Your pattern is wrong about hydrogen and need a recharge station for car and probably an AC/DC converter.
Hydrogen first steps are right but should be produced on site. Delivery is too dangerous and expensive. Main issue on hydrogen are big loss during conversion. Electricity are the batteries with a lot of weight and capacity decrease over time. Both are not really safe after a crash.
-21.06% in one day. This was fun to watch.
From 500$ to 330$ in 5 days lol.
That’s why I don’t have single stocks. Volatility would kill me.
If your original purchase price was $300 (or $60 post-split), you would probably feel more like “easy come, easy go”. The question is, what do we do if the price goes below $200. Before the split, we agreed we gonna buy if it ever goes below $1000.
By the way, I don’t appreciate the Schadenfreude surrounding this stock. It’s like you guys think it’s all a fraud and you don’t want electric cars, solar roofs, etc. I don’t mean it’s wrong to be skeptical, but why gloat so much over each misfortune?
I will buy some again before the battery day, but I also think the slide down the hill is not yet over… Maybe in a week or so.
It’s not misfortune but unjustified and overblown hype.
I think you have to discern between the product, the business and the stock.
Tesla products : The consensus here is that in general Tesla are great cars. I won’t deny this: there would not be such an enthusiasm if the cars were not great. Solar tiles are not the same story however, as many clients are not happy with their solar roof and it shows in the number of MW installed which shrinked severely over time.
Tesla, the business: You can make great products and still have a non profitable business. Tesla’s core business (selling EV) is loss making. The only reason they posted a profit over the last 4 quarters is because of the regulatory carbon emission credits they received from other automakers, and their CFO admitted in the last earning call that they don’t expect to receive any in the next quarters. So they will likely post losses for the next year.
Add to this that:
Tesla, the stock is yet at another level of bonkers. At this price (even 20% lower), people still expect that Tesla is going to conquer the world and be among the most profitable companies the world has ever seen. That’s one scenario, which given the industry Tesla is operating in, is very unlikely. I hear that people say that TSLA is a software and batteries company, but they still chose to bundle this into one of the worst industry ever, i.e the car industry (at least they did not choose airlines). And their profit margins reflect this a lot. I would say the scenario implied by the price has maybe 5% chance to occur, with 95% that TSLA will stay a mediocre business.
But if this was the only thing i would not have such schadenfreude. What really disgusts me is all the sell-side industry pushing the stock like there is no tomorrow. Analysts raising their estimates to $700, not because of fundamentals but because the price has gone up. Institutionals like SoftBank taking advantage of it by creating a huge gamma squeeze trade via OTM call options (paired with the S&P decision, this one was the second critical information of the weekend). And retail investors happily oblige.
I think this is a good reminder that stock picking is still stock picking, even if you really like the company and what it does.
I think we should not forget that what Tesla is trying to achieve has never been done before. They are not so much a software company, as an engineering company with the approach to engineering of a software company. It requires huge amounts of money, but their innovations will stay with us.
The stock may be overpriced, yes. Tesla may never capitalize on their innovations, or they may run out of money before they become truly profitable. But their progress has been impressive and I hope they will have the money to continue. It’s not all just a powerpoint presentation, you see real progress in their products.
The business: yes, they are not honest at all times. Probably, if they were playing fair, they would have been long bankrupt. I am willing to keep a blind eye on the shenanigans if I see progress. In the end, a long term investor would not like to see everybody with a shorter patience jump ship after Tesla would announce they still need to invest billions and full self driving will not come before 2025.
The products as was said, are a real added value to our lives. Powerful electric cars with long range and a network of superchargers is something that has not existed a few years ago. If they keep on innovating, who knows what they can achieve? Another success story of Musk is SpaceX, which shows he’s really capable of doing things nobody thought possible.
So what are the odds that tesla cars becomes mass market before the rest of the industry shifts to electric. From what I understand the timeline for electric in europe is in the next 10-20 years (Europe is already at 10% electric cars sales).
My impression is that tesla did not necessarily have much of an advantage, it’s just that car manufacturers did not care as the market wasn’t profitable (as shown by tesla). Now that it starts to be, the competition is not going to wait. For example VW launched their first electric platform (also licensed to other car manufacturers) and has more in the pipeline.
What’s more likely a few years from now: tesla market share becomes significant, or electric cars becomes a large fraction of “legacy” car manufacturers sales?
(Personally I don’t care much, I just want to see electrification happen 
tesla contributions was definitely in making one of the first nice looking/usable electric car, it helped early adopters, but really not sure their mass market plan will work once other manufacturers go all-in, don’t they have order of magnitude more manufacturing capacity?)
I think electric cars become viable largely thanks to Tesla. Legacy carmakers had half-assed attempts at making electric cars. It’s almost as if they sabotaged themselves. Electric cars produced by them were often weak, ugly, boring, more of a freak car than a cool car.
I don’t know how fast can legacy carmakers adapt. Can they really just invest some money and quickly transform their businesses?
Btw, VW is regarded as the one legacy carmaker who is taking the EV threat seriously. The CEO of VW even met recently with Elon Musk. Who knows what they discussed
No other automaker can do over the air update like tesla. Porsche tried and can do it for some things but big update requires you to go to the dealer.
OTA are a bigger deal than people realize. If every year you have the best possible adaptive cruise control etc, this changes how the 2nd hand market works.
Legacy automaker cannot really do that. Ford has 80 different control units on its pick-up trucks. Most of them cannot be upgraded. But there is a lot of business aspects like contracts with suppliers etc that are stopping existing manufacturer to adopt true OTA capabilities.
The push Tesla gave to the industry is incredible only even for OTA, not even electrification
Which legacy car makers aren’t planning for the electric transition?
The difference with tesla is that those manufacturers have an existing (hopefully) profitable business so they have to correctly time the transition since they can’t just bleed money for 10 years. But they know that most likely by 2030 the transition would have to be done or at least well underway: Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles - Wikipedia
This might mean going through pushing some hybrids along the way as well (at least during the transition) not satisfying for the purists but they run a business 
Tesla has less than 10% of new sales in Europe, while the market is growing 100% y/y: Sales - Electric Vehicle News and Trends | InsideEVs what strategy do they have to gain more market share? (cheaper through scale is the obvious, but that’s something that legacy manufacturers already know how to do, and margins are slim as well, so not sure it supports their valuation).
Though personally I hate the fact you have pay-to-drive features, I guess that’s unavoidable…
I wonder how people would feel if e.g. they had to pay extra to have bluetooth on their phone (even as all the hardware would be there).
that’s a false analogy, since bluetooth is not really an application but more a connection layer. More appropriate would be: “paying for a navigation software with geolocation, although the gps is already there.”
My understanding is that it’s actual physical capabilities that are capped (e.g. different acceleration profile enforced by software).
Also navigation software isn’t such a great analogy since the application layer on mobile phone is somewhat open, the phone provides a gps and you have a choice of which apps to use it with. It’s not like there’s a set of cruise control app to chose from
I remember the times when AMD used to produce an Athlon CPU and then they would just cut off a core or something like that, and sell it under two prices. Then some people would unlock that extra power with a pencil
Also, there are already some companies which allow you to unlock the Performance features in your Tesla, but recently Tesla has begun fighting them. You start your Tesla and you see a notification: “unrecognized vehicle modification detected”.
The laser cut bridges were used to modify core voltage and multiplier on single core Duron and Athlon CPUs. Bridging some of them with a pencil would reconfigure the operating conditions.
I remember O/Cing my Althon XP 1700+ (1466 MHz) to 2503 MHz … that was blazing fast back in year 2002. Nice times those were
Yeah I think those were (are) common. I think there’s a reliability component to it though, they’d typically not have all chips pass Q&A for all cores + high frequency. So if you have a “didn’t pass QA” chip, it’s a bit at your own risk
That said I can also imagine that if they somehow improve the process, more chips pass QA but they still decide to disable them in order to increase revenue (similar to tesla).
