Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive (Vol. 2)
Discussion
page3 said:
Misleading reporting at best, intentionally wrong at worst.
The only people who would believe this bulls
t are people with zero tesla experience. You have a keyfob, a phone key and a keycard, all of which dont require the servers or internet.
Unlocking via the app via the internets something no one else (afik) offer and absolutely not meant for daily use.
Hell you dont even need Bluetooth with your phone, you can enable NFC and use that just like the keycard.
Durzel said:
hyphen said:
off_again said:
Burwood said:
MSFT is an incredible company, no question. Every investor should hold it
Have to agree. They made a pivot and a massive bet on something that everyone laughed at. And guess what? Paid off big time! Literally prints money! ...Not sure I’d say people laughed at it though? I can imagine some investors and “experts” running all the money was in hardware though.
I would agree with what’s been said though - O365, Azure, etc is basically a money printer.
Never should have let Google Docs/sheets take off.
Never should have let GMail take off (Gmail offered 1GB limit which was unheard of at the time so everyone rushed over)
Never should have let AWS take off, This was very much Microsoft area to have moved first in.
and going back more, Never should have allowed Blackberry to dominate for the period.
Microsoft wasn't one of those companies that would kill a lucrative revenue stream seeing a longer picture, they kept collecting revenue and left it late. But despite the loss of customers on the consumer/small business side, the corporates were managed to kept on the leash so they got away with it.
Looks at AMD, Apple and NVidia stock - mebe there was money in hardware...
Microsoft had a st time with Ballmer at the head, they failed to innovate pretty much anything, the (new) products he went for failed, the marketing was st and he just milked the core products but badly.
Nadella is much better, at least he has a vision and an idea where he wants the company to go.
But yes they've not been first into new spaces, often its not the job of the gorilla to break ground but timing into those markets is key, Azure is fine as a business but they let AWS get too big too fast.
Microsoft had a s
t time with Ballmer at the head, they failed to innovate pretty much anything, the (new) products he went for failed, the marketing was st and he just milked the core products but badly. Nadella is much better, at least he has a vision and an idea where he wants the company to go.
But yes they've not been first into new spaces, often its not the job of the gorilla to break ground but timing into those markets is key, Azure is fine as a business but they let AWS get too big too fast.
RobDickinson said:
Looks at AMD, Apple and NVidia stock - mebe there was money in hardware...
Microsoft had a st time with Ballmer at the head, they failed to innovate pretty much anything, the (new) products he went for failed, the marketing was st and he just milked the core products but badly.
Nadella is much better, at least he has a vision and an idea where he wants the company to go.
But yes they've not been first into new spaces, often its not the job of the gorilla to break ground but timing into those markets is key, Azure is fine as a business but they let AWS get too big too fast.
How times change. Back in the early 2000s none of these companies were exactly firing. AMD was a dog. Apple was $3. Sandisk went crazy. That back to the future almanac Microsoft had a s
t time with Ballmer at the head, they failed to innovate pretty much anything, the (new) products he went for failed, the marketing was st and he just milked the core products but badly. Nadella is much better, at least he has a vision and an idea where he wants the company to go.
But yes they've not been first into new spaces, often its not the job of the gorilla to break ground but timing into those markets is key, Azure is fine as a business but they let AWS get too big too fast.
RobDickinson said:
But yes they've not been first into new spaces, often its not the job of the gorilla to break ground but timing into those markets is key, Azure is fine as a business but they let AWS get too big too fast.
My view of MS was that they always felt they could wait until a new trend developed and then buy one of the leading competitors in the field. They'd never go for the leading player (who thought they'd made it) or the number two (who thought they might make it) but three or four (who knew they couldn't get to No1 without some serious muscle). MS could always provide that muscle.hyphen said:
They were late there surely?
Yes, they were late, but its a great example where a company doesnt have to be first mover in a market. Microsoft has always had a strategy to be second or third to a market and have been successful many times as a result. hyphen said:
Never should have let Google Docs/sheets take off.
Never should have let GMail take off (Gmail offered 1GB limit which was unheard of at the time so everyone rushed over)
Never should have let AWS take off, This was very much Microsoft area to have moved first in.
and going back more, Never should have allowed Blackberry to dominate for the period.
Maybe, and its a fair few examples to make. But again, Microsoft know that they are in a dominant position and have fallen foul of anti-competitive laws in the past. Jumping into every market to eliminate competition isnt necessarily a good idea all of the time. What they have done is made a big shift in a couple of key areas and driven a lot of revenue and growth as a result. You cannot counter the increase in revenue per customer / user and the profit that they make as a result. Never should have let GMail take off (Gmail offered 1GB limit which was unheard of at the time so everyone rushed over)
Never should have let AWS take off, This was very much Microsoft area to have moved first in.
and going back more, Never should have allowed Blackberry to dominate for the period.
We can discuss Microsoft's lack of innovation in key areas and their failure to embrace the new. However, being the biggest, cheapest or providing the most storage for free doesnt drive revenue for them. Being in key markets, consolidating their customer base and offering relevant offerings where important is. And where is Blackberry now? And should we mention how successful GCP is? Still stuck in single digit market share....
hyphen said:
Microsoft wasn't one of those companies that would kill a lucrative revenue stream seeing a longer picture, they kept collecting revenue and left it late. But despite the loss of customers on the consumer/small business side, the corporates were managed to kept on the leash so they got away with it.
And thats probably the most telling comment - for a consumer, I would never recommend Microsoft. Not because its bad or anything, just not really value for money. For a small to medium business its really borderline. But for a large business (10,000 employees or more), I have yet to find anyone who doesnt have a significant spend with an E3 license as a minimum. This is their focus and they have done a very good job in expanding to fit that market. Again, I keep saying this (and also relevant to Telsa too), you dont have to be the first, biggest, fastest or most feature heavy solution to be very successful. Microsoft knows their market extremely well and are delivering to that. They will, even if they dont admit it, let the likes of Google Workspace clean up in the tight margin market for the low end. This strategy has been proven to be successful to date and will likely be for some time to come - hence shown in their growth in revenue and stock price.RobDickinson said:
Nadella is much better, at least he has a vision and an idea where he wants the company to go.
Yes, he made some big bets and went all in on them - and its paying off big time. Though I did hear a story about a lot of what Nadella has had heaped on as credit was started before he took the CEO role. Not sure if that is true, but the point was that much of the direction was already plotted, all he did is double down on it and commit a massive chunk of the business around it. But I dont work for Microsoft so I dont know for sure.Reports on reddit of Starlink dishes appearing at Supercharger locations, the story has been picked up by news sites.
Possible reasons: to give wifi to customers whilst charging, or allow Tesla to install superchargers in remote locations/temp locations (i.e. the payment and other data is processed via starlink internet so only power is needed on site and no 3d party internet).
Reddit rumours so don't know if true, but sounds like a good idea.
Possible reasons: to give wifi to customers whilst charging, or allow Tesla to install superchargers in remote locations/temp locations (i.e. the payment and other data is processed via starlink internet so only power is needed on site and no 3d party internet).
Reddit rumours so don't know if true, but sounds like a good idea.
Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 23 November 12:47
RobDickinson said:
Some sc sites already have accessible starlink WiFi, the car knows the connection and it just works.
No brainer really.
Wonder if they'll sell access to non tesla users
Who doesnt have 4G or 5G these days?No brainer really.
Wonder if they'll sell access to non tesla users
It's years since I've needed to connect to 3rd party wifi when away from home.
jsf said:
RobDickinson said:
Some sc sites already have accessible starlink WiFi, the car knows the connection and it just works.
No brainer really.
Wonder if they'll sell access to non tesla users
Who doesnt have 4G or 5G these days?No brainer really.
Wonder if they'll sell access to non tesla users
It's years since I've needed to connect to 3rd party wifi when away from home.
TheRainMaker said:
skwdenyer said:
Many people have limited data plans.
I bet most people who buy Tesla’s don’t.
But in that case, there's another reason behind this and it has nothing to do with consumer needs.I can see a conversation along the lines of "it costs us £X per month to provide data to these SCs, if we instead spend the same £X per month on Starlink connectivity, it will provide a big fillip to Starlink's revenues without costing Tesla anything".
TheRainMaker said:
skwdenyer said:
Many people have limited data plans.
I bet most people who buy Tesla’s don’t.skwdenyer said:
TheRainMaker said:
skwdenyer said:
Many people have limited data plans.
I bet most people who buy Tesla’s don’t. But in that case, there's another reason behind this and it has nothing to do with consumer needs.I can see a conversation along the lines of "it costs us £X per month to provide data to these SCs, if we instead spend the same £X per month on Starlink connectivity, it will provide a big fillip to Starlink's revenues without costing Tesla anything".
jsf said:
RobDickinson said:
Some sc sites already have accessible starlink WiFi, the car knows the connection and it just works.
No brainer really.
Wonder if they'll sell access to non tesla users
Who doesnt have 4G or 5G these days?No brainer really.
Wonder if they'll sell access to non tesla users
It's years since I've needed to connect to 3rd party wifi when away from home.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff