost everyone else. The synergy TSLA built with Panasonic to provide next gen battery tech is not something that is easily duplicated, even if you poach engineers from TSLA and Panasonic and get into similar cross licensing and joint research ventures with Panasonic as TSLA did. Further, it is not clear how severe an impact poaching engineers from TSLA would actually have, since a lot of their research is done not just in the SV, but also in Japan due to the Panasonic venture.

Not to say that TSLA isn't overvalued, but AAPL's entry is not as catastrophic as you might think. They have to play the game of catch up while starting essentially a decade behind. Perhaps AAPL can close the gap, but it has to do so while TSLA owns all of the key battery control system patents and trade secrets. Given how Japanese companies operate, I doubt Panasonic would be open to a similar venture with AAPL.

Perhaps AAPL can start something with the only other company that can produce similar battery tech knowhow, which is TI, but at the moment TI does not appear to care about control systems for something like cars.

TS,

TSLA has always been on a tightrope with crosswinds, but I doubt employee poaching will get them to tip. Main reasons:

1. When you're prime hunting grounds for Apple and Uber, recruiting new top talent is automatic.
2. The innovations needed for the Model 3 platform have already been worked out in the S and X.
3. Even those innovations were incremental and not revolutionary, so TSLA will enjoy lots of skill transfer (even new innovation potential) when re-poaching from traditional automakers.
4. The core team is in this for blood and un-poachable, up to and including the chief architect.

Speaking of the loyalty employees may or may not feel for the chief architect/CEO, his biographer wrote:

I'm not sure where you're sourcing your Musk psych profile, but according to Jim Cantrell, who co-founded SpaceX with Elon before giving up on it as an impossible task: