[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by miamiten

There is something to your interpretation that is more in-line with what Elon envisioned from the beginning. It's also part of why they're actually struggling internally and appear to be successful externally. As much as some want to question the why and the significance of BMW i losing these particular individuals, Tesla has had and continues to have a much greater loss rate when it comes to core component/division leaders and engineers.

Tesla as a whole was envisioned to be foremost a component supplier. The "car company" was intended as a way display the capabilities these components provide and create a new consumer segment to displace the expenses. Carbon credit sales were to be a method of incentivizing the component supply sales and partnership agreements rather than a direct revenue source. The concept, while ingenious in its intent, doesn't translate well to results. It is this point where Tesla's car venture has been forced to adapt at significant expense, the incursion of component development on its own, while disguising the risk. Simultaneously, it's forcing them to hedge these short term methods on extremely risky long term programs, with a product renewal plan focused on updates to the systems while leaving the wrapper mostly untouched, with the hope the component supply aspect will eventually be realized. This doesn't work for any other well established automakers though. Tesla has a market; a growing one at that. But it's too soon to call it successful because it relies far too much on the existing engrained consumer habits and expectations. Unlike most other consumer goods, automobiles are still very much in their first generation.

This latest round of adaptations by Tesla comes with the highest risk. It's at a price point to grab the attention of wealthier early adopters and their offspring, while opening up the product to a demographic that tends to be reliant on subsidies to follow through on financial commitments. This latter subset is also more attracted by the wow factor and less cautious with finances. Any car company who offered a non-commitment reservation offer, to secure another reservation position for a new product would have even greater results.

The WTO, while truly being more of a nuisance rather than an effective regulatory entity, is a big white elephant. They have the potential to inflict significant damage to complete alternative vehicle powertrain implementation. So far, there has only been one infrastructure investigation simply because it was the only one that exists. Tesla has taken on the risk that it can beat out independent exposure to WTO member agreements and how the public/privatization mechanism becomes regulated.

I'll admit I don't know much about the battery design that will be produced at the Gigafactory, but I do know the current Tesla battery is a simple C-cell design that is a common EV battery component. Tesla and other manufacturers design the cell array and cooling configurations to best suit the vehicle battery form factor and charging/discharging capability. GM on the other hand with design of the Volt's battery, working with battery partner LG, has implemented a "prism" cell design what allows for excellent charge/discharge (current flow) along with cooling efficiency and battery compactness. The GM/LG cell design seems more advanced than the current Tesla design, but again I don't know all the details. The point is that I don't think Tesla "owns" the engineering of EV design as much as everyone thinks.

What I've not heard of lately is Tesla's statements that it will not enforce its patent rights and basically threw its patents to "open source" status. This move was in line to what you said above, which was to enhance Tesla as a component manufacturer basis. Tesla has stated that the Gigafactory is mainly to supply the EV and solar industries with batteries. To me the open source business model didn't make much sense.

Then there is the issue that lithium is a conflict mineral...