[toomuchtodo]

I support innovation over industry standards that sandbag the innovator ("the industry" came up with J1772 and CHAdeMO, which were both clearly designed by committee). The industry setting the standards is the problem, which is why Tesla had to create Superchargers as a proprietary standard (and CCS is only now catching up to, and is still arguably inferior). The industry should consider setting better standards if they don't want Tesla setting them.

[gens]

> The industry setting the standards is the problem, which is why Tesla had to create Superchargers as a proprietary standard ..

For one, there is now n+1 standards. For the more important point, tesla could have made their standard free instead of proprietary.

They are in it for the money. Not any "greater good" or "advancement of humanity" or any other such bullshit. Money. And it's obvious if you look and not listen to them (this includes apple and such).

Tesla is a part of "the industry".

[ehvatum]

The Tesla supercharger standard is open and the license fees owed to Tesla for implementing that standard are zero. https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

Tesla offered access to their supercharging network, as well. Predictably, the traditional auto makers wanted nothing to do with it, not even as a stop-gap, and instead had committees design inferior plugs for a minuscule and fragmented charging network that reliably fails to charge any vehicle.

Tesla is distinctly not part of the traditional auto industry. Tesla management insight into engineering and the marketplace is a fundamental differentiating factor.

Let’s say you’re a traditional upmarket car maker with a reputation for engineering excellence, and you want to computerize your dashboard. What’s your approach? I can tell you exactly what you’d do, because I’ve seen it: license windows CE and break your requirements down into team-sized chunks. Each team makes its own windows CE device. The devices are all supposed to talk to each other, but the teams implementing them don’t need to talk to each other, because they have formal specs for their components. Shockingly, when all the systems are assembled together, doors lock and unlock randomly, headlights are unreliable, and it’s common knowledge that you better not roll down a window, because you may need to go to the dealer to raise it. So, you try and fail to improve for the next model year. This continues for a decade before you even consider a different approach.

[vel0city]

Cool, and we'll have Tesla chargers, and Ford chargers, and GM chargers, and VW chargers, and...

Or, Tesla could adopt the industry standard so I don't have to tear out the charger on the wall every time I want to buy a different brand of car.

Its quite a joke that having vendor lock-in increases competition and innovation. If you've paid the thousands of dollars to have a Tesla wall charger installed, and you'll have to pay to get a different one for a different brand, do you think that'll weigh on your decision to buy another car even if the other car is technically better? Proprietary connectors lock people into the platform and increases friction to customers leaving for a different product.

[toomuchtodo]

You say it's a joke, but Tesla setting their own standard is one of the reasons they're the world's most valuable automaker (as it contributes to an amazing user experience). I understand that you may be dogmatic about the desire for open standards, but the evidence is clear it's not necessary (even with the EU requiring fast charger interoperability). My opinion is that this is very similar to those railing against software projects who have to go "fair source" instead of "open source" to protect their financial interests from others, and in the same vein, Tesla should be compensated for their investment in infrastructure.

If you don't want a Tesla, don't buy one. No one is forcing people to buy them, or to use their chargers (fast DC or otherwise). If jurisdictions desire Tesla to open their network for others, compensate them for their private investment they're demanding they open up.

Regardless, I appreciate the conversation and the perspective as an electric vehicle enthusiast.

[mikem170]

What if the two-thirds of voters wanted to make a law saying chargers had to interoperate? (using a standard plug)

Tesla could still differentiate themselves through better service and infrastructure (I saw other posts describing how bad Leaf charging stations were). But they wouldn't be able to hassle consumers with lock-in.

When did locking in consumers become a fair way to recoup investment?

[djur]

Tesla is making themselves very attractive to be nationalized. I hope it happens soon -- making their network available for all electric vehicles would be a massive benefit to the public good.

[ryathal]

Nationalization is probably not on the horizon with Tesla being a U.S. company. Anti-trust forcing Tesla to split their chargers and car sales is more likely than not if EVs actually become the future.

[toomuchtodo]

This is America. If we can’t nationalize healthcare, it’s fantasy we nationalize an auto maker’s charger network.

[vel0city]

let's let the proprietary connector play out, and lets say all the other automakers wither and die due to their shortsightedness to help deploy charging stations. Now we're down to only the single Tesla connector out there for charging in the wild, and effectively only Tesla cars. Is this a good thing for innovation? Do you think this will increase or decrease innovation? And all because they were first to market with a proprietary connector they heavily pushed. Effectively, if you want to buy a car with the ability to charge in the wild you will be forced to buy a Tesla due to a monopoly of charging stations. Sounds like a good future filled with innovation to me!

Lets also look at it the other way in a theoretical to analyze the idea of widespread proprietary connectors and their connection to innovation. Say Nissan had a proprietary connector and made the big investment to deploy a massive charging network. The Nissan cars are technically vastly inferior to the Tesla cars, but because Nissan made a well-timed capex they've got a leg up on the chargers. People then tend to buy the inferior Nissan cars because of the brand presence and vast availability of chargers. While the Tesla cars are technically better, all of those owners already have proprietary Nissan connectors at home. Their offices have Nissan chargers. Their grocery store has Nissan chargers. The highway rest stops have Nissan chargers. Truck stops have Nissan chargers. Do you think the technically better Tesla wins? Imagine when new construction of houses starts to have vehicle charging connections common. If your house came with a Nissan charger and it'll cost you $500 to swap it out for a Tesla one, doesn't that raise the price of the Tesla $500 simply because of the cable in your home? Sounds terrible to me.

[zamfi]

This is a huge straw man.

Obviously it would be better for consumers if all these companies got together and used a single standard and shared resources to build out a great network. Also better for consumers would be decoupling the charging network from the manufacturers, like ICE cars and mobile phones do (cables aside, in the latter case). No one is arguing otherwise, the discussion is about why this isn't better for manufacturers.

One way to make it better for manufacturers is to mandate a standard, leaving manufacturers who don't use the standard in violation of statute.

But another way is to wait until there are enough manufacturers of EVs, who actually care about their EVs and not just making compliance vehicles, and who actually care about building EV charging networks and not just building them to comply with consent decrees they're subject to thanks to past illegal behavior, and who as a result actually care about having a useful, usable, reliable network of fast charging stations for cross-country trips.

Right now, only Tesla cares about this.

Eventually, other manufacturers will too. Then, one day, it will make sense for both manufacturers and consumers to use a single shared plug, and all new installations will have it, and old installations will be retrofitted. It will take 10+ years here, but it's already happening in Europe thanks to mandates. In the meantime, mandating everyone follow some terrible standard and support other manufacturers' vehicles is just punitive to the manufacturers who do care, and punitive to future consumers who would like to use a functional system and not be stuck with the garbage that passes for fast charging outside Tesla's network in the US today.

</soapbox>

[vel0city]

The thing is, Tesla wants to push their proprietary connector and have that be the dominant plug. Its their connector which will only be featured on Tesla cars. You really think Tesla would be going along with retrofitting in Europe if it wasn't for regulations? That they'd just willingly give up their market dominance position in charging network just because they feel like it and have some altruistic desire to embrace some future connector?

The industry standard answer to the Supercharger connector exists. Its available on multiple brands of cars today. The day for a single shared plug could be today if Elon says so. Retrofits for charging stations could start happening tomorrow. They could probably start cranking out CCS compatible cars for the US market within a quarter. But Tesla doesn't want a single shared plug, they want to own the market for chargers. They want to use the wide spread proprietary connector as a selling point to sell their cars. Which is exactly the concept in my "straw man" post. Its not really a straw man when its literally the exact scenario that's currently playing out in the market though, a car manufacturer using a dominant position in deploying chargers to push their cars. For evidence, see TFA. Do you think Tesla owners are installing J1772/CCS chargers at their homes and using adapters, or are they installing Tesla chargers? When someone sees an article like this, is that not convincing shoppers to look at Teslas first over other brands of electric cars? Seems less like a straw man and just taking a hard look at the objective reality of today.

Buying Tesla is supporting vendor lock-in. Its obvious to you that a single, open connector is better for the market and yet you'll continue to support a proprietary one.

[zamfi]

Almost everything you say is spot on, but unrelated to my claims about whether a mandated standard is preferable at this point in time in the US:

> The thing is, Tesla wants to push their proprietary connector and have that be the dominant plug. Its their connector which will only be featured on Tesla cars.

Yes

> You really think Tesla would be going along with retrofitting in Europe if it wasn't for regulations? That they'd just willingly give up their market dominance position in charging network just because they feel like it and have some altruistic desire to embrace some future connector?

No, and no.

> The industry standard answer to the Supercharger connector exists. Its available on multiple brands of cars today.

CCS1? CCS2? CHAdeMO?

> The day for a single shared plug could be today if Elon says so.

Not exactly, but very close.

> Retrofits for charging stations could start happening tomorrow. They could probably start cranking out CCS compatible cars for the US market within a quarter. But Tesla doesn't want a single shared plug, they want to own the market for chargers.

Yes.

> They want to use the wide spread proprietary connector as a selling point to sell their cars.

The connector is only loosely related to the network. Tesla prevents other cars from using Superchargers both by connector and software. But the connector is irrelevant, really: they could just as easily prevent non-Teslas from using Tesla Superchargers with just software, as they do (for now) in Europe.

Given that they have a proprietary network, why not use a nice plug designed for this purpose, instead of a garbage monstrosity with a bunch of extraneous pins? (This is mostly directed at CCS1 and CHAdeMo. CCS2 is slightly less terrible.)

> Which is exactly the concept in my "straw man" post. Its not really a straw man when its literally the exact scenario that's currently playing out in the market though, a car manufacturer using a dominant position in deploying chargers to push their cars.

Yes.

> For evidence, see TFA. Do you think Tesla owners are installing J1772/CCS chargers at their homes and using adapters

Yes.

> or are they installing Tesla chargers?

Also yes. Anecdotally, in my neighborhood, I see a lot of both. More J1172's though.

> When someone sees an article like this, is that not convincing shoppers to look at Teslas first over other brands of electric cars? Seems less like a straw man and just taking a hard look at the objective reality of today.

Yes.

> Buying Tesla is supporting vendor lock-in. Its obvious to you that a single, open connector is better for the market and yet you'll continue to support a proprietary one.

Yes.

None of this has dissuaded me from the argument I made earlier, which is: other manufacturers, aside from Tesla in the US, need to care about charging networks in order for fast charging to become widespread, and for EV adoption to increase. Right now, they don't, and so Tesla is eating their lunch on EV sales and charging.

Let's be clear, the straw man argument you are arguing against is "The world as-is with proprietary Tesla connectors is preferable to consumers, compared with a single shared standard" -- and you are arguing "if you don't support mandated standards, that means you don't care about standards, and if you don't care about standards, you support a world of vendor lock-in that reduces competition and results in Tesla winning with their proprietary stuff."

It's a straw man because no one is saying "it's preferable for consumers for Tesla to have a proprietary connector". And it's not Tesla's desire for a proprietary network to support its EV sales that causes fast charging to be a disaster in the US for non-Teslas.

Let's be clear again why fast charging is a disaster in the US: it's not because of Tesla's proprietary connector, or proprietary charging network, no, it's that other manufacturers don't care! It's that they don't really care about EVs (or haven't, anyway, can't know if they actually do care now) and so don't care about charging networks, and Tesla has no incentive to play nice because it gains nothing from other EVs using their superchargers.

Obviously Tesla has a profit motive, obviously it's using the charging network to push its EV sales, but if any other manufacturer had a comparable network, or even if the others combined did, or if EV chargers were sufficiently available, it would be a no-brainer for all parties to agree to share: all their customers would benefit, and they would incur no real costs because a proprietary network is no longer a competitive advantage.

We want that world, not the world in which we force Tesla to use a crappy connector, and to open its limited supercharger network to other EVs, and end up with Tesla's near-capacity network becoming even-more-stretched, eliminating Tesla's incentive to keep building it out (since it doesn't provide a competitive advantage anymore), and also not incentivizing anyone else to build out a fast charging network that's well-placed, well-maintained, and available-—because they can just use Tesla's!

The US may at some point want to mandate a standard connector. But to do so now, without also making manufacturers care about building more fast charging, will just make the situation worse, not better.

[FrojoS]

How far we have come from the days when people here argued that Tesla was dead the moment one of the big old car manufacturers was starting to build electric cars in earnest.