[lupusreal]

Even if Tesla gets it working, it will never be popular enough to justify their valuation. It's a niche product that will only compete with traditional taxis/ubers in urban areas, it has no chance of competing with car ownership at large, which is what Tesla's investors think it will do.

[oceanplexian]

If Tesla only did trucking, that alone is a $1T industry. Now imagine they take a bite out of that, a bite out of Uber and Lyft, food delivery, transportation for an increasingly aging population, continue to make large investments in energy, robotics, etc. It's not that crazy of a valuation.

[TheAlchemist]

They already did that. They released Tesla Semi 8 YEARS ago to revolutionaize the trucking industry.

Search for "Tesla" on HN, it will come up near the top. As the second most upvoted comment rightly note "Anyone else find it odd they don't talk about the battery?". What's really funny though is that 8 YEARS later, they still don't talk about the battery !

Anyway, Tesla is a scam. The company is real, and worth maybe $50B at the very optimistic valuation - their only real business is selling cars and getting subsides directly or indirectly. The sales are falling like a rock (thanks to Elon and the competition showing up) and subsides are going away soon pretty much everywhere. They are cooked.

[gamblor956]

I wasn't aware that a car could fit in an elevator and deliver to your door...

People pay for Uber and Lyft because they're too lazy to leave their apartment. Tesla would have to be significantly cheaper than its competitors in order to justify the front-door-tax.

[justinrubek]

Uber and Lyft necessitate leaving the apartment. How else are you going to take the rid somewhere?

I assume you mean food delivery, though. In my experience, it isn't about being lazy to leave the apartment. It's that the infrastructure where I live is so spread out that it'll be at least 30 minutes total of driving to get that meal, and that isn't accounting for cooking time. A 5 minute walk would be much more tolerable.

[gamblor956]

In the context of this subtopic, Uber refers to UberEats, which is a larger business than the rideshare.

[dmix]

There's no way people will pay more money just to not walk to their door or lobby. Pricing always wins in mass market consumer products. The human option will be the luxury

[andrewblossom]

A valuation based on imagination?

[diamond559]

Ah yes, the Tesla moon math. Just pull TAMs out your behind and give Tesla a % of it, that is how a true stonk "investor" does it sir! Did you come here straight from Wallstreetbets?

[the8472]

The majority of people lives in urban areas, especially in high income countries.

[lupusreal]

And the market for taxis is much smaller than the market for selling cars to urban people. Robotaxis aren't going to replace car ownership, but that's the delusion propping up Tesla's stock.

[the8472]

Well, public transportation is a thing in a lot of cities. Autonomous vehicles can fulfill the role of buses/shuttles/people movers with more flexible routes and without having to cost of a driver. Maybe allow a bit more cargo for people who want to get their groceries home. But yeah, taxis don't seem like the optimal shape here.

[lupusreal]

45% of households nominally in New York City have a car and that is by far the lowest of any American city. In the ideal American city for not owning a car, almost half of the households own one anyway! This is about the same in Europe too. Pick a major European city and you'll probably find that between a third to a half of the households in that city own a vehicle, despite the famous European public transit and habit for walking and cycling that online anticar activists love to brag about.

In every other American city besides NYC, most households have a vehicle. And besides virtually every American city save one being built for cars, you also have to keep in mind that the "most people live in urban areas" statistic counts all the people living in the suburbs around cities, e.g. people who have chosen a lifestyle literally built around car ownership.

[the8472]

"percent of households that have at least one car" isn't a particularly informative metric here. If that car is tied up by a commuter then the other household members could still use transportation. And it also doesn't tell us how many households have more than one car and could get rid of a second one if public transportation provided more flexibility.

[bananalychee]

I don't think that autonomous buses would be as cost-effective as private vehicles, since you'd want someone to be on board for security on a shared vehicle even if they're not in the driver's seat. Labor is the most expensive component of public transit operating costs, at least in my area. That said, in low-density areas it's not uncommon to see just one or two people on a big bus that comes once every 40 minutes in the middle of a weekday, and I'm sure running autonomous taxis instead would provide better service at a lower cost, given the same subsidies.

[Spivak]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it will compete with car ownership. You know what's better than an autonomous taxi, a private autonomous taxi that's just for you.

[derektank]

The opportunity cost of having a vehicle sit unused in a parking lot 90+% of the time is really high. We've only tolerated it for so long because human labor is and has been more expensive than the vehicle's depreciation. Autonomous taxis potentially flip the script on that assumption.

Sure, rich people will always have enough money to afford luxuries like privacy and comfort, but most people are price sensitive and will opt for the cheapest transportation solution that delivers them where they need to go in the fastest amount of time. I would wager this will be a Waymo type autonomous taxi service but time will tell.

[Spivak]

We're talking about personal vehicle ownership, there's no opportunity cost because you weren't going to make money on it anyway. My car sitting in my garage isn't costing me money nor is it losing value to me as a means of taking me and my stuff places. If you're one of the people that cares about the deprecation of your car's resale value then you're already doing the math on this and living a depressing life. But if you're like most normal car owners you bought a car to drive it and will replace it once you get your 200k miles out of it when its value is less than the $2000 minimum trade-in the dealership gives you.

The other problem is that I can't haul shit in a robo-taxi. Or drive long distances. People use their vehicles for more than just transporting bodies to and from work. And if I kill my neighbor I probably can't take his body in the trunk either. I would love to know what kind of life you and the other sibling commenters are living where a taxi service encompasses the totality of your transportation needs.

[ryoshoe]

Assuming that you're keeping the registration up to date, your car does cost some money to sit in your garage even it if you'd consider it a negligible amount

[xnx]

> I'm not sure why anyone thinks it will compete with car ownership.

Maybe not 100% of cars, but a very good chance that it will eat into owning a 3rd or 2nd car in a household.

[pebble]

With all the maintenance and other hassles? No thanks.

[sorcerer-mar]

EVs are virtually maintenance free. Versus the chances of getting into a car that was mistreated by some other POS?

Yes please.

[lupusreal]

> I'm not sure why anyone thinks it will compete with car ownership

As you can see in your replies, there are a lot of techies who think it will. And furthermore, Tesla's valuation can only be made sense of if Tesla investors believe Tesla robotaxis will eat whole car industry, not just the whole taxi industry.

[ben_w]

Kinda, but do also consider that most people can only afford (and have space for) one car, perhaps two if they're upper-middle class or have really old second hand ones, which means what they do buy has to cover most or all needs over the year.

On the other hand, if there were a way to rent any vehicle for about the same price as ownership (not that I think Musk will deliver this, but in principle someone else might), you can rent the one with the big boot once a week for shopping, the truck once every two months for a trip to the hardware store, and the tiny cheap city car for your commute.

[floxy]

>also consider that most people can only afford (and have space for) one car, perhaps two if they're upper-middle class or have really old second hand ones

In the U.S., something like 59% of households own two or more cars. 22% have three or more.

https://shunauto.com/article/how-many-people-have-a-car-in-a...

[ben_w]

Ok, but (1) worldwide (see e.g. my own profile); (2) I said people, not households.

[lupusreal]

Working class American households have one car per adult and often a third beater for their teenager. In America, factory workers drive pickup trucks instead of more affordable cars, not because they need to haul things, but simply because they prefer the aesthetic.

This notion of Americans not being able to into car ownership is divorced from reality.

[olyjohn]

Not sure why this is downvoted. The whole premise of this robotaxi shit was started on the fact that your own, personal car, could be used as a taxi when you're not using it.

And also, the same reason people don't use taxis exclusively today is because you have to plan ahead or sit around and wait for a vehicle to come get you. Who is going to want to do that, when your empty driveway could house a car that pays for itself, makes you money, and is available whenever you need it?

I also don't think that taxis will be cheaper just because there is no driver. The savings is never passed down to the customer, never has been, and never will.

People who don't have cars today already manage to get around just fine, mostly due to where they live. This won't really change anything for them.