vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This same problem existed when the first gas powered cars began popping up. The problem your pointing out will get resolved as demand grows. It will actually be quite a business opportunity for some.  It will surely deter some, like yourself, from being early adopters, but these things always work themselves out.
You could have googled this question.  I did so and found a link to this article. YMMV taking investment advice from thestreet.com is very likely to lose you money.  However, there do not seem to be any sector funds that specifically focus on the electric vehicle market. Along similar, but not exactly the same lines, there are sector funds that focus on renewable energy.  This article reviews some of them.
"This article feels like a project by an editor to see how well his new hire can write a ""finance"" article. Low hanging fruit: explain Tesla's junk rating compared to Ford's.  The conclusion I was hoping he reached, which is my belief, is that Musk flys to close to the sun trying to balance expansion and debt with cash flows and revenue. If they fail Ford's the best positioned car manufacturer in my opinion. Sure, the Volvo's of the world are going all electric, but that's not what makes Tesla appealing in my opinion. They're a tech company masked as a car company. Ford is a car company trying to pivot to a tech company. Electric isn't the future, the vehical cloud is. Someone has to make these cars. Google or apple won't. Ford will hopefully build and service their own."
Well, again, if you listened to the call, which is a pretty basic first step to talking about the quarterly results, which for some reason you insist on continuing to do despite being completely ignorant of them, then you might not be saying such stupid things. Panasonic, you see, is a rather conservative Japanese company. This is even mentioned in your article when they talk about plasma displays. This is why they are always measured in their public statements, because that's what Japanese companies do. But, as specified in the call, Panasonic's actions as a partner to Tesla have always been excellent. And if you actually bothered to read your own article, you would see that they've committed to 2 billion cells and 200-300 million for the factory. You know, an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY. And if you actually bothered to read any *other* article, you would see that that very same quote of yours was followed up with ""However, Tesla is a very important partner to us and discussions are continuing. We need to look very carefully at auto demand and respond appropriately so of course that means taking a step-by-step approach to investment."" Also, there have been rumors of talks with LG and Samsung should Panasonic not decide to partner. I'm not sure I believe the rumors, and also I think they're unnecessary, because Panasonic will be a full partner in the gigafactory. They know that Tesla has been a huge source of profit for them, and their automotive supply (i.e. Tesla) has been one of the best-performing parts of their company for some time now. Mark my words, Panasonic's investment will end up being approximately $1 billion, all told. You can come back in a few years and check, if you like. &gt;To keep the sucks putting up money. You mean, like an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY? The ones putting up the money? So, since your point was so reliant on ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES having expertise and specialization and so on, does that mean you're now dropping that point, because you realized your bullshit wouldn't fly, and moving on to another sort of bullshit until one of them sticks?
"This is an idea that was actually put into place more than a 100 years ago, in 1896 and even before, when the first electric cars were introduced and they even built ""service stations"" for them so you can swap the batteries. [read it here](https://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/26/electric-car-history/)  Even electric cars made by Tesla are nothing new.  And recently, a company called ""Better Place"", in Israel, produced modern electric cars with automated and robotic service stations that will swap the batteries for them. Read about ""Better Place"".  Bottom line: nothing new here for more than 100 years."
Depending on how much you drive, they might be in the same range as far as cost of ownership goes.   I've seen a few salesman for which it was cheaper to get a Tesla than a mid size car like the Fusion of the Camry.
Here's a brief history of the car industry: in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a real competition between electric cars and internal-combustion cars. No clear winner. Electric cars were super reliable, quite, no maintenance and simple to make. But can be driven for a shorter distance only. Gas cars where the exact opposite: long range, but totally unreliable, complicated, noisy, dirty, complicated to make.  With service stations to exchange batteries, already in the late 1800s, the electric car would be a huge winner.  But the government was smart! And I mean it!  Electric cars needs very few jobs and manufacturing: few parts to manufacture, no maintenance crew, and since they can last forever, very few of them are needed to be produced every year.  So, on purpose, the government promoted the gas car, creating millions of jobs, 1000s of manufacturing companies, economy of the need to replace the car every 5-10 years, etc.  That's it.  Last comment: an electric car should be dirt cheap to make! It needs one cheap electric engine, batteries and a pedal connected to a switch. How come Tesla cars are so expensive? Think about it for a moment.
It's also not like Audi, Mercedes, and BMW will idly sit by and watch as Tesla feasts on that market share either.  Should be interesting to see how they try to compete with Tesla in a market where price matters less and image is more.
Even regardless of what's used to make the batteries, as soon as they are in use, and unless they are failing at an exponential rate, the offset of carbon begins as soon as you drive it instead of a gasoline powered vehicle.  Gasoline transport and storage is IMMENSELY more energy and carbon pollution intensive than pure electric generation.  It's like full on industry propaganda to argue otherwise. It's the same vein as Fox News watchers that still believe Obama was a muslim or born in Kenya, because they trust(ed) a voice on tv. Marketing and PR versus rational consideration and open research.
I've seen this in my town. I don't know if they are charging for Teslas specifically, or things like the Volt (I don't own an electric car so haven't looked into it too much), but there are over a dozen places in my city that have parking spots equipped with charging stations. They are outside various retail locations/malls as well as parking garages at the local university.   Keep in mind, this is not a major city. The total population is about 150,000 and that includes about 50,000 transient students who aren't here during the summer.
"Which, unsurprisingly falls under my comment.  ""Everytime I see this brought up it turns out to be based on first wave cars""  Which since I'm not a first gen buyer, I'm not really worried about. As a stock holder I also see signs that they are actively fixing issues, so what you see wrong with wave 1 is not wrong with wave 2 and so on and so forth.  So I'll reply with a snarky bit of my own.   ""If only readers of /r/Business actually ***read***"""
I still think the biggest thing they have to get right is getting rid of the driver and making cars perfectly autonomous.  If that happens, there could be a serious disruption to the market because the price of an Uber/Lyft/etc. just dropped in half I would bet. I don't doubt that Ford, GM, Tesla can make the cars, but it's going to take a little while to make economic sense to just abandon driving a car.  The other thing this article leaves out is the demand for non-gasoline products growing globally -- think plastics, aromatics, jet fuel, and asphalt.  Thus, I don't see Big Oil crashing in the next 5-10 years, but it may become a tighter market with a few big players as margins get thinner and companies go bankrupt.
"Many Web sites and articles warn against buying former rental cars, because people renting these cars often mistreat them. Many of those are also written by unqualified individuals for publication on blog farms and encourage all sorts of odious financial practices. That's not even considering the interests of who is paying to advertise on said blogs-- I'm sure their interests align with making sure you always pay top dollar for a new car. Because those icky used ones are so mistreated! Never trust financial advice published on the internet (or in the media, for that matter). Edit: One caveat on further thought-- never, never buy used vehicles from government auctions (impounds, asset seizures, old police cars, etc). Anybody irresponsible enough to go to jail or abandon their car long enough to lose their assets likely isn't a responsible owner of such, and cops and crooks alike do absolutely beat the snot out of police cars. When it comes to government-owned vehicles (police cars, schoolbuses) municipal governments are notoriously stingy and will squeeze every last minute of use out of them before putting them on the market. If you're buying a government vehicle, assume it's being sold because it has intractable problems. But from a financial point of view, I notice that rental agencies sell cars within the first two years, during the time when they depreciate the most. Bingo. I figure many large rental companies will have mathematicians who calculate the best time to sell. Does the fact that they sell the car mean during this time suggest that they know the car's cost of further maintenance or other costs will be higher? Or is there another reason they sell at this time which, has a calculated advantage to them, but which is less than idea statistically for me, the purchaser? It doesn't take a PhD to realize it's bad for business if your model revolves around renting out 1970s rustbuckets that run the risk of breaking down and leaving customers stranded in inopportune or dangerous places. Uhaul in particular has a terrible reputation for this, and it shows in the condition of their trucks-- relics of the 90s, all of them.
Each of us makes our own way in life, making choices based upon or own needs and desires. Some of us choose to live simple lives, others choose more complex lives where we earn and spend more. There are several points which one should examine and consider. Consider that the market for new cars is not the entire population, but only the fraction of the population that can afford to spend $20,000+ for a new car (at $400+/month payments). You quickly realize that most people making below median income cannot afford to purchase a new car. They buy used cars, from the pool of cars left after depreciation has reduced the price of the car by half (or more). One rule of thumb might be to spend < 10% of your income on transportation. Which might allow for a $400-500/month car payment for half of families. And when you keep a car for 10 years, that can mean two cars, one payment-free. Consider that a new Honda Accord or Toyota Camry is $20-30,000 which is 2/3 to 3/4 the price of a new luxury car. When I purchased my (used) Civic several years ago, the price was nearly 1/2 the price of a new luxury car. I recently purchased a (used) luxury car (7 year old, 70,000 miles) less than 1/3 the new price. The leather interior looks new, more amenities, better performance than my Civic, the car runs well, and with proper maintenance, I expect to drive it for 2-3 years and pass it along to one of my children.
How in the hell can they put a positive spin on this? 1.  Consumers cars were materially modified without their consent.  2.  They were modified in such a way that indicates they may have previously been sold cars governed for marketing reasons, not engineering reasons.   Tesla is another Uber- just waiting on the horrific ethics and working conditions stories to happen.
reddit Musk worshipers need to be aware of all the [Tesla dirt](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/) as well.  and [there's plenty](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk).  not to mention Tesla is taxpayer subsidized and does not make any money  Hallelujah, what a genius (cue for reddit to bow and knell)
Not arguing about ethics, but why is this a problem?  They didn't make anything worse/more difficult/more dangerous.  In fact, all this does is help anyone who has the discontinued 60.  They didn't pay for a 75, so it's not like they didn't get what they paid for.  Would it make you happier if the 60 came with a smaller battery and you had to buy a different one to upgrade?  Of course, then they have no way of assisting consumers trying to evacuate, but that's a fair price to pay for a less convenient way to upgrade your vehicle, right?
Tesla is currently unmatched in the industry for leveraging the software and built in communications on their vehicles. Other manufacturers talk the same game, but I've yet to see anyone else rev their software with feature updates like Tesla. I wish the others would step up their game.   I hope they are the first to implement car following. Then every time an owner brings in an ICE car to service, it becomes an ad for Tesla as the owner drops off the ICE vehicle, then steps into the Tesla that silently followed them to the mechanic's.
&gt;U.S. consumers continued to shun passenger cars in favor of larger pickup trucks, SUVs and crossovers.   Curious to why the shift away from passenger cars.  Especially to trucks.  SUV's and crossovers I get as you get the same amount of seating as a passenger car but more cargo space.  I wonder how much longer the sports/muscle cars will last with this trend and that people favoring hybrid and electric engines over straight up petrol ones.
At MASAI AUTO CITY we have developed a unique system to find the used car you are looking for. We have thousands of used car deals to choose from, but above all, a scoring system that assesses whether or not the price of the vehicle, with respect to its characteristics, is in the market. And as we know you can buy used car. If you have doubts about the price you can access our price appraiser here. We are very concerned about the used car advertisement that we have and that is why we check all of them manually before publishing them.
The whole model is likely to change.  I believe (as others do) that individual car ownership will wane, leaving large commercially operated fleets of on-demand modules.  It will be like insuring an airline - the whole company is insured...not individual pilots.
They're still behind on Model 3 numbers. China would be about taking all the money they've hemoraged to get where they are here and duplicate it over there, so while it's possibly a wildly lucrative market, it won't be for quite some time and after a lot more spending. They just trimmed the fat on their workforce, which is probably a good move, but so many at once says that they needed to cut spending.   Once the 3 is cranking out faster and AP2.5 is getting updates, the stock will probably make a good run, but for now it's going to flounder about close to where it is.
There is usually a bunch of reasons for this, some psychological and some entirely practical. Let's start with the latter: If I wanted an older luxobarge, I'd buy something from the early to mid 1990s in good condition. These cars tend to be a little less complex and thus a little easier to repair, plus you can find them for prices that makes them to 'disposable'.
It depends completely on the car.  Some cars retain their value much better, and others drop in value like a rock (no pun intended).  The mileage and condition on a car also has a huge impact on value.   According to this site, cars on average lose 46% of their value in three years, so seeing one that drops 62% in roughly 3 years does not seem impossible. That value could also have been trade-in value, which is significantly lower than what you could get with a private party sale (or what you'd pay to get that same car from a dealer) One example: a new Ford Taurus (lowest model) has a Kelly Blue Book value of $28,000.  A 2014 Taurus (lowest model) with average mileage and in fair condition has a private party value of about $12,000, for a 57% drop in value. Note: I picked Taurus because it's a car that should not have exceptional resale value (unlike BMW, trucks, SUVs), not to make any kind of judgement of the quality or resellability of the car)
Not all will be sold though. They projected their corporate leasing / normal leasing to substantially grow since it was just started and some will end up in inventory at year end. Still is pretty impressive that they anticipate that much demand for a luxury car. Their letter to investors is really insightful too... I highly recommend you take a look at it.
Batteries are very cheap... if you have service stations to exchange them. Then, you can use much cheaper batteries that don't have such a long range.  Also, with battery exchange service stations, you DO NOT pay for the batteries as part of the car. Do you realize that?  You only pay for the electricity charged into the batteries... very very cheap.
Tesla is going to zero and will be bankrupt in 3-4 years.  This is just one more of their big media pronouncements to suck in investors.  Yes I know I will be downvoted for this.  Think about it:  what kind of company seeks 22 year old cult fans?  The answer:  one that loses money hand over fist with no prospect of that changing.
"&gt; Our cars are at least 10x safer  [Citation needed] Oh; and ""Tesla PR spam"" is *not* a reputable source.  Maybe *yours* is; mine are 13 and 18 years old. [A *lot* of people](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vehicles-getting-older-average-age-120000267.html) are in the same situation."
When the first gas cars were made 100 years ago, they were toys for the rich  You can't go from zero to cheap mass market instantly  It's not a conspiracy, it's the nature of the business  The only way to introduce a new product like an electric car is to target the buyer who is not primarily concerned with cost  Later, as experience is gained, costs will come down  I remember the first CD recorder  It cost $15,000 and the disks were $30 each  Now, you can get a CD/DVD recorder for $30
What's the future of oil and its economic impact.  1. On one side, it's nice that some countries have decided to ban gas powered cars in 20 or so years along with the likes of Tesla and home solar power having some success.   2. But, we still need plastics and possibly a host of other chemicals produced from petroleum - so there will be demand, but of a smaller (?) or different kind.  3. There would be a huge upheaval (I imagine) in the industries in the current oil supply chains and also countries (Saudi Arabia for e.g.) and the global/ middle eastern politics too (?).
Its impact on battery life is an interesting sidenote to this.  Having a battery that's capable of 75 kwh, but only ever using 60 kwh, will help extend the battery life.  So if you pay for that 75 kwh software upgrade, and you use it, you're also shortening your battery's lifespan.
Uhhm you do realize that like 99% of all new consumer products are still developed and released to market by US companies.  I mean two us companies drive like 99% of the mobile cellular market, google and apple.   Google will be releasing driverless cars, tesla is redefining the car market, space X is redefining space travel the list goes on.  The idea that the dollar is america's only edge is ridiculous at best.
"So, what's going to happen to those [400,000](https://electrek.co/2017/05/05/tesla-model-3-reservations-3/) 'deposits'?  Tesla's ""record-breaking"" 25K quarterly production figure means it'll take *four years* to build the 400,000 cars people have put down deposits on. How many tail-end Charlies are going to wait that out? The [current](http://insideevs.com/when-will-the-7500-us-credit-expire-for-the-tesla-model-3-and-everyone-else/) expiration schedule for the $7500 tax credit puts it to Mr. tail-end, *hard*. At the Model 3 price point, this is going to have a much larger effect on its buyers than on the $100K+ demographic."
Maybe, but electricity is used for countless devices already.  If people stopped driving entirely, overall electricity usage would most likely stay right where it is.  However, if people stopped driving, gasoline consumption would plummet, because its primary use is fuel for an internal combustion engine.  Given how much electricity we use already, I'm not convinced a full switch to electric cars would cause the cost of charging an electric car to jump to $30
Well, I am no expert but I have been holding the stock since it was sub-4 and when it was 18 I thought it could still go to 30. Ford has increased sales while increasing prices. the 2013 fusion/modeo looks to be killer and the hybrid competes with prius, 47 mpg highway from a mid-size sedan (the current leader toyota camry hybrid released this year only gets 43). (aggresively?) Ramping up production in developing markets. The small cars are huge hits and once myfordtouch catches on with the general public and gets it's kinks worked out it will be a game changer. If you look at what customers are saying it is a reason to buy a Ford. Also it is good with the long run because the f-150 is the most sold vehicle and one of the most profitable.  TL;DR I will hold this stock until Mullally(CEO) leaves
That's my point entirely. GM's electric arm alone should be worth more than Tesla but neither me or the investor community at large believe in their ability to deliver. They can't see a market gap if begs them to buy their vehicles.
"&gt; You failed to address the part where I said Tesla wants major car companies to compete. That has been the entire point all along, from the very start. And competition would be good for Tesla, because instead of Tesla alone having to spend resources on educating the ignorant public (e.g. you), this way other auto manufacturers would be able to help. And Tesla would have other yardsticks to compare to, and to say ""see, we're better than them."" Tesla welcomes this. I didn't address it because there is no need to. For the electric car industry to work as a whole yes there needs to be more competition. TESLA's competitors, however, are going to wipe the floor with TSLA because TSLA is committing massive capital to old tech. &gt; Auto companies are behind the times because they've outsourced nearly all of their engineering expertise. They are good at volume production and engines. That's most of what's left of any major auto manufacturer. So take away the engine, and they have nothing. To make a compelling EV, they need to start from scratch, and it takes years to develop a car. This is why competition hasn't come, and why compelling competition isn't coming. The only companies with somewhat compelling offerings are those who started very early - BMW and Nissan - or those who have partnered with Tesla - Mercedes and sort-of-Toyota. Porsche has a chance since they still have engineers, but they're dragging their feet. Everyone else is basically fucked. And not just because of the lack of engineering, but because of the nature of large companies. It takes a lot to right a large ship. I'm not sure how to answer that. It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. &gt;Companies will be loathe to release compelling EVs because they will compete against themselves, they will have to advertise the EVs as if they are better than their gas offerings which still make up 99% of their sales.