[sbahr001]

I would argue that the model S/X should be updated for their respective costs; They pretty much sell a 6 year old interior that was "space age" at the time. Since then their have been minor interior/exterior and looks extremely dated as the competition has "caught" up and the cheaper models surpass it. The only main changes to the car have been better battery and performance, the latter doesn't improve the day to day experience of the car.

When your spending 100k on a car you expect Mercedes type of luxury. Previously, Tesla didn't have to compete on that because the Model S/X were ahead of its time an proof of concept cars, with the release of Model 3/Y there is no reason to have one, unless you need the additional size and want to have an electric vehicle on principle.

[grecy]

> When your spending 100k on a car you expect Mercedes type of luxury

This is the old way of thinking, and it illistrates perfectly why the other auto manufacturers have been caught flat footed re EVs.

For many decades what you said held true - more money on a car meant a higher quality interior.

Now things have changed dramatically, because what we thought of as a "car" has changed so much.

You can now spend 100k to get a car that never emits a single toxic chemical while being used. A vehicle that much cheaper to drive and own. A vehicle that requires significantly less maintenance, a vehicle that is silent and less fatiguing to drive, etc. etc.

This are all the reasons besides "I got a more luxury interior", and they're the kind of reasons that make an EV compelling.

[alonmower]

I don't think they disagree with this, but that Tesla now has the 3/Y that get you all of the benefits of an electric car, with interiors that aren't too far off of the S/X for a fraction of the cost. If they want to continue to sell the S/X for a big premium they now need to offer a differentiated product (whereas pre 3/Y you were paying the premium to get a fully electric car)

[henrikschroder]

> You can now spend 100k to get a car that never emits a single toxic chemical while being used.

Yes, but if the EV part is most important to me, why would I spend $100k on a Model S, when I can spend way less on a Model 3?

And if the luxury is most important to me, why would I spend $100k on a Model S, when I can spend the same amount of money on a Porsche Taycan, get a similarly performing EV, but with a luxury interior that blows Tesla completely out of the water?

The Model S has very little going for it right now, which is why the price has dropped considerably in the last year. It finally has competition, and it's simply not holding up very well.

[rconti]

The Model 3 and Y make that (mostly) moot (size aside).

We've got a Model 3, I've had S loaners and my dad's got an S, and I've driven the S as far back as maybe 2013?

There are things I like about both. It's not at all clear to me that if you made me choose a free car to receive, that I'd choose the S over the 3.

If you're making me spend my own dollars, 3 all day. I just don't like the S twice as much.

[marvin]

Musk said a few conference calls ago that Tesla doesn't really have a long-term ambition to make a significant fraction of their profits from S/X. I believe he said "keeping them around for sentimental reasons", which is probably overstating it a bit.

But they're clearly not worried about cannibalizing their own product line.

[reducesuffering]

All those reasons apply to buying a 38k Model 3 instead. Tesla is agreeing with grandparent as they are planning to next-gen the S and X. As a customer, what compelling reason is there to spend on the S and X over the 3 and Y? Sales and production are strongly reflecting that.