Tesla Model 3 revealed
Discussion
Flooble said:
Really? I can remember two years before the iPhone I had a Windows Mobile phone which did everything the iPhone did when it came out.
I apologise.Windows phones were just such abject failure that I didn't even consider them!
So, what was it about the original iphone that made it so popular where Windows failed?
Was it the ecosystem?
Flooble said:
Really? I can remember two years before the iPhone I had a Windows Mobile phone which did everything the iPhone did when it came out. The standard Windows Mobile interface did suck (Bill Gates obsession with a Start Menu on everything, and the assumption you would use a stylus) but I just installed a touch-friendly skin and was sorted.
Did you also have a Zune by any chance 
I ended up with a Palm Treo 650 before I finally got a iPhone, shame Palm went under, the Treo series was just about getting the UI right. From memory Windows Mobile looked like an awful mess, I wasn't even remotely tempted to touch it.
walm said:
Flooble said:
Really? I can remember two years before the iPhone I had a Windows Mobile phone which did everything the iPhone did when it came out.
I apologise.Windows phones were just such abject failure that I didn't even consider them!
So, what was it about the original iphone that made it so popular where Windows failed?
Was it the ecosystem?
a) Windows Mobile's abysmal, truly awful, standard User Interface
b) Microsoft releasing multiple versions of the OS (WM2000, WM2003, WM5.1, WM6, WM - oh I give up) all of which were slightly different and thus trying to develop "Apps" was a nightmare as you had no idea if the rug would be pulled from under your feet. Plus they had Windows Mobile, Windows Smartphone, Windows CE ... all a confused mess
c) The installation process for new software was cumbersome, and to find it you basically had to google and hope it wasn't malware
This resulted in an initial turn-off for normal people who wouldn't reskin the UI (a) and App Developers flocked to the iPhone in droves because of (b) and (c), despite Apple's development process also being like sticking needles in your eyes.
So I'd say the App Store was the killer feature.
That and Apple Fanboism/hype machine. I know several people who bought the first iPhone unseen, purely on the hype. Oh how I laughed when they were in month 20 of their contract in late 2009 and still using a 2G GPRS heap of rubbish :-)
I'd be very surprised if Tesla got bought out any time soon. They don't own any IP that prevents other manufacturers from producing EVs (so they're of no real value to existing car companies) and their market valuation is many, many times the amount of investment needed to 'create a Tesla', so they're of no real value to Apple or any other would-be entrant to the market. Some of the big players may well be willing them to fail (or at least hit that cash-flow crisis point), at which point they'd be bought for fire sale prices, but otherwise, they're not a good option to buy.
Flooble said:
walm said:
Flooble said:
Really? I can remember two years before the iPhone I had a Windows Mobile phone which did everything the iPhone did when it came out.
I apologise.Windows phones were just such abject failure that I didn't even consider them!
So, what was it about the original iphone that made it so popular where Windows failed?
Was it the ecosystem?
a) Windows Mobile's abysmal, truly awful, standard User Interface
b) Microsoft releasing multiple versions of the OS (WM2000, WM2003, WM5.1, WM6, WM - oh I give up) all of which were slightly different and thus trying to develop "Apps" was a nightmare as you had no idea if the rug would be pulled from under your feet. Plus they had Windows Mobile, Windows Smartphone, Windows CE ... all a confused mess
c) The installation process for new software was cumbersome, and to find it you basically had to google and hope it wasn't malware
This resulted in an initial turn-off for normal people who wouldn't reskin the UI (a) and App Developers flocked to the iPhone in droves because of (b) and (c), despite Apple's development process also being like sticking needles in your eyes.
So I'd say the App Store was the killer feature.
That and Apple Fanboism/hype machine. I know several people who bought the first iPhone unseen, purely on the hype. Oh how I laughed when they were in month 20 of their contract in late 2009 and still using a 2G GPRS heap of rubbish :-)
I was an early adopter of the compac ipaq. It did pretty much everything i currently use my phone for other than the phone, camera and satnav features. i surfed the net, watched movies, played music, did email, wrote docs etc. For a short time I had a company xda as well.
Apple came along and added simplicity and brand, and a bunch of other desireable features. Nothing was new, but as a package it was a great piece of well thought out kit. Previous hand held devices were aimed at geeks and business users. The iphone was aimed at the general public.
Mr Will said:
Shenzhen already has the worlds largest fleet of electric taxis - locally manufactured by BVD. They aren't flash but they are everywhere in the city and seem to work well enough.
Shenzhen also has the advantage of being a city constructed nearly from scratch.30 years ago it was a small fishing town.
skyrover said:
Mr Will said:
Shenzhen already has the worlds largest fleet of electric taxis - locally manufactured by BVD. They aren't flash but they are everywhere in the city and seem to work well enough.
Shenzhen also has the advantage of being a city constructed nearly from scratch.30 years ago it was a small fishing town.
Just to add to the 'vague memories of the iPhone' discussion, I was working in the telcoms industry at the time and...
The big thing at the time was that the industry was owned by the network operators. If you wanted a phone, you chose a network operator and they sold you a phone locked to their network. Networks were big and expensive and in direct competition with each other, and they tried to distinguish themselves by offering different (and incompatible) 'extra services'. At the time, if you wanted 'internet' you went through the network portal to the specific subset of services they chose to offer.
The consequence was that companies like Nokia, who had grown up through offering the physical hardware to the network operators, didn't produce a single phone model that was sold globally. Instead they produced individual models that suited the particular features being offered by each network operator. So you'd have a 'Cellnet' phone that supported a WAP portal, and an AT&T phone that supported something entirely different. The network operators expected to own everything and build walled gardens, so even something as simple as an app had to be completely network specific, and each network would distribute it in completely different (and incompatible) ways. The idea of a global app store was completely alien to companies that had grown up trying to stop customers jumping ship to a different network.
So Nokia had dozens of different departments, each one dealing with variations of the same technology. Phones for North America were different from phones for Europe, so they'd have different operating systems, different hardware and so on..
Into all this came Apple, with the radical idea of selling direct to the customer, of having one single phone that was sold globally, and of providing a single app store for all those phones. The phone wasn't technically that much advanced over the competition, but they only had to make one rather than dozens of slightly different models for each operator. Anyone wanting to provide an app could do it through a single store, without having to make individual deals with each and every network operator on the planet.
There are whole MBA courses about why Nokia failed, but one of the main factors was that all of the dozens of different departments that had been set up to deal with the dozens of different network operators could not come together to produce a single product. Nokia was fragmented just like the network operators, and couldn't move as a single company. Right until the end, they even had three completely different operating systems they could put on phones - they couldn't even agree within the company on which to go with. There were some technically amazing products developed by Nokia in response to Apple, but rather than coming together as one 'super phone', you could get a neat feature on one device, and another neat feature on another...
Consumers voted with their feet. Without walled gardens, the iPhone was a consistent experience, developers could write apps that 'just worked' and could actually deliver them to paying customers and so on. Nokia was slow to respond not because it was a arrogant monolithic company, but because it was a hundred bickering departments all trying to fight each other to produce product.
That's where the comparison with Tesla disrupting the market fails. If the car market was like the phone market that Apple disrupted, you'd have only three brands of petrol station, and the only way you could buy a car would be from a petrol station that would then require that you could only fill up from them. As it is, the car market is quite competitive. You can buy your fuel from anyone that can be bothered to sell it. Anyone can start a car company and there's no lock in to which roads you use, or where you buy fuel. You don't buy direct from the manufacturer, but from a dealer which is free to offer more than one brand of car and most importantly provides protection against that car company going to the wall. Servicing can be done by independents and so on. The only advantage car companies have over new entrants is sheer economies of scale. They have absolutely no reason to particularly favour one fuel type or engine technology over another, apart from the number of cars they think they can sell.
Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
The big thing at the time was that the industry was owned by the network operators. If you wanted a phone, you chose a network operator and they sold you a phone locked to their network. Networks were big and expensive and in direct competition with each other, and they tried to distinguish themselves by offering different (and incompatible) 'extra services'. At the time, if you wanted 'internet' you went through the network portal to the specific subset of services they chose to offer.
The consequence was that companies like Nokia, who had grown up through offering the physical hardware to the network operators, didn't produce a single phone model that was sold globally. Instead they produced individual models that suited the particular features being offered by each network operator. So you'd have a 'Cellnet' phone that supported a WAP portal, and an AT&T phone that supported something entirely different. The network operators expected to own everything and build walled gardens, so even something as simple as an app had to be completely network specific, and each network would distribute it in completely different (and incompatible) ways. The idea of a global app store was completely alien to companies that had grown up trying to stop customers jumping ship to a different network.
So Nokia had dozens of different departments, each one dealing with variations of the same technology. Phones for North America were different from phones for Europe, so they'd have different operating systems, different hardware and so on..
Into all this came Apple, with the radical idea of selling direct to the customer, of having one single phone that was sold globally, and of providing a single app store for all those phones. The phone wasn't technically that much advanced over the competition, but they only had to make one rather than dozens of slightly different models for each operator. Anyone wanting to provide an app could do it through a single store, without having to make individual deals with each and every network operator on the planet.
There are whole MBA courses about why Nokia failed, but one of the main factors was that all of the dozens of different departments that had been set up to deal with the dozens of different network operators could not come together to produce a single product. Nokia was fragmented just like the network operators, and couldn't move as a single company. Right until the end, they even had three completely different operating systems they could put on phones - they couldn't even agree within the company on which to go with. There were some technically amazing products developed by Nokia in response to Apple, but rather than coming together as one 'super phone', you could get a neat feature on one device, and another neat feature on another...
Consumers voted with their feet. Without walled gardens, the iPhone was a consistent experience, developers could write apps that 'just worked' and could actually deliver them to paying customers and so on. Nokia was slow to respond not because it was a arrogant monolithic company, but because it was a hundred bickering departments all trying to fight each other to produce product.
That's where the comparison with Tesla disrupting the market fails. If the car market was like the phone market that Apple disrupted, you'd have only three brands of petrol station, and the only way you could buy a car would be from a petrol station that would then require that you could only fill up from them. As it is, the car market is quite competitive. You can buy your fuel from anyone that can be bothered to sell it. Anyone can start a car company and there's no lock in to which roads you use, or where you buy fuel. You don't buy direct from the manufacturer, but from a dealer which is free to offer more than one brand of car and most importantly provides protection against that car company going to the wall. Servicing can be done by independents and so on. The only advantage car companies have over new entrants is sheer economies of scale. They have absolutely no reason to particularly favour one fuel type or engine technology over another, apart from the number of cars they think they can sell.
Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
The introduction of Apple to this thread meets with this timely article regarding the rumours of an apple "iCar"
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/will-apple-ma...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/will-apple-ma...
Tuna said:
Just to add to the 'vague memories of the iPhone' discussion, I was working in the telcoms industry at the time and...
The big thing at the time was that the industry was owned by the network operators. If you wanted a phone, you chose a network operator and they sold you a phone locked to their network. Networks were big and expensive and in direct competition with each other, and they tried to distinguish themselves by offering different (and incompatible) 'extra services'. At the time, if you wanted 'internet' you went through the network portal to the specific subset of services they chose to offer.
The consequence was that companies like Nokia, who had grown up through offering the physical hardware to the network operators, didn't produce a single phone model that was sold globally. Instead they produced individual models that suited the particular features being offered by each network operator. So you'd have a 'Cellnet' phone that supported a WAP portal, and an AT&T phone that supported something entirely different. The network operators expected to own everything and build walled gardens, so even something as simple as an app had to be completely network specific, and each network would distribute it in completely different (and incompatible) ways. The idea of a global app store was completely alien to companies that had grown up trying to stop customers jumping ship to a different network.
So Nokia had dozens of different departments, each one dealing with variations of the same technology. Phones for North America were different from phones for Europe, so they'd have different operating systems, different hardware and so on..
Into all this came Apple, with the radical idea of selling direct to the customer, of having one single phone that was sold globally, and of providing a single app store for all those phones. The phone wasn't technically that much advanced over the competition, but they only had to make one rather than dozens of slightly different models for each operator. Anyone wanting to provide an app could do it through a single store, without having to make individual deals with each and every network operator on the planet.
There are whole MBA courses about why Nokia failed, but one of the main factors was that all of the dozens of different departments that had been set up to deal with the dozens of different network operators could not come together to produce a single product. Nokia was fragmented just like the network operators, and couldn't move as a single company. Right until the end, they even had three completely different operating systems they could put on phones - they couldn't even agree within the company on which to go with. There were some technically amazing products developed by Nokia in response to Apple, but rather than coming together as one 'super phone', you could get a neat feature on one device, and another neat feature on another...
Consumers voted with their feet. Without walled gardens, the iPhone was a consistent experience, developers could write apps that 'just worked' and could actually deliver them to paying customers and so on. Nokia was slow to respond not because it was a arrogant monolithic company, but because it was a hundred bickering departments all trying to fight each other to produce product.
That's where the comparison with Tesla disrupting the market fails. If the car market was like the phone market that Apple disrupted, you'd have only three brands of petrol station, and the only way you could buy a car would be from a petrol station that would then require that you could only fill up from them. As it is, the car market is quite competitive. You can buy your fuel from anyone that can be bothered to sell it. Anyone can start a car company and there's no lock in to which roads you use, or where you buy fuel. You don't buy direct from the manufacturer, but from a dealer which is free to offer more than one brand of car and most importantly provides protection against that car company going to the wall. Servicing can be done by independents and so on. The only advantage car companies have over new entrants is sheer economies of scale. They have absolutely no reason to particularly favour one fuel type or engine technology over another, apart from the number of cars they think they can sell.
Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
I think that's a great post, thanks.The big thing at the time was that the industry was owned by the network operators. If you wanted a phone, you chose a network operator and they sold you a phone locked to their network. Networks were big and expensive and in direct competition with each other, and they tried to distinguish themselves by offering different (and incompatible) 'extra services'. At the time, if you wanted 'internet' you went through the network portal to the specific subset of services they chose to offer.
The consequence was that companies like Nokia, who had grown up through offering the physical hardware to the network operators, didn't produce a single phone model that was sold globally. Instead they produced individual models that suited the particular features being offered by each network operator. So you'd have a 'Cellnet' phone that supported a WAP portal, and an AT&T phone that supported something entirely different. The network operators expected to own everything and build walled gardens, so even something as simple as an app had to be completely network specific, and each network would distribute it in completely different (and incompatible) ways. The idea of a global app store was completely alien to companies that had grown up trying to stop customers jumping ship to a different network.
So Nokia had dozens of different departments, each one dealing with variations of the same technology. Phones for North America were different from phones for Europe, so they'd have different operating systems, different hardware and so on..
Into all this came Apple, with the radical idea of selling direct to the customer, of having one single phone that was sold globally, and of providing a single app store for all those phones. The phone wasn't technically that much advanced over the competition, but they only had to make one rather than dozens of slightly different models for each operator. Anyone wanting to provide an app could do it through a single store, without having to make individual deals with each and every network operator on the planet.
There are whole MBA courses about why Nokia failed, but one of the main factors was that all of the dozens of different departments that had been set up to deal with the dozens of different network operators could not come together to produce a single product. Nokia was fragmented just like the network operators, and couldn't move as a single company. Right until the end, they even had three completely different operating systems they could put on phones - they couldn't even agree within the company on which to go with. There were some technically amazing products developed by Nokia in response to Apple, but rather than coming together as one 'super phone', you could get a neat feature on one device, and another neat feature on another...
Consumers voted with their feet. Without walled gardens, the iPhone was a consistent experience, developers could write apps that 'just worked' and could actually deliver them to paying customers and so on. Nokia was slow to respond not because it was a arrogant monolithic company, but because it was a hundred bickering departments all trying to fight each other to produce product.
That's where the comparison with Tesla disrupting the market fails. If the car market was like the phone market that Apple disrupted, you'd have only three brands of petrol station, and the only way you could buy a car would be from a petrol station that would then require that you could only fill up from them. As it is, the car market is quite competitive. You can buy your fuel from anyone that can be bothered to sell it. Anyone can start a car company and there's no lock in to which roads you use, or where you buy fuel. You don't buy direct from the manufacturer, but from a dealer which is free to offer more than one brand of car and most importantly provides protection against that car company going to the wall. Servicing can be done by independents and so on. The only advantage car companies have over new entrants is sheer economies of scale. They have absolutely no reason to particularly favour one fuel type or engine technology over another, apart from the number of cars they think they can sell.
Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
There is one more reason why the iPhone was so successful, and it's a simple one. It was a beautiful, cool design. People who saw it, and touched it, and used it, fell in love with it, and wanted to own it. It looked like nothing else on the market.
IMHO this is why Tesla have succeeded in EVs where others have failed. Nobody ever looked at a Twizy and said "that's gorgeous, I simply must have one of those". Nor a G-Wiz, nor a Fluence, nor a Leaf. All are oddball designs that are designed to put distance between the EV and the rest of the range. On the other hand, a Tesla saloon looks cool. The exterior looks nice - admittedly not beautiful, but easy on the eye. The interior is lovely. The binnacle graphics, the huge screen, the modern feel...they make you want to own it before you've even driven it.
It's not to do with technology. The technology is nothing special at all. It's the design and the ownership experience. In that respect Musk has a good claim to be the heir of Jobs, and I agree with posters above that Apple would be a logical buyer of Tesla, although I still think GM would be a better fit.
IMHO this is why Tesla have succeeded in EVs where others have failed. Nobody ever looked at a Twizy and said "that's gorgeous, I simply must have one of those". Nor a G-Wiz, nor a Fluence, nor a Leaf. All are oddball designs that are designed to put distance between the EV and the rest of the range. On the other hand, a Tesla saloon looks cool. The exterior looks nice - admittedly not beautiful, but easy on the eye. The interior is lovely. The binnacle graphics, the huge screen, the modern feel...they make you want to own it before you've even driven it.
It's not to do with technology. The technology is nothing special at all. It's the design and the ownership experience. In that respect Musk has a good claim to be the heir of Jobs, and I agree with posters above that Apple would be a logical buyer of Tesla, although I still think GM would be a better fit.
AmitG said:
There is one more reason why the iPhone was so successful, and it's a simple one. It was a beautiful, cool design. People who saw it, and touched it, and used it, fell in love with it, and wanted to own it. It looked like nothing else on the market.
IMHO this is why Tesla have succeeded in EVs where others have failed. Nobody ever looked at a Twizy and said "that's gorgeous, I simply must have one of those". Nor a G-Wiz, nor a Fluence, nor a Leaf. All are oddball designs that are designed to put distance between the EV and the rest of the range. On the other hand, a Tesla saloon looks cool. The exterior looks nice - admittedly not beautiful, but easy on the eye. The interior is lovely. The binnacle graphics, the huge screen, the modern feel...they make you want to own it before you've even driven it.
It's not to do with technology. The technology is nothing special at all. It's the design and the ownership experience. In that respect Musk has a good claim to be the heir of Jobs, and I agree with posters above that Apple would be a logical buyer of Tesla, although I still think GM would be a better fit.
Nail on head, while the insider perspective by Tuna was interesting it wasn't why I and many of my friends bought an iphone. It was just a very slick, cool looking device. Some technology just seems ahead of it's time, using an iphone felt like I was in Star Trek land compared to the phones I'd used before and this is the reason why Tesla are doing well. The underlying technology might be similar but their product is just slicker then anyone else's. I had absolutely zero desire to own an EV car...until I saw a Tesla. Sadly the Model 3 isn't a great looker IMO but still better than nearly all the other available EV cars.IMHO this is why Tesla have succeeded in EVs where others have failed. Nobody ever looked at a Twizy and said "that's gorgeous, I simply must have one of those". Nor a G-Wiz, nor a Fluence, nor a Leaf. All are oddball designs that are designed to put distance between the EV and the rest of the range. On the other hand, a Tesla saloon looks cool. The exterior looks nice - admittedly not beautiful, but easy on the eye. The interior is lovely. The binnacle graphics, the huge screen, the modern feel...they make you want to own it before you've even driven it.
It's not to do with technology. The technology is nothing special at all. It's the design and the ownership experience. In that respect Musk has a good claim to be the heir of Jobs, and I agree with posters above that Apple would be a logical buyer of Tesla, although I still think GM would be a better fit.
Tuna said:
That's where the comparison with Tesla disrupting the market fails. If the car market was like the phone market that Apple disrupted, you'd have only three brands of petrol station, and the only way you could buy a car would be from a petrol station that would then require that you could only fill up from them. As it is, the car market is quite competitive. You can buy your fuel from anyone that can be bothered to sell it. Anyone can start a car company and there's no lock in to which roads you use, or where you buy fuel. You don't buy direct from the manufacturer, but from a dealer which is free to offer more than one brand of car and most importantly provides protection against that car company going to the wall. Servicing can be done by independents and so on. The only advantage car companies have over new entrants is sheer economies of scale. They have absolutely no reason to particularly favour one fuel type or engine technology over another, apart from the number of cars they think they can sell.
Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. The phone market pre Apple had lots of manufacturers with numerous models, several operators and many resellers. The operators were dominant and able to dictate terms to the other parties.Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
Apple managed to dictate it's own terms and carved out a very profitable portion of the market. The existing model continues however, more or less unchanged for the rest of the market.
The car market has many manufacturers, with numerous models, national importers, resellers and service agents. Dominance of the market is far more evenly spread, with some very large reseller groups, powerful importers and some very powerful manufacturers. Depending on the market segment terms are dictated by one or other of the participants.
The fuel aspect is simply a facilitator and has no ability to dictate terms for the current ICE market or EV market
Tesla is able to disrupt this by being sole manufacturer, importer, reseller and service agent. It has few models and complete control over the production, sales and maintenance of it's product. This allows far greater control of customer satisfaction, and as has been seen with it's current models, a much more direct and fast way to develop and upgrade it's products.
It can offer product improvements free of charge, installed overnight to existing customers and cars in away that has never been contemplated before by the industry. No doubt other manufactures will try to follow this, but given the existing structure, it will be hard to control and carry out.
It's real challenge is to hit a production level where it becomes profitable and then to continue to drive down costs while selling a premium product and thus extracting greater margins than the rest of the industry is accustomed to. Then it will have truly imitated Apple.
AmitG said:
There is one more reason why the iPhone was so successful, and it's a simple one. It was a beautiful, cool design. People who saw it, and touched it, and used it, fell in love with it, and wanted to own it. It looked like nothing else on the market.
IMHO this is why Tesla have succeeded in EVs where others have failed. Nobody ever looked at a Twizy and said "that's gorgeous, I simply must have one of those". Nor a G-Wiz, nor a Fluence, nor a Leaf. All are oddball designs that are designed to put distance between the EV and the rest of the range. On the other hand, a Tesla saloon looks cool. The exterior looks nice - admittedly not beautiful, but easy on the eye. The interior is lovely. The binnacle graphics, the huge screen, the modern feel...they make you want to own it before you've even driven it.
It's not to do with technology. The technology is nothing special at all. It's the design and the ownership experience. In that respect Musk has a good claim to be the heir of Jobs, and I agree with posters above that Apple would be a logical buyer of Tesla, although I still think GM would be a better fit.
Agreed. All the EV's to date have looked odd. Same goes for early hybrids. I also think ICE cars with a battery option will not attract early adopters. The car needs to be different, but in a good way.IMHO this is why Tesla have succeeded in EVs where others have failed. Nobody ever looked at a Twizy and said "that's gorgeous, I simply must have one of those". Nor a G-Wiz, nor a Fluence, nor a Leaf. All are oddball designs that are designed to put distance between the EV and the rest of the range. On the other hand, a Tesla saloon looks cool. The exterior looks nice - admittedly not beautiful, but easy on the eye. The interior is lovely. The binnacle graphics, the huge screen, the modern feel...they make you want to own it before you've even driven it.
It's not to do with technology. The technology is nothing special at all. It's the design and the ownership experience. In that respect Musk has a good claim to be the heir of Jobs, and I agree with posters above that Apple would be a logical buyer of Tesla, although I still think GM would be a better fit.
The sales of GM bolt vs Model 3 will show the car makers where they need to be heading if they want to sell mass market EV's. They have a similar range, price and launch date. My money is on Tesla.
Tuna said:
Tesla might want us to believe that they're doing things radically different to overthrow the arrogant old guard, but the reality is that they have very little choice if they want to change the technology used in cars (Musk's claimed goal). They're actually trying hard to lock people into an ecosystem to make the whole ownership cost as low as possible - but the side effect is that they are acting more like the old phone network companies than Apple.
Tesla's can use any EV charge point FOC (Telsa's are much quicker than the others), however other EV's cannot use Tesla's.Guvernator said:
Nail on head, while the insider perspective by Tuna was interesting it wasn't why I and many of my friends bought an iphone. It was just a very slick, cool looking device. Some technology just seems ahead of it's time, using an iphone felt like I was in Star Trek land compared to the phones I'd used before and this is the reason why Tesla are doing well. The underlying technology might be similar but their product is just slicker then anyone else's. I had absolutely zero desire to own an EV car...until I saw a Tesla. Sadly the Model 3 isn't a great looker IMO but still better than nearly all the other available EV cars.
Yup, apart form geeks, most people buy stuff on 1st impressions and perception. This isn't just the product itself, but the whole experience, website, shops ,packaging etc, etc.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff