[jomamaxx]

From a popular perspective - you are maybe right - they 'sexified' something not quite so sexy.

However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone.

Why?

Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics.

Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their home is up for a new roof. The other market would be new homes.

So there's a growth/market limit.

Second is price. This kind of technology exists already in many forms. It hasn't been adopted because it's very expensive, and requires some other ugly equipment that has put a drag on PV installation like the conversion technology required to connect to the grid.

The choice to purchase an iPhone is mostly emotional.

The choice in roofing is not. It's definitely mostly a calculation. They are very expensive, and people will look into the long-term conversion value etc.

I'll wager that this new Tesla roof will not be price competitive for current solar/roofing situations, moreover, even if it were - it still might not make sense from a dollars perspective, as the current solar/roof installations basically don't work out economically. It's for wealthier types and/or those with 'green aspirations'.

Finally - these are not things you can buy from wallmart and install yourself. You can't even get your local roofer to do it. Typically, roofers have to be trained on the materials, installation etc.. There is the issue of warranty and distribution for 'new tech' in building - which is slow to adoption. Builders etc. are not 'magpies' like techies. They are averse to new gear, and typically wait for others to figure it out before buying in. Also - they simply tend not to be ver progressive.

Go and ask your local builder if he wants to send his crew to California for 'Training on Tesla's new roof' and his mental calculation will be 'how many of my current customers are asking for it'? And of course the answer will be none.

The fundamental issue with all of this solar tech is that it simply does not generate enough electricity to quite warrant the cost unless all the conditions are right.

+ If it's really sunny a lot + Major government subsidies + A new subdivision was created with 'all solar roofing' thereby keeping the costs down to economies of scale + High electricity prices in the region + The grid is fundamentally designed for renewables

etc. etc.

It takes a lot of the right ingredients.

[wojcech]

Interesting points, thank you. EEVblog agrees with some of them and did the numbers on others, I might link it if I remember(it's bed time here soon)

One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice.

The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.

[prefect42]

I'll second that from personal experience, roofs are definitely an emotional decision. They can look great, be artsy, and even cover your house in the most visible of manners.

[erikpukinskis]

> 'new roofs' are not built that often

Source? Roofs last 20-30 years. 125 million homes in the U.S., with roofs being replaced every 25 years means 5 million roofs per year. Triple that for Europe, China, and the rest and you've got 15 million a year. It's a big ticket item so you don't have to capture that much of the market to start hitting pretty serious revenue numbers.

[DiThi]

> Triple that for Europe, China, and the rest

In Europe (or at least the parts I've been in) roofs last much more than that. At least twice as long. Esp in countries like mine (Spain) where climate is much less aggressive with rooftops. And we don't use tar shingles.

[Graphon1]

Another major difference:

iPhone was a platform. As more people bought the iphone,

- the phone became more attractive to 3rd party accessory makers (protective cases, cables, etc) and apps makers.

- the phone itself became more valuable to owners, as more complementary products became available.

- the phone became more valuable to Apple, who could get feedback and make the phone better.

The hockey stick on the analogous factors for Tesla is much shallower. The "complementary products" for owners of cars will be primarily recharge stations. Still few and far between.

There is no benefit to 3rd parties, that I see. No benefit to other stakeholders like utilities. And Tesla itself does not enjoy a growing, self-reinforcing cycle of value, as sales increase. It's really just economies of scale.

[jinglebells]

Surely the complimentary products are ones compatible with the Tesla connector.

Electric motorcycle or RV for the weekend or electric lawn mower. Just throwing it out there.

[patrickk]

An entire charging industry akin to gas/petrol stations is another side benefit. These businesses could be located in "unusual" areas such as multi storey car parks because there isn't the same danger posed by large amounts of liquid fuel. This alone will be an enormous industry.