Liberty

EV1 only existed because Californian regulations forced it (same with the Toyota RAV4 EV). GM killed it as soon as the regulation changed (this is documented in many places, including the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? -- there's a sequel, Revenge of the Electric Car that has a lot of what Musk went through at Tesla during 2008-2009). Musk actually says in interview that this was one of his reasons for getting into EVs; when he saw the EV1 he was really happy and thought they would keep getting better (EV2, EV3, EV4), but when GM killed it (and people held a candle-lit vigil for a GM product), he knew he'd have to do it himself. As for the Volt, Bob Lutz, the father of the Volt at GM (he was vice-chairman, now working at Via Motors iirc), said in interview that the reason why GM made the volt was because they saw what Tesla was doing.

Very insightful posts, textual and t-bone. Makes me even less interested in SHLD for the long term since retail will likely keep ESL handcuffed for a long long time.

There seems to be lots of factors, the front crumple zone being one, the high mass of the battery at a very low center of gravity being another one. But they did extremely well in tests that didn't have anything to do with the engine (roof strenght, side impacts, rollover). It just seems like an extremely well engineered car all around.

I don't think it's been posted here (sorry if it has), but right before the Gigafactory announcement, Consumer Reports published it's Top Picks for 2014: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/04/top-picks-2014/index.htm The Model S is "Best Overall Car", and that's after it received the highest mark ever earlier this year in a review (99/100) and a later consumer satisfaction survey of Tesla owners also gave it 99/100 (these almost make it seem like they have a policy against perfect scores...).

There are certainly pros and cons to having a legacy ICE business. It's a very overused word, but electric cars might turn out to be a disruptive technology because all the legacy players have such high investments in the old tech which is profitable, and at first EV certainly looked inferior in all ways so most didn't bother and missed the boat, and because to properly sell an EV, you need to showcase its advantages over ICEs. Do GM and Ford dealers really want to talk down their other products when they try to sell an EV? Do they want to push vehicles that require almost none of the high-margin maintenance that they make their living on? (Tesla has said that they will provide all maintenance at cost, making no money on it). That's why Tesla feels it needs to have its own stores and not a traditional dealers network, and that's why dealers associations are lobbying to block Tesla in many states. Traditional car makers have invested so much in steel-stamping equipment and ICE research and supply chain, transmission tech, etc... To truly make competitive EVs they need to go into aluminum and/or carbon fiber and relearn all that propulsion stuff (motors, power electronics, all the software that controls everything, 1-speed transmissions, etc). Tesla is years ahead on that stuff, and the ICE business is still very profitable so there's no real urgency to make a big change (kind of like how Kodak saw digital coming and even invented part of it, but it couldn't truly make the switch and dump its very profitable business for a less profitable one, even if they knew it was probably the future). Even Carlos Goshn at Renault-Nissan, probably the person who made the biggest bet on EVs aside from Musk, didn't really go all the way. Why didn't he make an electric Altima or G37 rather than something more like a Versa? It's almost like he didn't want to compete against his other main products too much.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/most-admired/ #1 most admired company in the world for 7th year in a row. Berkshire also ranked well.

Thanks for the additional details, Makisig. I appreciate it.

Good luck with that: http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/712/has-a-200-mpg-carburetor-been-suppressed-by-the-oil-industry

I think you're spot-on with the premium thing. It's been a pet-peeve of mine for years: Auto journalists in their reviews will talk about how cool fancy wheels, leather interiors, sunroofs, big engines, etc, are. They'll never try to economically justify these things. And that makes sense: They don't save you money, but you pay extra because you like these things and what they do. But as soon as these same auto reviewers get inside a Prius or a Volt, they compare them to the closest gasoline car they can find and complain about how these cars will "never pay for themselves!" or will only produce small savings or whatever. Well, there are a lot of people out there who want to drive electric cars or hybrids because they like the concept, it's a good thing to them, it provides value in itself over any monetary benefits. So when comparing a Tesla to a similar gasoline car, not only should you shave off many thousands off the price because of the fuel savings, but it probably also makes sense to add more for what people are ready to pay extra to be in an electric car (many psychological reasons for that: to some it's not burning oil, to others it's the cutting edge tech, to others it's an added layer of exclusivity, or a mix of these, etc).

Samsung taking steps to be less dependent on Google with their Tizen fork: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/hands-on-with-samsungs-tizen-os-a-impressively-capable-android-clone/ Smart of them to build this, even if just as an insurance policy or way to pressure google in giving them better terms and more control.

Remember that Tesla makes electric cars, though. A lot fewer moving parts than in a gasoline car (not for nothing that they have enough space for a trunk in the back and in the front). If they can bring the battery's cost way down, that takes care of a big chunk of their production costs.

btw, they said the gigafactory would reduce battery costs 30% after the first year. I expect they'll keep going down as they ramp up to full production in 2020. Next gen car will aim to be "mass-market". It's Musk's ultimate goal. It'll probably be at the higher end of the mass-market, but if you take into account the fuel savings, a 35k Tesla will compete with cheaper models and will probably be much more attractive to most people that the average car that sells for 25k-30k if we extrapolate from the Model S' reception so far. Musk said Gen III would be 'in family' with the S but smaller. Doesn't mean the stock isn't overvalued -- I don't know how to value this company -- but I'm certainly rooting for them to succeed, especially because they're catalyzing the whole industry to follow them and up their game, and so can punch above their weight that way.

That's true, but everything else is different. Blackberry was a failing company and one of the only things left with value was BBM, so trying to grow BBM even at the expense of the devices might have been smart. But why would Apple grow iMessage at the expense of its devices where they make money? Apple would gain nothing by giving iMessage to android users. It wouldn't sell more iPhone, in fact it might mean fewer sales. The iPhone already has all of Android's messaging apps (none of import are android only), but android doesn't have iMessage. It's one more reason to get an iPhone. It's not like Apple will ever monetize iMessage directly with ads. Its value is in selling hardware, just like iOS (unless you think Apple should also license iOS to other companies - another thing they'll never do).

Everybody's talking about Google because they demo their stuff all the time, but I don't think Tesla needs to partner with them for self-driving car. They already have that technology, and Musk said he thought they had the best tech in that area of any other player (including Google). They call it 'autopilot' though, so people think more of autopilots in planes, rather than a 'driverless' car, which sounds scarier.

I don't think they'll ever do that. No reason for them. People can install any other messaging app on their device if they want to, so it's not like the iPhone is a walled garden, but iMessage must stay something that adds value for the iOS/OSX ecosystem, and that stops being the case if it's multi-platform.

It's one clear indication that I'm not as smart as some posters here who always stay far away from threads like these, regardless of how ridiculous some of the things posted are. I'm working on self-control, but sometimes I just can't resist. I'm trying, and will try harder in the future :)

Gigafactory details: http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/gigafactory.pdf + http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-announces-16-billion-convertible-notes-offering

Telegram had a massive spike in popularity that seemed to coincide with the WhatsApp acquisition and then the outage that they had. Good for them to capitalize on it. I've been wanting to try LINE, which is very popular in Japan and part of Asia. They seem to have an interesting model. I'll have to check out Telegram too.

I never downplayed the benefits, I'm not for stopping the use of all fossil fuels overnight, and I realize that there was probably no other way for the civilization to reach this point than by harnessing buried hydrocarbons. But now that we know more and have other techs, I want to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy. This is different from a lot of cost-benefit analyses because the harm accumulates and can become more or less irreversible. It's not like "well, cars kill some people in accidents, but overall the benefits of the extra mobility is greater than the harm caused so it's worth it". Each of those deaths and maimings are independent, they don't compound each other. What we're facing is more like living on Easter Island a long time ago and cutting all the trees one by one. You can say: "Well, we make fire with the trees and cook stuff, that's more useful than having a tree still standing", but over time you run out of trees and the island can't support your civilization anymore but by then you can't really do much about it anymore because it's too late... Maybe it takes a really long time to get there and people don't really notice as it happens, but the end result is still very real.

1) That's not a scientific argument. The climate doesn't care about our politics, and what we're doing has an impact regardless of whether it's politically convenient or inconvenient for some. 2) There are many ways to attack this problems, some I probably dislike just as much as you do. It's just lazy thinking and strawman-building to act like everybody who agrees with the science on earth's climate must agree on everything that anyone has ever put forward about it. I mean, Buffett's a democrat, right? Is he exactly the same as all other democrats? Are all republicans like Munger? Labels dangerously distort reality. Personally, I'd be happy if all taxes on incomes, payrolls and consumption went away and were replaced by various taxes on toxins and pollutants that ratcheted up as our production of those went down. There are problems with this, but there are problems with the current system too. A carbon tax could be entirely revenue-neutral with exactly the same amount cut in taxes elsewhere as is raised there. Right now fossil fuels are getting a hidden subsidy (on top of the non-hidden ones) because they don't have to pay for the damage that they do, but we'll all have to pay for it over time. If they did pay, prices would be higher and the switch to and development of cleaner sources of energy would be much faster than it is now. Believe me, I wish burning all this fossil fuel didn't have negative impacts. Things would be much simpler. But we don't get to pick our reality.

What you need to understand is that it just keeps going. We're pumping more carbon in the atmosphere, and most of it doesn't go away for decades if not centuries. It accumulates. And the rate at which we're adding is also accelerating. It's not about "oh well, who knows, maybe hotter is better?", it's about creating an out-of-control feedback loop. Even if we get to temps that are better than what we have now, we won't stay there, we'll keep warming unless we make a big change. There's so much inertia in the system that by the time it's obvious to all that we're in deep trouble, it'll be way too late to change course. And almost all species on earth have evolved within a certain range and can't just run the A/C or wear different clothes like us (and for those who think "they'll just adapt", realize that most climate changes happen over millennia if not millions of years, we're doing it in the range of 100s of years)... Climate is hard for the same reason investing is hard; it requires long-term thinking, and humans aren't wired that way. I'm all for market mechanisms where there's a market, but there isn't with our planet's climate (you get concentrated benefits today, and diffuse harm way down the line). It's like hoping market forces are enough to make sure we avoid nuclear war. What if it happened during the cold war. Would you sue those who caused it to make it right? Would you just let the magic market make sure bombs are in safe hands? Well, there's even less price mechanism for having a planet that stays within temperature ranges that are hospitable to current life. At least with war, you get immediate feedback that tells you it's bad and people can understand that.. Most of the opponents of climate science seem to work from their conclusion backwards: I don't want socialism, I don't want my liberties to be curtailed, so I believe that there's no warming, or if there is, it'll all be all right anyway. Let me google search for someone with a PHD who thinks the same way. Well, I don't want socialism either (I've read Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Rockwell, Mises, etc), and I like being free thank you very much. But I'm rational enough to realize that a screwed up planet leads to a worse future than a more stable and hospitable planet, and that to make a dent on that problem requires large scale changes that won't happen on their own because there isn't a market mechanism here. There's way more than enough coal and oil in the ground to screw the future many times over. We can't wait to run out of it, we must make cleaner technologies more cost competitive so there isn't the need to burn it all (and ideally we'd develop ways to suck carbon out of the air). That's why I'm for removing fossil fuel subsidies and putting a price on carbon that ratchets up over time (to internalize the real costs that are currently not priced in burning the stuff -- you can even make it revenue-neutral and cut income and corporate taxes by the same amount), which should encourage a fairly rapid switch to things like solar, uranium, thorium, wind, hydro, EGS, as well as big investments in energy efficiency (we waste so much), the electrification of transportation, reforestation and other carbon sinks, etc.

Sorry, that wasn't clear in your post. But Hubbard's views on psychiatry are about as supported as Crichton's views on climate. Someone who knew just enough about a topic to be dangerous... Sure: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_arg.htm He's apparently one of the guys paid by big oil too: "Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."" (you can follow reference links for each thing, and they then link to more references if you want to dig deeper) That guy certainly has more credentials than most, but that's not what matters, what matters is the validity of his arguments. I don't see much that is convincing, and apparently the experts don't either. Nobody disagrees that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, or that models aren't perfect. That's weak. What matters is what's different about this cycle (much faster without obvious natural causes like supervolcanoe eruption or whatever, with a fast rising of carbon PPM in the atmosphere because we put lots of gigatonnes of it there since the industrial revolution), etc. It just boggles my mind that anyone would think that we could put billions and billions of tons of a gas that is known to trap infrared heat in the atmosphere, and that nothing would happen. It's like if a company's earnings rise year after year after year... Maybe the daily fluctuations and random factors would cause a lot of noise, but all else being equal the long-term overall trend would be up and up.

Another way to say that he had no qualifications or experience in climate science whatsoever. The only reason anybody ever listened to him on this is because he became famous writing fiction -- it's the shoe button complex that Munger warned about. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/ I'm sorry, I know I said I'd stay out of it, but rolling out Michael Crichton was more than I could handle. I don't know what it is about climate science that makes everybody think they can improvise themselves an expert. People wouldn't do that with marine biology or aerospatial engineering or particle physics. Yet any schmuck who thinks about the weather thinks they can know more than experts who have spent decades studying the data. It's like citing Ron Hubbard as a neuroscience authority against someone who refers MITECS...

According to this: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-GY7JI/2847738156x7456752x639261/e9981740-ba53-457a-92d1-f3fcd1eb9ccf/Q4-12%20Conf%20Call%20Slides%20-%20LIC%20-%20final.pdf QVC had OIBDA of 1,828m in FY2012. Remove maybe 200-250m for capex and you get pretty close to the other presentation's 1,582m.

Netflix was already paying for its bandwidth, though. Now it's paying twice on its side when it comes to Comcast and the customer on the other end is paying once against for their data plan.